Bishop of Manchester: Britain has a moral duty to accept refugees from its wars

[Leonhard]

Good function Len? Yes, they are giving Jews a safe place to live, a defensible nation.

A State of Palestine would be good for the same reasons for the Palestinians.

And what actions are you speaking of?

Do you agree that something can be classified as a war crime? This is just a test question. I assume the answer is yes.

First, there was never a Palestinian state - never in history.

You can talk about the Britains have taken the territory down there, but I don't see how you can deny the fact that Palestinians lived there.

Second, there was a Jewish state that went back 3,000 years.

The State of Israel did not exist until 1948, and had no prior existence. The Israel you read about in the Bible is not The State of Israel, and never was a state to begin with.

Third, when Jordan had the West Bank (Trans Jordan) and when Egypt had Gaza they never even considered giving the Palestinians a state. And the Jews are the bad guys?

The Jews refers collectively to all jews. I'm not an anti-semite. The State of Israel, has at times been open to a two state solution, but recently and following some of their recent war crimes against the Palestinians, they've dropped any discussion of it.

And today Abbas won't even agree that the Jewish state has a right to exist - how do you deal with someone who doesn't think you have the right to exist?

I don't blame the Palestinians considering how The State of Israel is hammering them, targeting purposefully civilians in shock and awe attacks. But there's still a widespread support for a two state solution in Palestine. The majority wants it. The State of Israel just doesn't want to concede them the territories they claimed in 1967. But as its The State of Israel that has the power, those are the only ones worth targeting my criticism at.

Can you give me a good reason when the US should send 3 billion dollars worth of military aid to The State of Israel every single year?

[Leonhard]

Anyway its getting late here so I'm going to bed.

[Paprika]

But it doesn't matter. Israel, not you will decide what actions they will take. They take the threats seriously. Whether you do or not.

Yes, you lost that argument.

OK, so it is lawless if we don't follow unjust laws? Like Martin Luther King did - yes he was a lawless man!

Indeed, he broke laws, by definition lawless and a criminal. But he still had great respect for the legal system:

In no sense do I advocate evading or defying the law, as would the rabid segregationist. That would lead to anarchy. One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty.

[seer]

You can talk about the Britains have taken the territory down there, but I don't see how you can deny the fact that Palestinians lived there.

Yes Palestinians lived there as did Jews. But there never was a Palestinian state.

The State of Israel did not exist until 1948, and had no prior existence.

What state was David King of?

The Jews refers collectively to all jews. I'm not anti-semite. The State of Israel, has at times been open to a two state solution, but recently and following some of their recent war crimes against the Palestinians, they've dropped any discussion of it.

Sheesh, ya think a lot of this may have to do with thousands of rockets being fired into southern Israel?

I don't blame the Palestinians considering how The State of Israel is hammering them, targeting purposefully civilians in shock and awe attacks.

Are you kidding? The Jews would have never gone into Gaza if not for the rocket attacks. I mean really, they gave all of Gaza back and look what they got in return - attack after attack.

But there's still a widespread support for a two state solution in Palestine. The majority wants it.

There is no support in the leadership - and they are the ones that Israel has to deal with

The State of Israel just doesn't want to concede them the territories they claimed in 1967. But as its The State of Israel that has the power, those are the only ones worth targeting my criticism at.

The Jews gave up a lot in the Camp David Summit, there was give and take on both sides. But it was Arafat that ruined the process.

Can you give me a good reason when the US should send 3 billion dollars worth of military aid to The State of Israel every single year?

To help the nation of Israel to survive.

[seer]

Yes, you lost that argument.

I didn't lose anything, there was nothing to lose. Israel will defend itself - and hopefully we will join in.

Indeed, he broke laws, by definition lawless and a criminal. But he still had great respect for the legal system:

In no sense do I advocate evading or defying the law, as would the rabid segregationist. That would lead to anarchy. One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty.

OK, so Martian Luther King was a lawless criminal.

[Paprika]

I didn't lose anything, there was nothing to lose.

You could not demonstrate that Iran would nuke Israel if it developed the weapons.

OK, so Martian Luther King was a lawless criminal.

Indeed. But he retained great respect for the law.

In no sense do I advocate evading or defying the law, as would the rabid segregationist. That would lead to anarchy. One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty.

[seer]

You could not demonstrate that Iran would nuke Israel if it developed the weapons.

Of course I can not prove it, we can only go by what they say. And they say they want the destruction of the Jewish state.

Indeed. But he retained great respect for the law.

Well obviously he did not have respect for all laws or he would not have broken them.

[Paprika]

Of course I can not prove it, we can only go by what they say. And they say they want the destruction of the Jewish state.

One can also use what they do, since many people don't do precisely what they say.

Well obviously he did not have respect for all laws or he would not have broken them.

Indeed. He did, however, respect the system: one could not just break any law in any fashion for any reason, and that breaking the law must be followed by submitting to punishment for it.

Contrast this to the US' history of blatantly disregarding international law to invade many countries for little (if any) good reason, and the lack of any assumption of legal responsibility.

[Leonhard]

One last post.

This is turning into a fragment discussion with zero depths, so I might not continue it.

Yes Palestinians lived there as did Jews. But there never was a Palestinian state.

What do you call the entire Ottoman empire?

What state was David King of?

This is getting a bit old, The State of Israel is not Biblical Israel. Secondly, if you mean sovereign nation state, this wasn't really a well defined thing until after the Reformation (the rise of nation-states is just one of many things that went wrong with the world). If you mean a kingdom, yes, there was a Jewish kingdom once, founded by God for a special people, with ways for other tribes and people to join if they so wished. This eventually became the Christian Church, which is the true Israel.

Conservative Christians keep insisting that they don't support The State of Israel for Biblical reasons, but always they seem to imply that The State of Israel... basically is Israel.

Many, if not all, Orthodox Jews do not consider The State of Israel as the true Israel, but merely as a political secular state.

Sheesh, ya think a lot of this may have to do with thousands of rockets being fired into southern Israel?

I agree that Palestinian groups retaliate in many different ways. There's no doubt about that. Its also true that what Israel is doing is two orders of magnitude higher in terms of deaths. For every Israeli dead, 50-100 Palestinians got to die in retaliation.

This was done in bombing runs, targeting civilian districts. Not merely because terrorists were hiding in between civilians, but there's no doubt now that the attacks were targeting Palestinians with the object of inducing fear and horror into the Palestinian people about the consequences of attacking The State of Israel.

In Christian thought which seeks to base just laws on the Bible, there's been a long standing theory of Just War. That is those circumstances in which one army is justified in attacking some other country, and there's no way to justify what The State of Israel is doing here.

There is no support in the leadership - and they are the ones that Israel has to deal with

So far Paprika hasn't been able to get a solid statement out of you about this. You cited holy books, but not their leaders. I can cite you Israeli officials talking about enacting the genocide of the Palestine people (irony of tragic ironies if that were ever to happen).

The Jews gave up a lot in the Camp David Summit, there was give and take on both sides. But it was Arafat that ruined the process.

I'm not going to glorify Palestine's actions. I'm simple saying that there's little to no reason for the west to support Israel anymore.

[seer]

So far Paprika hasn't been able to get a solid statement out of you about this. You cited holy books, but not their leaders. I can cite you Israeli officials talking about enacting the genocide of the Palestine people (irony of tragic ironies if that were ever to happen).

I'm not going to glorify Palestine's actions. I'm simple saying that there's little to no reason for the west to support Israel anymore.

Let's look at the facts Len. Israel gave all of Gaza back to the Palestinians. Every single Jew and Jewish settlement was removed by force by the Israeli army. And what did Israel get? A hostile entity that almost immediately began importing mid range rockets and began firing them into southern Israel. So the Jews set up blockades and eventually invaded. They destroyed most of the rockets and tunnels used to infiltrate. And you wonder why Israel is leery about giving back the West Bank. Like they need this on two fronts. You may not glorify Palestine's actions, but until the Jewish people feel safe there will be no peace and that is fully laid at the feet of the Palestinians.

[Darth Executor]

I agree that Palestinian groups retaliate in many different ways. There's no doubt about that. Its also true that what Israel is doing is two orders of magnitude higher in terms of deaths. For every Israeli dead, 50-100 Palestinians got to die in retaliation.

This was done in bombing runs, targeting civilian districts. Not merely because terrorists were hiding in between civilians, but there's no doubt now that the attacks were targeting Palestinians with the object of inducing fear and horror into the Palestinian people about the consequences of attacking The State of Israel.

In Christian thought which seeks to base just laws on the Bible, there's been a long standing theory of Just War. That is those circumstances in which one army is justified in attacking some other country, and there's no way to justify what The State of Israel is doing here.

Maybe you should read up on OT laws, the Palestinians would have been obliterated in war. By biblical standards modern Israel is quite tame. I don't dispute that they are now intentionally turning Palestinian territories into unlivable ghettos with the intent of ethnically cleansing them and taking all their land. No people is gonna put up with aggression on their border forever and ever if they can help it. I warned this would eventually happen but people like you continued to support Palestinians in their delusion that they were ever going to win their immoral war. You reap what you sow.

[seer]

One can also use what they do, since many people don't do precisely what they say.

Is Iran being aggressive in the area now? Yes. So why on earth would Israel not take them at their word?

Contrast this to the US' history of blatantly disregarding international law to invade many countries for little (if any) good reason, and the lack of any assumption of legal responsibility.

Well you would have to tell me why international law has authority over my sovereign state. And what countries are you speaking of?

[Paprika]

Is Iran being aggressive in the area now? Yes. So why on earth would Israel not take them at their word?

I've already pointed out that regional powers being aggressive towards their neighbours is commonplace; indeed Israel itself has been rather aggressive too. That Iran is aggressive in this manner doesn't imply that it intends to suicidally obliterate Israel.

Well you would have to tell me why international law has authority over my sovereign state.

It agrees to be bound by it by membership in the UN.

And what countries are you speaking of?

Iraq and Afghanistan are the recent ones, but there was also the invasion of Panama. Bombing Serbia was also illegal, while intervening in Libya under the excuse of 'enforcing a ceasefire' was only one-sided, targeted at Gaddafi.

And before international law became established, there were also numerous offensives against smaller and weaker nations to annex or gain control of the land.

[seer]

I've already pointed out that regional powers being aggressive towards their neighbours is commonplace; indeed Israel itself has been rather aggressive too. That Iran is aggressive in this manner doesn't imply that it intends to suicidally obliterate Israel.

Well like I said it is not our decision. I really doubt that the Israelis will allow Iran get the bomb.

It agrees to be bound by it by membership in the UN.

I'm not sure that membership in the UN requires that we are bound to international law.

Iraq and Afghanistan are the recent ones, but there was also the invasion of Panama. Bombing Serbia was also illegal, while intervening in Libya under the excuse of 'enforcing a ceasefire' was only one-sided, targeted at Gaddafi.

Well see, that is why international law is foolish. We had justification for invading Afghanistan. The other ones not so much.

[Paprika]

Well like I said it is not our decision. I really doubt that the Israelis will allow Iran get the bomb.

Quite. More illegal interventions to come.

I'm not sure that membership in the UN requires that we are bound to international law.[/box]
From the Charter,

[box]1.2.2 All Members, in order to ensure to all of them the rights and benefits resulting from membership, shall fulfill in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the present Charter.

1.2.4 All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

Well see, that is why international law is foolish.

I tire of this discussion so I'm not going to press on this point.