Israel's New Best Friend?

[Bonam]

Good points.

Still I think I think its problematic. The US is 80% Christian, yet if the world gets pissed off over something the US does, the world Christian community at large doesnt get automatically associated with it. Jews around the world are unfairly tied to Israel and defacto associated with all the stuff Israel does.

The world's Jewry being unfairly targetted by people whose issues should be confined to specifically Israel is indeed unfortunate.

However, it is also, unfortunately, not without analogy to other forms of discrimination (see blaming of Christians for crusades, blaming of white people for imperialism/slavery, affirmative action, etc).

My opinion is that people around the world should not be judged by the actions of their ancestors, coreligionists, or members of their race. This should be true whether or not there exists a nation associated with their race, ethnicity, or religion. Do you agree?

To propose that Israel should not exist as a Jewish state because it makes anti-Semites around the world blame all Jews for the actions of Israel is very twisted logic.

I dont like the idea of associating a nation state with any ethnic or cultural trait or any religion.

I on the other hand see no problem with it. Does China bother you because it is ethnically, predominately Chinese and isn't likely to become otherwise? Should the Arab states be forcefully swamped in immigrants in order to destroy their identity as Arab and Muslim? Should the Vatican cease to exist? Must Africa be colonized so that vast stretches of it are no longer "associated with the ethnic trait" of being black?

Nations do not have to adopt the mantra of multiculturalism. They can if they like, as most of the West has, but they do not have to.

Edited June 15, 2010 by Bonam

[dre]

The world's Jewry being unfairly targetted by people whose issues should be confined to specifically Israel is indeed unfortunate.

However, it is also, unfortunately, not without analogy to other forms of discrimination (see blaming of Christians for crusades, blaming of white people for imperialism/slavery, affirmative action, etc).

My opinion is that people around the world should not be judged by the actions of their ancestors, coreligionists, or members of their race. This should be true whether or not there exists a nation associated with their race, ethnicity, or religion. Do you agree?

To propose that Israel should not exist as a Jewish state because it makes anti-Semites around the world blame all Jews for the actions of Israel is very twisted logic.

I on the other hand see no problem with it. Does China bother you because it is ethnically, predominately Chinese and isn't likely to become otherwise? Should the Arab states be forcefully swamped in immigrants in order to destroy their identity as Arab and Muslim? Should the Vatican cease to exist? Must Africa be colonized so that vast stretches of it are no longer "associated with the ethnic trait" of being black?

Nations do not have to adopt the mantra of multiculturalism. They can if they like, as most of the West has, but they do not have to.

My opinion is that people around the world should not be judged by the actions of their ancestors, coreligionists, or members of their race. This should be true whether or not there exists a nation associated with their race, ethnicity, or religion. Do you agree?

Should the Vatican cease to exist? Must Africa be colonized so that vast stretches of it are no longer "associated with the ethnic trait" of being black?

No not at all. And I have no problem with the ethnic or religious demographic of any country. Its fine that most Israelis are jews, most Canadians are white, and most Africans are black. What I dont like is for the government of a country to officially endorse a race or religion. after a while too.

To propose that Israel should not exist as a Jewish state because it makes anti-Semites around the world blame all Jews for the actions of Israel is very twisted logic.

I didnt propose they not exist. I said I think its a mistake for them to mix the state (which is a political construct) with religion which is a supernatural set of beliefs.

[Bonam]

No not at all. And I have no problem with the ethnic or religious demographic of any country. Its fine that most Israelis are jews, most Canadians are white, and most Africans are black. What I dont like is for the government of a country to officially endorse a race or religion.

There are a great many countriest around the world who endorse a certain race and/or religion. Personally, I find nothing wrong with it. The Arab states can keep Islam as their official religion, heavily endorsed by the state, and I'm not gonna complain. It is their right.

Israel has more reason for such an "endorsement" than most, as history has proven that the existence of Jewish state is critical for the safety of Jews. Thousands of years of living in other nations, with mass waves of anti-Semitism almost every generation, has been the Jewish experience without their own state. Since the creatison of Israel, Jews are no longer seen as weaklings who can be pushed around and slaughtered on a whim. If Israel is diluted to the point where Jews comprise only a minority of it, it will have utterly lost the whole point of its existence.

I didnt propose they not exist. I said I think its a mistake for them to mix the state (which is a political construct) with religion which is a supernatural set of beliefs.

Separation of church and state is a western ideal. It is not necessarily applicable in the same way to other cultures, though in Israel there has been and remains a reasonable degree of separation. Moreover as I've explained several times now, in the case of Israel, it is more an ethnic consideration rather a religious one. The rabbinate of course pushes for the criteria for "who is a Jew" to be defined more along religious grounds, but Israel is still a secular state and defines it in terms of one's ancestry.

[Bob]

We're talking about current state of affairs, when Soviet Union is long gone (about two decades) and Israel continues to receive massive grants including those for military assistence and massive buildup of illegal settlements.

According to a video I just watched which Caroline Glick, Palestinians receive more aid than any other group in the world on a per capita basis. Is that an important fact in your warped perspective that foreign aid favours Israel? Did you ever consider the massive costs (material as well as social) Israel bears as a result of its hostile neighbours? What about the massive humanitarian work Israel has done for diaspora Jews (Israel has more immigrants as a portion of its population than any other country)? What about the massive destruction wrought on worldwide Jewry from the Holocaust, wiping out half of us and destroying/confiscating our assets and property? There's a lot of context you're avoiding here.

With respect to keeping the discussion contemporary, we need to examine relevant aspects of history where appropriate, even if we do need to go ALL THE WAY back to the days of the Soviet Union sponsoring Israel's enemies.

Nobody suggested that "only". The connection is being made between the assistance Israel receives from the US and it's persistence with building illegal settlments. Continuing it (assistence) after all these decades when it became clear that settlements program is a long term deliberate plan that is not influenced by the developments in the conflict, would be nothing short of encouragement and sponsoring of that program. And that, of course (encouragement and practical sponsoring of aggressive activites) has nothing to do with promotion of peace.

I reject this argument. Certainly America has been opposed to settlement construction for decades to varying degrees, and didn't want the perception to be that its grants to Israel were subsidizing Israeli expansionism. Let's not pretend, however, that settlement development is primary driver of this conflict. Arab hostility (i.e. murdering Jews) towards Jews has been going on long before 1967, indeed, long before 1948. Your statement above seems to suggest that Israeli expansion is a root cause of hostilities between Arabs and Israel. We know that that's simply not true. The primary driver of the conflict is Arab rejection of a Jewish presence and a Jewish state. Abu Mazen, an apparent "moderate", cannot bring himself to identify Israel as a Jewish state. When Israel's Jewish character is a fundamental component of its social fabric (not up for debate), and this reality isn't even acknowledged by an apparent "moderate" Arab leader, how is Israel to feel about its prospects for reconciliation with its enemies? Do we even need to go into Hamas' statements and actions?

Lastly, it's a falsehood to suggest that Israel has had deliberate plans to expand itself in order to sabotage the peace process. Israeli expansionism has gone on for decades through many different administrations. According to what I've read from Benny Morris and Avi Shlaim, Jewish settlement in the West Bank and other territories seized after the Six-Day War began taking place within weeks of the cease of hostilities, if not days. If you read the memoirs of people like Golda Meir or Moshe Dayan (and countless other high-level officials involved in the settlement enterprise), it's never been a cohesive plan. It is largely ideological/political/religious, sometimes based on legitimate security issues, and sometimes based on necessary expansion to accommodate population growth (I'm sure there are other reasons). It's been a very impromptu process.

Edited June 15, 2010 by Bob

[bloodyminded]

Yeah the Arab side never starts anything.

I have not only never made this claim...i have never faintly suggested or implied it in any way.

[bloodyminded]

Oh I get it. We're going to play grade 4 now. I'll argue with Myata. At least he'll try and make a point. With you it's a waste of time.

Sweet Godzilla on His throne, Moonbox. THIS is my quote to which you are responding here:

Or have you been "focused purely and exclusively on the Palestinian side of the conflict and ignored and discounted everything the other side has done to escalate and perpetuate the conflict?

Now, perhaps you missed it...but here I was directly quoting you.

In other words, you can ask this question of another poster; but if the exact same question is directed back at you....well, heavens, that's so unfair.

The same standards must not be applied to you as you apply to your opponents. That's "play[ing] grade 4."

Edited June 15, 2010 by bloodyminded

[myata]

According to a video I just watched which Caroline Glick, Palestinians receive more aid than any other group in the world on a per capita basis.

I can't comment on something that you saw.

Is that an important fact in your warped perspective that foreign aid favours Israel? Did you ever consider the massive costs (material as well as social) Israel bears as a result of its hostile neighbours?

I already commented in response to another poster that at this stage in the conflict no automatic, default excuses can be taken for granted anymore from either side. Any and all acts of hostility, by whatever side must be considered on their own merit. Including, obviously the program of illegal settlement building that is nothing short of an obviously hostile and aggressive acts. If Israel itself maintains this aggressive policy for decades and regardless of changes in the attitude of its neighbours, it can no longer claim

"hostility" as automatic excuse for its every act.

What about the massive humanitarian work Israel has done for diaspora Jews (Israel has more immigrants as a portion of its population than any other country)?

A very commendable effort that Israel as well communities around the world can be proud of but I see no reason for it do be sponsored by superpower at the time when the government of the country is involved in persistent aggressive policies.

What about the massive destruction wrought on worldwide Jewry from the Holocaust, wiping out half of us and destroying/confiscating our assets and property? There's a lot of context you're avoiding here.

A very sad event indeed.

With respect to keeping the discussion contemporary, we need to examine relevant aspects of history where appropriate, even if we do need to go ALL THE WAY back to the days of the Soviet Union sponsoring Israel's enemies.

Yes there're many relevant aspects of which current and ongoing policy of illegal land appropriation (as opposed to Soviet Union or Holocaust of long ago) plays a key role, just as any act of hostility against Israel so I'm at a loss explaining your persistent failure to notice or discuss it.

I reject this argument. Certainly America has been opposed to settlement construction for decades to varying degrees, and didn't want the perception to be that its grants to Israel were subsidizing Israeli expansionism.

For it to be a genuine "rejection" it has to show in some practical act though. Otherwise it really does not mean much as money continue to flow regardless of how many illegal settlements Israels builds up. That gives Israel a mixed message (or maybe quite clear one) that is counter productive to any serious progress toward peace because it encourages clearly hostile and aggressive behaviour that can result in nothing else but continuing cycle of hostility.

Without clear act indeed this will be the logical perception of the outside world. Words without act to match them have lost all meaning in this affair.

Let's not pretend, however, that settlement development is primary driver of this conflict. Arab hostility (i.e. murdering Jews) towards Jews has been going on long before 1967, indeed, long before 1948.

And Jews murdering Arabs, as well or in return? Anyways can we attempt to keep our focus on the current events?

Your statement above seems to suggest that Israeli expansion is a root cause of hostilities between Arabs and Israel. We know that that's simply not true.

I said nothing about "root cause" please don't misrepresent me. But Israeli settlements policy is a clearly hostile and aggressive act that plays important role in the current state of the conflict.

The primary driver of the conflict is Arab rejection of a Jewish presence and a Jewish state. Abu Mazen, an apparent "moderate", cannot bring himself to identify Israel as a Jewish state. When Israel's Jewish character is a fundamental component of its social fabric (not up for debate), and this reality isn't even acknowledged by an apparent "moderate" Arab leader, how is Israel to feel about its prospects for reconciliation with its enemies? Do we even need to go into Hamas' statements and actions?

Israel can call itself whatever it likes but there's no obligation on anybody else to "identify" it. Just as for any other country in the world, btw. Canada could call itself a secular democracy or e.g. heavenly kingdom of the leaf, but it would be ridiculous to require everybody else in the world to formally recognise it as such. Even more incredible would be to use it as a justification of a clearly hostile and aggressive act.

Indeed we need to go into any relevant statemements and acts, on either side of the conflict, to judge them objectively and for their own worth, without default excuses or justifications. That is the only way to encourage parties to move away from hostilities toward (some form of) trust and mutual respect without which no resolution is possible.

Lastly, it's a falsehood to suggest that Israel has had deliberate plans to expand itself in order to sabotage the peace process. Israeli expansionism has gone on for decades through many different administrations. According to what I've read from Benny Morris and Avi Shlaim, Jewish settlement in the West Bank and other territories seized after the Six-Day War began taking place within weeks of the cease of hostilities, if not days. If you read the memoirs of people like Golda Meir or Moshe Dayan (and countless other high-level officials involved in the settlement enterprise), it's never been a cohesive plan. It is largely ideological/political/religious, sometimes based on legitimate security issues, and sometimes based on necessary expansion to accommodate population growth (I'm sure there are other reasons).

There are no legal reasons for taking something that does not belong to you, "memoirs" or explanations aside. This conflict has a long and painful history for both side and the first step one makes toward its continuation further and further into the future is by ignoring reality that does not match one's views and finding excuses and justifications for unexcusable and unjustifiable acts of one's own. It is a spiral of hostility and aggression and each hostile and aggressive act contributes to it, and nothing changes if one calls it "expansion" instead of "landgrab" or spin heroic legends around it.

It's been a very impromptu process.

By intent maybe, but not the result. And it's the result that counts, i.e that shows to the outside world and the offended party that is supposed to become their partner in peace. Which is of course a total and utmost impossibility, nonsense. How could one negotiate peace while never stopping, not even for a moment robbing the partner of their possessions? Any notion of that is nothing short of being ridiculous not to mention the offence to the other side.

Edited June 15, 2010 by myata

[bush_cheney2004]

..... How could one negotiate peace while never stopping, not even for a moment robbing the partner of their possessions? Any notion of that is nothing short of being ridiculous not to mention the offence to the other side.

Really? Happens every day in Canada....yet how is this possible? How can unsettled land claims go on for so long while preaching restraint to Israel? Enquiring minds want to know.

[myata]

Really? Happens every day in Canada....yet how is this possible? How can unsettled land claims go on for so long while preaching restraint to Israel? Enquiring minds want to know.

Obviously, Israel has no legitimate claim to these lands, so it's got nothing to do with what happens in Canada. Curiousity is a good thing, but enquiring minds better start educating themselves too.

Edited June 15, 2010 by myata

[bush_cheney2004]

Obviously, Israel has no legitimate claim to these lands, so it's got nothing to do with what happens in Canada. Curiousity is a good thing, but enquiring minds better start educating themselves.

Nice dodge....thank you for proving that power and "landgrabs" in Canada are exactly the same as in Israel. Carry on....

[myata]

Nice dodge....thank you for proving that power and "landgrabs" in Canada are exactly the same as in Israel. Carry on....

You can say that (just as you can say anything else), no proof necessary. But of course you realise that by stating it you compare Isreal to an imperial colonial power of some 300 years ago? Rather than shining torch of democracy and freedom it appears in other arguments here?

So that being your point of view, what would the reason for our leading democracy to support expansionist and aggressive imperial state involved in illegal expropriation of land and bitter conflict with its neignbours?

[bush_cheney2004]

You can say that (just as you can say anything else), no proof necessary. But of course you realise that by stating it you compare Isreal to an imperial colonial power of some 300 years ago? Rather than shining torch of democracy and freedom it appears in other arguments here?

Bullpuckey....the unsettled land claims continue and accelerate with development in several provinces. It is not 300 years ago.

So that being your point of view, what would the reason for our leading democracy to support expansionist and aggressive imperial state involved in illegal expropriation of land and bitter conflict with its neignbours?

Because that's how you get to be the leading democracy and baddest son-of-a-bitch in the valley. My perceptions and pronouncements are congruent...yours are not.

[myata]

Bullpuckey....the unsettled land claims continue and accelerate with development in several provinces. It is not 300 years ago.

The events happened 300 years back though (give or take). While Israel's landgrab is going on even as we speak. Easy to overlook, I understand.

Because that's how you get to be the leading democracy and baddest son-of-a-bitch in the valley. My perceptions and pronouncements are congruent...yours are not.

"Congruate" only as long as you make them to. One is the reality, the other - worthless empty epithet. Pick which.

[bush_cheney2004]

The events happened 300 years back though (give or take). While Israel's landgrab is going on even as we speak. Easy to overlook, I understand.

You are the expert on overlooking the obvious parallels.

"Congruate" only as long as you make them to. One is the reality, the other - worthless empty epithet. Pick which.

Amazing...cognitive dissonance in action before our eyes.

[Oleg Bach]

The original reason for the protection of the Jews was because of the sacred covenant or contract with God - that is why early Christian society attempted to save them repeatedly - that they are the ancient "choosen" - now with the secularization of Israel - there is no longer a contract - it might just as well be void..So it is now a case as you say of ethnic issues - or in other words it is a political issue bathed in political correctness - and if the "race" of Jews are no longer correct in their policy regarding their neighbors - then this matter is one that should be settled politically and all the rants about religion must cease seeing that Jews don't even like religious Jews who refuse to submit to the state.

[JB Globe]

I don't see a problem with Canada having very close ties with Israel...rather I see it as a good thing. That doesn't mean to say that Israel is never wrong, and never deserves criticism, but in my view, they're on the 'right' side of things overall.

I think it sends Israel the wrong message that as it continues to flout international law and opinion to a greater and greater extent, we respond by becoming friendlier and friendlier.

I often make the argument that these Israeli policies (Gaza blockade, West Bank Settlements) are self-destructive by nature, so by condoning them or at least, ignoring them (which is the message we're sending by buddying-up) we're kind of enabling Israel to harm it's own long-term stability and security.

And even if you're of the mind that Israel is a good, close friend of Canada's - Sometimes a good friend will get into a fight with a friend who's hurting themselves because it's the right thing to do.

[myata]

I often make the argument that these Israeli policies (Gaza blockade, West Bank Settlements) are self-destructive by nature, so by condoning them or at least, ignoring them (which is the message we're sending by buddying-up) we're kind of enabling Israel to harm it's own long-term stability and security.

Yes I'm of that opinion as well. There's no stable and secure long term future for Israel in the atmosphere of hostility and war. Demographics are stacked against it and it's only so long one could hold the tide, even with massive military support from the US. Clearly hostile and aggressive policies like mentioned above are preventing any notion of possibility of trust and peaceful settlement and in the long term are self destructive like pouring gas in the fire next to one's own house.

I'm somewhat hopefull though is that once the current generation of Israeli and Palestinian politians will prove without any further doubt the utter hopelessness of the path of hostility, the ones following them may be more receptive to the ideas of sensible compromise. Something like that happened in South Africa, and Russia before perestrojka, so it's not an uncommon scenario.

[Moonbox]

If they want to maintain at least the appearance of being interested in a peaceful resolution, they should.

Same goes for both sides. You can't promise and proclaim death and destruction against the other side for 50 years without letting up and appear interested in peace.

But wait, you still haven't posted any evidence of them "not holding back".

Please stop dodging and hiding behind childish and irrelevant technicalities. What evidence do I need to provide of Israel's restraint other than the fact that Israel (being the overwhelmingly superior military power in the region) has not left Palestine, Syria, Jordan etc in a smoking ruin or annexed those regions into its territory and imposed Jewish (rather than Islamic) law on the whole region? That's what Israel's enemies have indicated they're going to eventually do to it. They've already tried several times in fact.

I can't claim 100% accuracy but I read international media daily and in several sources, and according to my view of the situation - and I'll be certainly grateful for any factual updates on that, there haven't been any serious attacks on Israel proper for a while now

You seem to really be having problems with this concept...so I'll explain it again for the 12th time. Arab attacks against Israel are responded to harshly. It's a 'fact' that every Arab attack against Israel results in the Arab side getting its ass handed back to it. The lack of violence by Arab militants is more due to an inability to effectively commit it, combined with a strong sense of fear, rather than any restraint on their part. Both Arab intentions made clear by they themselves, and about 50 years of factual history, support this assertion.

bottom line is, you can't any longer claim this "defence" or "retaliation" excuse for granted, without factual evidence that attacks on Israel proper, in the scale anywhere near Israel's actions in the occupied territories are still taking place. And that's what our convention shall be: analysis of situation based on objective, factual reports.

I'm not claiming to defend the Israeli settlement expansion. Again, for the 12th time, I'll make it clear. The settlement expansion is not promoting peace. It's clearly doing the opposite. What I'm merely saying is that Israel probably sees little reason to stop it or make concessions to people who've over the last 50 years invaded their country, as well as promised and delivered violence against them.

"Ignore" and "commit gross violations" itself are soooooooo diffrent things. You know it for sure, so why waste my time explaining it to you?

We're talking about two different things here. You poo-pooed the fact that Israelis live in fear and I asked if they should ignore threats made against them? Should they not take those threats seriously given that history supports the likelihood of their Arab neighbours to ACT on those threats? Should not the international community ALSO take those threats seriously?

Stop bringing up the settlement expansion for god's sake. I've acknowledged it. I don't think it's right either. I simply can't think of a compelling reason for them to stop aside from it being the 'right' thing to do. If that's going to be the basis of our argument, however, and we're going to get into morality and the west taking meaningful action to uphold human rights etc, you'd also have to consider the fact that the majority of the Middle East is a cesspool of violations and taking action against Israel alone would be pretty blazen hypocrisy.

"The Arab world" has also come up with a comprehensive peace proposal. It what you want to see (and feel), and claim as justification for absolutely unjustifiable by a civilized nation behaviour.

The Arab peace proposal was poison-pilled from the beginning. As already mentioned, the unilateral demands from the Arab League in regards to refugee settlements dating back to 1949 were a joke. Read the entire proposal, and if you still think it was a proposal made in good faith I'd be happy to go over it with you point for point and shed some light on it. They knew from the beginning that it wouldn't be accepted and they offered it anyways for publicity's sake.

Oh we do remember the existence of "law" after all? So does it address threats in the same way as actual violence? Or maybe justifies real deadly violence as response to verbal threats? Or maybe, allows to take somebody's possession and claim it for own?

Actually, no, I don't acknowledge the relevance of international law. Since it's enforced selectively and only when convenient, it's morally bankrupt. If, however, you insist on using it as a crutch for your argument, I'll happily show you how even legally you're arguing on pretty wobbly ground.

To answer your question, however, uttering threats is a punishable offence with a sentence of up to 5 years in jail. So yes, the Law does address threats, and fairly harshly at that. Even more interesting, however, is the fact that the Law doesn't even care if the party uttering the threats is capable of acting on them. If, for example, a 90 pound girl was threatening to beat the crap out of a 250 pound man, she'd go to jail if she was prosecuted. God forbid she actually TRY to hurt (or kill) the man, howevever, and she ends up on the losing side. In this case the man would have to prove self defense to get off clean and the woman, providing she survives, would still go to jail.

Now all of this legal balogna is pretty irrelevant because we've already established the impotence of international law. The principles the legal issues are similar, however. The implications of being surrounded by hostile neighbours calling for your death are real. They cause undo fear, stress, financial burdens and countless other problems, particularly when the threats are being uttered by people prone to act on them.

I'm certainly not saying this 'justifies' settlement expansion on the Israeli side, but it clearly does constitute ongoing hostilities from the other side. There's decades of enmity between them and you're never ever going to resolve the conflict by playing the blame game.

No a little more specifically, please, you think that because they occupy these lands they somehow have rightful possession of them? Because you can't "trade" something that doesn't belong to you, in an honest deal can you?

Nobody said anything about 'rightful' possession.

It did though, not in the least through numerous UN and UNSC resolutions(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_Nations_resolutions_concerning_Israel). And now you have to prove that it's false, i.e there's a country in the world that recognises Israel's claim to the occupied terrtories.

You've just quoted a wikipedia page that lists 100+ UN resolutions and doesn't summarize the majority of them. The burden of proof is on you. Show me where, as you claim, the international community at large has proclaimed that Israel has to withdraw from occupied territories before peace talks can even BEGIN. That was your claim, so back it up.

Edited June 15, 2010 by Moonbox

[dre]

Actually, no, I don't acknowledge the relevance of international law. Since it's enforced selectively and only when convenient, it's morally bankrupt. If, however, you insist on using it as a crutch for your argument, I'll happily show you how even legally you're arguing on pretty wobbly ground.

The problem isnt that its been enforced selectively. Most of the Security Council resolutions against Israel resulted in votes of 14-1 or there abouts. The UNSC wanted to act and voted to act, but Israel has a lackey on the council with a veto.

Its not a matter of IL being "morally bankrupt" either.

The problem with the enforcement regime is that there never should have been vetos.

[bush_cheney2004]

....Its not a matter of IL being "morally bankrupt" either.

The problem with the enforcement regime is that there never should have been vetos.

This just perpetuates a legal myth, as the veto of permanent UNSC members is part of the process. Further, do-gooders with their "moral imperative" would have others do the enforcement, lacking the means and will to do it themselves. Just ask General Dallaire.

[myata]

This just perpetuates a legal myth, as the veto of permanent UNSC members is part of the process. Further, do-gooders with their "moral imperative" would have others do the enforcement, lacking the means and will to do it themselves. Just ask General Dallaire.

Oh I see, US is using its veto (and so consistently, in this specific matter) only to save the other members the embarrasment of not being able to enforce their decision? How thoughtful indeed! Not to mention, how credible

[Moonbox]

Oh I see, US is using its veto (and so consistently, in this specific matter) only to save the other members the embarrasment of not being able to enforce their decision? How thoughtful indeed! Not to mention, how credible

What are you even talking about? Are you proposing that if the US wasn't there the other members of the UN would take action in Sudan? Would they intervene in Congo etc? Would they enforce peace in Sri Lanka and Indonesia?

Simply put, they wouldn't bother/try. The UN is both toothless and spineless and it has proved it time and time again over decades. The same stands for international law. The truth is that Israel and Palestinian violations are small potatoes compared to many other parts of the world.

[Moonbox]

Its not a matter of IL being "morally bankrupt" either.

The problem with the enforcement regime is that there never should have been vetos.

It is morally bankrupt. It picks and chooses which conflicts to pay attention to and generally does nothing even when no veto is used. Fact is the VAST majority of humanitarian crises have seen the UN turn a blind eye with or without a veto.

Edited June 16, 2010 by Moonbox

[myata]

Same goes for both sides. You can't promise and proclaim death and destruction against the other side for 50 years without letting up and appear interested in peace.

If it was so, I would agree with you. But it's not the case, at least not anymore. Palestinian parties are no more unanimous in hostility to Israel, than Israeli parties - to the state of Palestine. Unless, as has been the case, you're all too willing to overlook that last part.

Please stop dodging and hiding behind childish and irrelevant technicalities. What evidence do I need to provide of Israel's restraint other than the fact that Israel (being the overwhelmingly superior military power in the region) has not left Palestine, Syria, Jordan etc in a smoking ruin or annexed those regions into its territory and imposed Jewish (rather than Islamic) law on the whole region? That's what Israel's enemies have indicated they're going to eventually do to it. They've already tried several times in fact.

Indeed there's no bottom that would be low enough if one seeks hard. Not sure it could be used as any sort of moral justification as it could justify anything. Absolutely anything.

You seem to really be having problems with this concept...so I'll explain it again for the 12th time. Arab attacks against Israel are responded to harshly. It's a 'fact' that every Arab attack against Israel results in the Arab side getting its ass handed back to it. The lack of violence by Arab militants is more due to an inability to effectively commit it, combined with a strong sense of fear, rather than any restraint on their part. Both Arab intentions made clear by they themselves, and about 50 years of factual history, support this assertion.

And so, Israel's aggression (landgrab) demonstrates "restraint" while lack thereof from the other side - obviously aggressive intentions? Truth is lie and lie is truth? Congratulation on that belated discovery.

I'm not claiming to defend the Israeli settlement expansion. Again, for the 12th time, I'll make it clear. The settlement expansion is not promoting peace. It's clearly doing the opposite. What I'm merely saying is that Israel probably sees little reason to stop it or make concessions to people who've over the last 50 years invaded their country, as well as promised and delivered violence against them.

Wow, admitting the obvious is a huge step forward here. The next question is, what are we going to do about it. Rationalizing Israeli reasons, are we also going to look at those on the other side? Or come up with policy based on objective view of the situation, encouraging both side to make steps toward peace and censoring them for acts of aggression in any form and regardless of affinities and affiliations?

We're talking about two different things here. You poo-pooed the fact that Israelis live in fear and I asked if they should ignore threats made against them? Should they not take those threats seriously given that history supports the likelihood of their Arab neighbours to ACT on those threats? Should not the international community ALSO take those threats seriously?

I'm getting tired repeating that Israels concerns about security in its propor borders are fully justified and have to be addressed in any lasting settlement. For the umpteenth and last time.

Stop bringing up the settlement expansion for god's sake. I've acknowledged it. I don't think it's right either. I simply can't think of a compelling reason for them to stop aside from it being the 'right' thing to do. If that's going to be the basis of our argument, however, and we're going to get into morality and the west taking meaningful action to uphold human rights etc, you'd also have to consider the fact that the majority of the Middle East is a cesspool of violations and taking action against Israel alone would be pretty blazen hypocrisy.

Again, reasons to continue hostilities can be found on either side, especially when looking hard enough. The question is what we do about it, and we have only free choices: contribute to the cycle of hostility; remain neutral; or encourage both sides to break it.

The Arab peace proposal was poison-pilled from the beginning. As already mentioned, the unilateral demands from the Arab League in regards to refugee settlements dating back to 1949 were a joke. Read the entire proposal, and if you still think it was a proposal made in good faith I'd be happy to go over it with you point for point and shed some light on it. They knew from the beginning that it wouldn't be accepted and they offered it anyways for publicity's sake.

So because it has that contentuous issue it can be dissmissed out of hand without as much as meaningful comment, in ten or so years? Sounds like a truly and creadibly peaceful position, does it?

To answer your question, however, uttering threats is a punishable offence with a sentence of up to 5 years in jail. So yes, the Law does address threats, and fairly harshly at that. Even more interesting, however, is the fact that the Law doesn't even care if the party uttering the threats is capable of acting on them. If, for example, a 90 pound girl was threatening to beat the crap out of a 250 pound man, she'd go to jail if she was prosecuted. God forbid she actually TRY to hurt (or kill) the man, howevever, and she ends up on the losing side. In this case the man would have to prove self defense to get off clean and the woman, providing she survives, would still go to jail.

No, you haven't answered the question so keep trying.

Now all of this legal balogna is pretty irrelevant because we've already established the impotence of international law. The principles the legal issues are similar, however. The implications of being surrounded by hostile neighbours calling for your death are real. They cause undo fear, stress, financial burdens and countless other problems, particularly when the threats are being uttered by people prone to act on them.

Without that "balogna" (i.e clear standard of acceptable relations between countries) we'd be back to square one (right of force, aka cave age). If thats' what you're advocating I already said there's no point in any logical or moral discussions because it's a direct opposite of the notions of logic or morality.

I'm certainly not saying this 'justifies' settlement expansion on the Israeli side, but it clearly does constitute ongoing hostilities from the other side. There's decades of enmity between them and you're never ever going to resolve the conflict by playing the blame game.

Again, and for the umpteenth and last time I'm calling for objective, fact based view on the situation, encouraging parties for each positive development and censoring every hostile act on its own merit.

You've just quoted a wikipedia page that lists 100+ UN resolutions and doesn't summarize the majority of them. The burden of proof is on you. Show me where, as you claim, the international community at large has proclaimed that Israel has to withdraw from occupied territories before peace talks can even BEGIN. That was your claim, so back it up.

But it's been provided in the form of the list of countries that support Israel's right to the occupied lands (none - except Israel itself). It happend here on this board, in a different thread and in discussion with a poster no other than yourself. I'll even go through a painful process of finding and reposting the reference here, but only if you undertake to enroll into intensive therapy to address severe obtusion and/or memory loss for at least as long as the time that has passed since posting that information here (not to worry it shouldn't be more than a few months but even that would be great help).

[bush_cheney2004]

....Again, reasons to continue hostilities can be found on either side, especially when looking hard enough. The question is what we do about it, and we have only free choices: contribute to the cycle of hostility; remain neutral; or encourage both sides to break it.

Correct...the question in this context only concerns Canada, not the belligerents, as Canada has very little direct influence or interest in the region. It simply doesn't matter in the eventual outcome unless Canada ramps up involvement.