Israel's government is turning into a settlement

[Rue]

Bob and Bloody if you don't mind me saying to you both-yer too much in each other's faces. Too personal. You are entitled to distinct opinions. Neither needs to defend their credibility.

Get back to the issues. I may not agree with a thing you say Bloody but I have no right to question you personally about it. I am not sure how Bob felt put on to defend himself but he need not.

Keep in mind though and I say this about ANY Palestinian or Israeli, if they live there, automatically their perspective is different then the one those of us have living in Canada or the US or somewhere physically removed from the actual conflict zone.

I defer to Bob the way I would any Palestinian or Israeli or say a Lebanese person talking about Lebanon or a Syrian talking about Syria, etc.

Phsyical proximity and day to day life does change one's perspective particularly if you live in the Middle East and physical space is so crowded and directly impacts on one's political and psychological perspective and is something we do not understand in a country like Canada where we can go days on end, never each the end of the country and couldn't image a country so small in parts it would be smaller than the City of Montreal or Toronto.

[bloodyminded]

I defer to Bob the way I would any Palestinian or Israeli or say a Lebanese person talking about Lebanon or a Syrian talking about Syria, etc.

Phsyical proximity and day to day life does change one's perspective particularly if you live in the Middle East and physical space is so crowded and directly impacts on one's political and psychological perspective and is something we do not understand in a country like Canada where we can go days on end, never each the end of the country and couldn't image a country so small in parts it would be smaller than the City of Montreal or Toronto.

Oh, I certainly would defer to Bob on any number of topics pertaining to Israel. But being Israeli doesn't mean he has a better grasp of the rightness or wrongness of Israeli military behaviour. Not for a second.

[Rue]

Oh, I certainly would defer to Bob on any number of topics pertaining to Israel. But being Israeli doesn't mean he has a better grasp of the rightness or wrongness of Israeli military behaviour. Not for a second.

Bloody I make no comment on whether you or he are in a better position to render moral comments. I would say his perspective as to being exposed to immediate danger and fear of terrorism would probably be different than yours. That is all.

When it comes to morality I can only comment on my own views and I am the first to admit to you Bloody there are days when I just don't know anymore what is right or wrong morally with many conflicts. It just gets so friggin muddled.

I would like to think whatever coin of the debate we are on though we all agree no one wants either Israelis or Palestinians stuck in a never ending conflict and its "wrong" if I may use that word for any civilian Palestinian or Israeli to be exposed to violence and turmoil and despair, etc. You know what I mean.

[bloodyminded]

Bloody I make no comment on whether you or he are in a better position to render moral comments. I would say his perspective as to being exposed to immediate danger and fear of terrorism would probably be different than yours. That is all.

Of course it would.

That makes it maybe possible to understand his position; it doesn't for one second make it right.

If it did, it would apply unequivocally to the Palestinians as well...which then throws the justifications into immediate confusion.

[Rue]

Of course it would.

That makes it maybe possible to understand his position; it doesn't for one second make it right.

If it did, it would apply unequivocally to the Palestinians as well...which then throws the justifications into immediate confusion.

Your need to continue to point out to me you feel Bob is wrong and you are right is pointless. The fact you feel that way was evident already.

[bloodyminded]

Your need to continue to point out to me you feel Bob is wrong and you are right is pointless. The fact you feel that way was evident already.

Christ, I'm only answering your own assertion, which I find lacks logic. (ie, that you defer to people from the region...meaning, presumably, both Bob and the Palestinians (and some Israelis) who would hold a radically different view.

Why do you keep asking everyone else to be peaceful, and then argue dishonestly immediately after? you think that's conducive to civility?

Edited February 2, 2011 by bloodyminded

[GostHacked]

I guess it does not help the peace process when this kind of thing happens. It also shows the US is not commited to a two state solution either.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/meast/02/18/un.israel.settlements/index.html?hpt=T2

United Nations (CNN) -- The United States vetoed Friday a U.N. Security Council resolution that would have declared Israeli settlements in the West Bank illegal.

U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice said that while the United States agrees about "the folly" of continued Israeli settlement activity, "we think it unwise for this council to attempt to resolve the core issues that divide" Israelis and Palestinians.

Blame shift.

[DogOnPorch]

I guess it does not help the peace process when this kind of thing happens. It also shows the US is not commited to a two state solution either.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/meast/02/18/un.israel.settlements/index.html?hpt=T2

Blame shift.

Further along in the same article...

Since the breakdown of American-brokered talks with Israel in September over the issue of settlements, the Palestinian Authority has been pursuing a policy aimed at unilaterally declaring a Palestinian state by September based on borders from 1967 and in recent months has won recognition from a number of South American countries.

Israel wants direct negotiations...the Palestinians are doing an end-run...should the UN be calling anything illegal at this point?

Edited February 18, 2011 by DogOnPorch

[GostHacked]

Further along in the same article...

Israel wants direct negotiations...the Palestinians are doing an end-run...should the UN be calling anything illegal at this point?

Israel is not interested in negotiations. That much is clear. The USA will make sure that negotiations can never happen.

[DogOnPorch]

Israel is not interested in negotiations. That much is clear. The USA will make sure that negotiations can never happen.

As will the Palestinians, apparently. The mistake we make is thinking that there are actual victims involed.

[GostHacked]

As will the Palestinians, apparently. The mistake we make is thinking that there are actual victims involed.

Of course there are no victims. Like there is no problem in Israel or Palestine. Everything is roses.

[scouterjim]

Israel is not interested in negotiations. That much is clear. The USA will make sure that negotiations can never happen.

Given the UN was instrumental in creating Israel, I would think they should have some say.

[GostHacked]

Given the UN was instrumental in creating Israel, I would think they should have some say.

I thought that was ironic as well. Create the problem, but have no say in how it gets solved. Uh huh.

[DogOnPorch]

Given the UN was instrumental in creating Israel, I would think they should have some say.

Had the Arabs actually agreed with the UN Partition that whole 'UN creating Israel*' line of thinking might hold water. But they didn't and went to war with Israel. Sad to say, they do sleep in the bed they made back in 1948.

*which is not really accurate as Israel was already a defacto state waiting for UN approval. Something already enjoyed by many Arab states created in the 20th century out of the Ottoman Empire.

Boots on the ground as it goes.

[bud]

Had the Arabs actually agreed with the UN Partition that whole 'UN creating Israel*' line of thinking might hold water. But they didn't and went to war with Israel. Sad to say, they do sleep in the bed they made back in 1948.

*which is not really accurate as Israel was already a defacto state waiting for UN approval. Something already enjoyed by many Arab states created in the 20th century out of the Ottoman Empire.

Boots on the ground as it goes.

it doesn't work that way, dawg. that is such an awful justification.

rules are rules and it doesn't matter if the arabs lost the war. israel, as a member of u.n. must abide by its rules of land and borders. what israel is doing is what a rogue state does. countless resolutions against their illegal actions, international court rulings and human rights reports that outline its numerous violations are a clear indication that israel is a rogue state with no respect for human rights and international law/agreements.

[DogOnPorch]

it doesn't work that way, dawg. that is such an awful justification.

rules are rules and it doesn't matter if the arabs lost the war. israel, as a member of u.n. must abide by its rules of land and borders. what israel is doing is what a rogue state does. countless resolutions against their illegal actions, international court rulings and human rights reports that outline its numerous violations are a clear indication that israel is a rogue state with no respect for human rights and international law/agreements.

It most certainly is the way it works.

[Bonam]

Given the UN was instrumental in creating Israel, I would think they should have some say.

The Jewish inhabitants of the area created Israel, not the UN. The UN came out with a piece of paper, which was promptly rejected by the Arabs who then tried to exterminate the Jews. The UN played no role in helping the Jews to survive this war or to enforce the terms of the piece of paper.

[DogOnPorch]

The Jewish inhabitants of the area created Israel, not the UN. The UN came out with a piece of paper, which was promptly rejected by the Arabs who then tried to exterminate the Jews. The UN played no role in helping the Jews to survive this war or to enforce the terms of the piece of paper.

100% agreement.

[bloodyminded]

Anyone who thinks Israel is always right, and always justified in its actions, is a wilfully ignorant radical extremist.

Period.

[myata]

The Jewish inhabitants of the area created Israel, not the UN. The UN came out with a piece of paper, which was promptly rejected by the Arabs who then tried to exterminate the Jews. The UN played no role in helping the Jews to survive this war or to enforce the terms of the piece of paper.

The problem with this sort of thinking is that it works both ways. I.e. if Jewish immigrants (why being dishonest with choice of terminology? The data on original population of these lands have been posted and is available from any number of sources) could "create" state in somebody else's lands, could the same happen to them, at some moment in their history?

In other words, either: Israel is a legitimate international entity and as such shall abide by international standards and laws. Or it's outside of international law, and as immediate consequence has reduced claim to legitimacy. I know it's tempting to want to have it both ways but it doesn't seem to be working, sorry to break it to you.

[Jonsa]

Its easy to condemn Israel. they are the powerful occupiers of territories deemed by the international community as "not theirs". But that's a simplistic perspective, ignorning how Israel's actions and strategy were shaped as much by nationalistic objectives (such as self preservation) as by Arab rhetoric and actions following the humiliation of al-nakba.

this is not a black and white situation. If it was, it would have been resolved years ago.

Its a long, painful and convoluted history. the nuances of the contemporary political decisions and compromises are lost in time. Witness the bitter arguments over the absence of the word "the" in UN 242.

Are some of the actions of Israel "illegal" in view of international law. Undoubtedly, but international law is ALWAYS trumped by security and survival. And for anyone to deny that the "liberation of all of historic palestine" does not remain the primary objective of the vast majority of palestinians, arabs and muslims, they merely exhibit their ignorance.

Pro palestinians ignore that fact that the PLO was formed to destroy Israel, and that Arafat was a terrorist and gangster that sparked three civil wars in neighbouring ARAB countries. Yet they thought he was the guy that Israel should make peace with. And in a monumental display of American diplomatic muscle that actually happened. Unfortunately trusting a terrorist gangster does not an easy peace make. Likewise, Israel still hated the bastard and in the end when he cynically launched the second intifada to stop his legislature's investigation into how much money he stole, his true colors came to light. He had his shot to create a nation called palestine, and he blew it with his corruption and single minded hatred of Israel. Then came the Hamas fiasco.

On the other side, Israel has been a brutal occupier at times. It has been arbitrary and callous. Its"facts on the ground" strategy is annexation pure and simple and steals a future palestinian state's assets. They have ignored UN resolutions and brushed off the self righteous condemnation of countries around the world.

Given all that, imagine if there was a country called palestine on the WB and Gaza that had elected a Islamist (Hamas) government. Its a sovereign nation with a military, with control of its own airspace, its own borders and all the other stuff that comes along with being a sovereign nation. Now imagine you are an israeli and your government appeased everyone, conformed to all the UN resolutions, came in from the cold as a rogue nation and helped the palestinian nation be born. and now you face a war of extermination. How would you feel about that - your country did the "right thing" and could die because of it? There isn't a nation on earth that would risk such a thing happening.

[bud]

Pro palestinians ignore that fact that the PLO was formed to destroy Israel, and that Arafat was a terrorist and gangster

irgun and the stern gang ring a bell? if not, they were one of the most prominent jewish terrorist organizations which helped to create the state of israel.

what about yitzhak shamir a former leader of the stern gang who became the prime minister of israel?

do you not know about these things or do you just choose not to put them into the equation?

[bloodyminded]

Are some of the actions of Israel "illegal" in view of international law. Undoubtedly, but international law is ALWAYS trumped by security and survival.

I agree that the matter is not so simple as some critics of Israel seem to insist.

That said, no one has a more black and white, simpleminded view of the matter than those professing to "stand up for Israel."

Along these lines, I don't think it's given that all of Israel's actions--including its demonstrated brutality--are strictly for purposes of "security and survival," which must then trump other considerations. (I know, you don't completely disagree, as per your other comments...but it begs the question of why you brought it up.)

I would love to see a geopolitical entity--a concentration of economic and political power--which we have named "countries"--always act on justifiable principles.

But to my knowledge, none exist. And Israel certainly, incontestably, is not such a state.

Pro palestinians ignore that fact that the PLO was formed to destroy Israel, and that Arafat was a terrorist and gangster that sparked three civil wars in neighbouring ARAB countries. Yet they thought he was the guy that Israel should make peace with. And in a monumental display of American diplomatic muscle that actually happened. Unfortunately trusting a terrorist gangster does not an easy peace make.

No, but it is frequently done anyway. The East Timorese do not have hostile relations with the United States,the UK, Canada, etc., even though these countries (primarily the U.S.) share direct, material, and intentional complicity in one of the worst acts of mass slaughter by percentage of population in the postwar era; even though the US and friends acted unequivocally as terrorist states at a level that eclipses PLO or Hamas terrorism by every measure.

(This is the point at which someone invariably summons the talismanic phrase--"the Cold War." However, if you pay attention you will note they dare go no further with this "explanation"; wisely so, since they can't pin down any decent justifications for the first-degree murder of (by conservative estimates) two hundred thousand people. All done with the knowledge, material aid, and diplomatic support of the the great Lovers of Freedom. The Communist Threat? Non-existent, hence the telling and sullen silence after spitting "Cold War" in the usual manner of reflexive psychosis.)

If others can ultimately work with massive state terrorists (the Western democracies), then Israel can ultimately work with a few thugs--nowhere near as criminal--for the benefit of the majority of the people.

Edited February 19, 2011 by bloodyminded

[Jonsa]

irgun and the stern gang ring a bell? if not, they were one of the most prominent jewish terrorist organizations which helped to create the state of israel.

what about yitzhak shamir a former leader of the stern gang who became the prime minister of israel?

do you not know about these things or do you just choose not to put them into the equation?

Yes, I am fully aware of the history of the region and of the terrorist campaigns conducted by the jews prior to the war of independence. that they were terrorists is no longer relevant to the equation since the rationale for their terror campaign was satisfied with independence and a democratic political process.

Arafat OTOH, being the father of international terrorism figures most definitely in the equation since after all of it he became the founding President of the PA and maintained support for terrorist groups and never renounced the PLO ten steps. He will no doubt go down in history as one of the world's greatest survivors.

[bud]

Yes, I am fully aware of the history of the region and of the terrorist campaigns conducted by the jews prior to the war of independence. that they were terrorists is no longer relevant to the equation since the rationale for their terror campaign was satisfied with independence and a democratic political process.

well that's quite generous of you to magically give one group's history in terrorism a pass while condemning another's.

bob would be proud of you.

Arafat OTOH, being the father of international terrorism

shouldn't the father label go to groups that started the whole thing in the region? like the the jewish terrorist group that a former israeli prime minister was a leader of?

figures most definitely in the equation since after all of it he became the founding President of the PA

i never said arafat and palestinian terrorism shouldn't be in the equation. i just reminded you that you somehow believe jewish terrorism and many other acts that you fail to mention shouldn't really be part of the debate. like somehow, a group of people are above a moral line that we have created.

maintained support for terrorist groups and never renounced the PLO ten steps. He will no doubt go down in history as one of the world's greatest survivors.

no kidding. all those rockets and missiles pointed at him and all those sexy mossad agents with poison on their lips and he still made it pretty far.

oh yeah, answer me this:

which one of these groups (PLO or likud), has vowed to never allow/accept a state for the other side? here is a clue and here is another.