Jump to content

Israel Wall


caesar

Recommended Posts

Well, that statement is so incomplete as to be incorrect. The conditions Isreal has indicated it presumes to impose on such a 'peace', were not realistic, or justifiable.

Your statement is pure conjecture. Not only do you cite nothing to back it up, you don't even explain why.

I already gave an answer to this. Just to repeat it, the problem is that while Israel is perfectly prepared to accept a separate Palestinian state the simple fact is that such a state would be a grave danger to Israel. That is why they will not do it at this time. They would have to be complete idiots. It would be like France in 1945 agreeing to a new German government headed up by Hermann Goering and the remnants of the Nazi Party.

I'm tempted to laugh in your face here. The Palestinians are Occupying themselves? The Palestinians are flying helicopters over their own cities firing missiles? The Palestinians are flattening their own homes? No. Israel is doing that.

Great work. Now ask the follow-on question: why are they doing that? And what are the Palestinians doing to dispel the reasons Israel has for doing that?

What on Earth are you going on about? The existence of Israel is not under discussion here as far as I know.

It's under discussion in Yasser Arafat's clique. The Arabs have never come to terms with the existence of Israel. Their peace treaties are a joke because they all continue to support and sponsor terrorism against Israel, and note that Syria and Lebanon do not even recognise Israel and have no peace accord with her. Israeli offers of territory in exchange for peace have all been rejected. Why would that be, do you think?

This was a really pathetic reply from you, Sweal. I expect you to do better next time. Try and have a few facts at the ready or some credible sources to back up your hearsay.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 81
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Hmmmm, ever think that possibly there is nobody to negotiate true boundaries with? If Palestinians had a government that could control their people ie terrorists then I am sure Israel would be more than happy to discuss international boundaries with them. In the meanitme, taken from an Israeli perspective, 'they hate us anyways, so who cares.'

Following the end of the 1948 war of independence, an Armistice agreement between Israel and the Arab countries delineated the borders of each party and designated the "No Man's" land between them according to the location of their respective armies. This line demarcated the borders between Israel and the West Bank and Gaza Strip as recognized by the international community.

As I said, with the wall up, lives saved on both sides, the only option for Palesitnians is to get their act together and negotiate. As one voice that can hold a bargain. You can only hate an Israeli so much and want them dead so much. It's a signal that Israel has given up trying to be friends, slapping the Palestinians in the face as they slam the door shut. Bye bye homeland. Stew and fume all you want, let Yasser rule over dung. When you guys get your act together we may negotiate, not until.

So: in your view, the onus is on occupied to set the terms of their own occupation? The obvious analogy here is incidences of rape where the victim is deemed to be "asking for it".

As for the wall:

Creeping Annexation

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmmmm, ever think that possibly there is nobody to negotiate true boundaries with? If Palestinians had a government that could control their people ie terrorists then I am sure Israel would be more than happy to discuss international boundaries with them. In the meanitme, taken from an Israeli perspective, 'they hate us anyways, so who cares.'

Following the end of the 1948 war of independence, an Armistice agreement between Israel and the Arab countries delineated the borders of each party and designated the "No Man's" land between them according to the location of their respective armies. This line demarcated the borders between Israel and the West Bank and Gaza Strip as recognized by the international community.

As I said, with the wall up, lives saved on both sides, the only option for Palesitnians is to get their act together and negotiate. As one voice that can hold a bargain. You can only hate an Israeli so much and want them dead so much. It's a signal that Israel has given up trying to be friends, slapping the Palestinians in the face as they slam the door shut. Bye bye homeland. Stew and fume all you want, let Yasser rule over dung. When you guys get your act together we may negotiate, not until.

So: in your view, the onus is on occupied to set the terms of their own occupation? The obvious analogy here is incidences of rape where the victim is deemed to be "asking for it".

As for the wall:

Creeping Annexation

Conceived by Israeli political leaders as a “security precaution” after the outbreak of

the second Intifada, the Wall will impose prohibitive restrictions on the movement of Palestinians within the West Bank. Its route, continually modified by Israeli authorities, falls well within the boundaries of the West Bank and is designed to incorporate as many Israeli West Bank settlements as possible within Israel proper, while at the same time encircling Palestinian population centers. In doing so, the Wall isolates thousands of Palestinians on both sides from their land, communities, and social networks. Although uncertainty about the final position of the Wall makes its overall impact difficult to gauge, conservative estimates place the number of Palestinians directly harmed by the Wall in the hundreds of thousands.

Construction of the Wall violates widely accepted human rights norms and contravenes several outstanding agreements to which Israel is a signatory. In addition to property rights and freedom of movement, the Wall infringes on the right to education, work, and adequate health. It also flouts treaties under which Israel agreed that the status of the Palestinian territories would not be changed during negotiations or Israeli occupation. At the time of this writing, it remained unclear how negotiations over the Road Map, which calls for the establishment of a viable Palestinian state with contiguous territory, will affect the construction of the Wall.

The most alarming element of the Wall’s construction is perhaps its likely economic impact. The Wall will effectively institutionalize the system of closure and restriction that has paralyzed the West Bank economically since late 2000. With merchants unable to transport goods either internally or between the West Bank and the outside world, and with Palestinian workers unable to seek work in Israel, the Palestinian economy has sunk into depression. The existence of the Wall promises to maintain these conditions indefinitely, hobbling the economy for the foreseeable future and increasing Palestinians’ reliance on donor funds. The economic impact of the Wall is particularly acute in the northwestern districts of the West Bank because of the importance of agriculture—a sector that is uniquely vulnerable to the effects of the Wall—in that region.

Social conditions in the West Bank also are likely to worsen after the completion of the Wall. The deterioration of health, education, and other social services in the West Bank due to restrictions on movement during recent years mirrors that of the

economy. Palestinian communities isolated by the Wall already have experienced a dramatic decline in social conditions that could prompt migration away from the affected areas.

Little historical precedent exists for the construction of a barrier on the scale that the Israeli Wall encompasses. The Gaza Strip is perhaps most illustrative of the degree to which the West Bank population would be isolated and restricted in both internal and external movement. There is every reason to believe that, as in the Gaza Strip, the poverty and disillusionment that accompany the construction of the Wall will lead to further radicalization of the Palestinian population and greater opposition to peace efforts.

It won't. However, Palestine won't accept any kind of lasting or meaningful solution, so Israel is forced to go to the next-best option, which is occupying the territory and trying to excise terrorism at the source.

Israel is not interested in "occupying and repressing Palestine." It has offered to cede virtually all of Palestine and it has offered numerous increases in autonomy and self-government to the Palestinians. All have been rejected.

Of course, you conviently omity the conditions of these "generous" offers, including demanda that the Palestinians accept all of Jerusalem as Israel's "eternal capital." and that Israel accept no moral or legal responsibility for the creation of the Palestinian refugee problem, among others.

It is not wrong. You have grossly misinterpreted Resolution 242.

Let's deal with "inadmissability of the acquisition of territory by war." That refers to an offensive war. The 1967 war was not offensive for Israel and was not fought for acquistion of territory. If it did not refer to an offensive war the resolution defeats a primary purpose of the UN because it gives a "free shot" to aggressor states, guaranteeing that if they lose the conflict they cannot lose any territory.

There's no such caveat on the term "inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war."

242 does not state that Israel must give up "all territory." That wording is very deliberate. The USSR and Arab states pushed for "all territory" to be stipulated, but it was overruled. 242 states that Israel must withdraw "from territories occupied." That means that Israel must withdraw from all, some, or none of that territory. Since Israel has withdrawn itself from 91% of that territory when it gave up Sinai alone it can consider itself in full concord with 242.

When viewed in the context of the principle stated in the preamble 242 vis a vis the inadmissibility of aquisition of territory by war" it's clear that the "missing 'the'" argument is fallacious. Indeed this interpretation was recently accepted by the International Court of Justice.

Furthermore, what makes the Israeli occupation illegal is that it has existed for 35 years, during which time Israel, as an occupying Power, has undertaken measures to change the legal status, demographic composition and character of the territory by confiscating land, exploiting natural resources, building more than 250 settlements, transferring more than 400,000 Israelis to the occupied territories, establishing a dual system of law and even annexing part of the territory.

These actions have been carried out in direct contravention of the Fourt Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, which, among other things, defines the rules of conduct and the obligations of the occupying Power. Clearly then, the active intent of the Israeli occupation has been to negate Palestinian rights, to create new facts on the ground and to illegally expand Israel's borders.

Furthermore, settlements have never been an obstacle to peace in the past. Between 1949 and 1967, Israeli settlement in the West Bank was expressly forbidden and yet no Arab nation would make peace with Israel. In 1978, Israel froze settlement in the hope that this would draw other Arab nations to the Camp David accords. It didn't. In 1994, Jordan made a peace treaty with Israel. Settlements were not even mentioned.

You simply can't talk about the Israeli occupation and the peace process without mentioning the settlements. Treaties between Israel and its Arab neighbours aren't really relevant.

According to international law it is not an occupation. It's a misnomer that is being used to discredit Israel, much like the substitution of "militant" for "terrorist" in Iraq.

As I pointed out, the International Court of Justice has referred to the West Bank and East Jerusalem as occupied territories and Israeli settlements in these areas as a violation of the Geneva conventions.

Also, you yourself have admitted that it is an occupation.

Caught in a lie! How embarrassing...

According to one study, Palestinian noncombatants were mostly teenaged boys and young men. In the words of the study, "this completely contradicts accusations that Israel has ‘indiscriminately targeted women and children... There appears to be only one reasonable explanation for this pattern: that Palestinian men and boys engaged in behavior that brought them into conflict with Israeli armed forces."

Personally, I have never stated Israel indiscriminately targets women and children , only that thay don't particularily care if they happen to kill a few in the course of their operations. Furthermore, the study's conclusion is a false dichotomy that ignores social and cultural realities of Palestinian society, which features a diminished role for women. For example, if you look at the recent protest march which was fired on by IDF tanks and helicopters, it was completely young men.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, that statement is so incomplete as to be incorrect. The conditions Isreal has indicated it presumes to impose on such a 'peace', were not realistic, or justifiable.

Your statement is pure conjecture. Not only do you cite nothing to back it up, you don't even explain why.

I'm going by the last bargaining positions in the Oslo rounds before the 2nd Intifada broke out. The 'state' offered to the Palestinians was to be a truncated, underprivileged bantu-stan.

I already gave an answer to this. Just to repeat it, the problem is that while Israel is perfectly prepared to accept a separate Palestinian state the simple fact is that such a state would be a grave danger to Israel. 

First, based on the formetioned Oslo negotiations, Israel is not really prepared to accept a Palestinian state.

Second, the (alleged) dangers such a state poses to Israel is not a sufficient justification for them to carry out the Occupation, particularly in the fashion they have been doing. States frequently pose a danger to eachother, but that, in and of itself, does not allow one to attack or occupy the other.

I'm tempted to laugh in your face here. The Palestinians are Occupying themselves? The Palestinians are flying helicopters over their own cities firing missiles? The Palestinians are flattening their own homes? No. Israel is doing that.

Great work. Now ask the follow-on question: why are they doing that?

Because the Palestinians refuse to accept their status as a conquered subject people, I guess. Golly, how awful of them!

And what are the Palestinians doing to dispel the reasons Israel has for doing that?

What would you have them do?

What on Earth are you going on about? The existence of Israel is not under discussion here as far as I know.

It's under discussion in Yasser Arafat's clique.

Oh yes? And just how often are you at that table to hear this?

The Arabs have never come to terms with the existence of Israel. Their peace treaties are a joke because they all continue to support and sponsor terrorism against Israel, and note that Syria and Lebanon do not even recognise Israel and have no peace accord with her. 

First, who are 'the Arabs' you refer to there? I believe the PA has recognized Israels right to exist. As has Egypt. Jordan?

Also your dismissal of 'their' peace treaties is factually unfounded. Those states which have entered peace treaties with Israel have adhered to them, so far as I know.

Israeli offers of territory in exchange for peace have all been rejected. Why would that be, do you think?

First, Israel has made any bona fide meaningful offer of peace since 1967 that I am aware of.

Why the Palestinians gave up on the Olso game is that the last offer they received fell substantially short of thier expectations. Having read the offer, I can see why they didn't accept it, though their alternate strategy has been a bad one.

This was a really pathetic reply from you, Sweal.

:P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course, you conviently omity the conditions of these "generous" offers, including demanda that the Palestinians accept all of Jerusalem as Israel's "eternal capital."

Jerusalem was never an Arab capital and Palestinians have no special claim to the city. Jerusalem is, however, the historical and cultural capital of Israel.

Furthermore, Israel has granted full freedom of religion and Muslims, Christians and Druze are all allowed to view Jerusalem as a holy city and worship freely within it.

Yasser Arafat himself said in Voice of Palestine, Algiers, (September 2, 1993): "Anyone who relinquishes a single inch of Jerusalem is neither an Arab nor a Muslim.”

Yitzhak Rabin offered a compromise solution that allowed Palestinians to claim Jerusalem as their capital without relinquishing legitimate Jewish claims on the capital.

Ehrud Barak offered to allow the Arab neighbourhoods of East Jerusalem to be made the capital of a Palestinian state and extend Palestinian control to the Muslim holy sites on Temple Mount. Arafat rejected these proposals.

On the issue of Jerusalem it's fair to say that the ball is in the Palestinian court. Many concessions have been offered to them and rejected, and if they come up with a compromise Israel will discuss it. But they have not, and they will not. To expect Israel to give up her cultural and historical capital is totally unreasonable, it is as though Quebec were to demand that the Canadian government move from Ottawa as part of a secession deal.

that Israel accept no moral or legal responsibility for the creation of the Palestinian refugee problem

How do you expect they absorb and deal with 3.9 million Palestinian refugees, for one? How would Canada - with around 5 times the population - do it? The Palestinians already live in historic Palestine. When they mean "right of return" they mean to the homes they had before 1948. Those homes are gone or occupied. Furthermore, to absorb all the refugees would quickly make Jews a minority in their own country, which was something that the UN and the international community explicitly sought to avoid in their creation of the state of Israel.

Israel has repeatedly offered to repatriate some refugees in exchange for peace talks. Arab nations have rejected this and made complete repatriation (impossible on practical grounds alone) a prerequisite to talks, let alone peace.

The UN passed Resolution 194 stating that Israel should repatriate any refugees who were prepared to live at peace with their neighbours. So far, there's no indication they are prepared to do so so Israel is under no legal obligation to repatriate them.

As regarding the creation of the refugee problem, this is the direct result of wars of aggression waged by the Arab nations. They bear the responsibility for the problem, not Israel.

among others

What others?

There's no such caveat on the term "inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war."

You are not an international lawyer or a student of international law. What you are saying makes absolutely no sense.

The fact is that was your claim true, the UN would be encouraging wars of aggression and conquest. The resolution would state that any aggressor nation that lost territory in a war it initiated would have the right to have it returned. This insures warmongers against the primary risk of initiating war and is an encouragement to aggression and violence. Hardly fitting with the mission of the UN.

When viewed in the context of the principle stated in the preamble 242 vis a vis the inadmissibility of aquisition of territory by war" it's clear that the "missing 'the'" argument is fallacious.

There's no missing "the". There's a missing "all."

Indeed this interpretation was recently accepted by the International Court of Justice.

When?

Furthermore, what makes the Israeli occupation illegal is that it has existed for 35 years

Despite the fact that Israel repeatedly offered to return virtually all of the territory in that 35 years...

Israel, as an occupying Power, has undertaken measures to change the legal status

Yes, they gave women and non-landowners the vote. Shame on them.

[changing the] demographic composition and character of the territory

No evidence again, Blackdog.

Almost 90% of Israeli settlers live in suburbs of Jerusalem and Tel Aviv (Jerusalem Post, October 1991). There are 175,000 Jews settled in the West Bank in 150 communities, most of which have less than 1,000 inhabitants. This was an effort to stabilise the Tel Aviv-Jerusalem corridor which has been a near-constant area of heavy fighting. 70-80% of these settlers could be brought within Israel with very minor modifications to the Green Line.

confiscating land

Land is not confiscated and no Arab settlements or landowners have been displaced. Israeli state policy is that private land cannot be requisitioned for settlement. Housing construction on private land is permitted only after it has been established that no private rights have been violated. If you know any different, report it to the Israeli police because it's against Israeli law.

building more than 250 settlements

You're saying Jews have no right to live in the West Bank. Where else don't Jews have the right to live? How about Toronto or Vancouver?

transferring more than 400,000 Israelis to the occupied territories

No source again. This is just ridiculous.

establishing a dual system of law

Israel established laws that are perfectly acceptable given that the West Bank is disputed territory and a war zone. Equal laws with the rest of Israel would be tantamount to annexation, and Israel is not interested in that.

even annexing part of the territory

What part?

exploiting natural resources

What resources?

These actions have been carried out in direct contravention of the Fourt Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War

Wrong. The Fourth Geneva Convention prohibits the forcible transfer of people of one state to the territory of another state that it has occupied as a result of a war. It's not forcible so no contravention has occurred.

Clearly then, the active intent of the Israeli occupation has been to negate Palestinian rights, to create new facts on the ground and to illegally expand Israel's borders.

You're blustering.

Also, you yourself have admitted that it is an occupation.

I use the term "occupation" because it is easier and generally accepted. It's hard to talk to people when you're not using the same terminology.

As I pointed out, the International Court of Justice has referred to the West Bank and East Jerusalem as occupied territories

Given your incredibly poor understanding of international law it's probably a given that you are misinterpreting this. I note you don't cite the ICJ, so we can't verify anything you've said.

Personally, I have never stated Israel indiscriminately targets women and children , only that thay don't particularily care if they happen to kill a few in the course of their operations.

No, they do care. Firing on unarmed people without very good cause is grounds for severe punishment because it's illegal in Israeli law, the same as for American, Canadian, or British servicemen or the servicemen of any other democracy. The sad fact is that Palestinian terrorists give them no choice by hiding in the civilian population in direct contravention of the Geneva protocols.

Furthermore, the study's conclusion is a false dichotomy that ignores social and cultural realities of Palestinian society, which features a diminished role for women.

Women do have a diminished role in Palestinian society. That's why they are not out carrying guns and causing trouble and it's why their casualties are less.

Of course, I've already pointed out neither side has the monopoly on inhumanity: it is you who seems to believe Israel is pure.

No, Blackdog, I think the key difference between us is that you are arguing based on pure conjecture and in absolute disregard for fact, whereas I am not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 'state' offered to the Palestinians was to be a truncated, underprivileged bantu-stan.

Palestine could have asked for an independent state at anytime between 1948 and 1967. They did not. In 1979 the Palestinians were offered full autonomy, which, it is widely agreed, would have shortly led to full independence. The Oslo process was acknowledged to be the start of a road to an independent Palestinian state before the Palestinians violated the agreements.

Such offers are transitional. As I've said, no Israeli government has ruled out a Palestinian state and even the most right-wing of Israelis generally believe that a Palestinian state is inevitable. The fact is that they are waiting for some signs that such a Palestinian state would be something other than a training and supply camp for terrorists, or for the Palestinians to start down the road to an independent state rather than returning to violence and terrorism after each accord.

States frequently pose a danger to eachother, but that, in and of itself, does not allow one to attack or occupy the other.

Palestine is not and was not a state. It was an illegally occupied territory which was won in a war of aggression launched by the Arab states including the state that the West Bank was won from.

Because the Palestinians refuse to accept their status as a conquered subject people, I guess. Golly, how awful of them!

Most Tibetans do too, however, the Tibetans have not slaughtered thousands of Chinese civilians and soldiers in their refusal. The reason for military rule in Palestine is because the Palestinians are carrying out a policy of violence and terrorism towards their neighbours.

What would you have them do?

Order an end to the infitada, reign in the terrorists and offer some reasonable proposals for peace.

Oh yes? And just how often are you at that table to hear this?

I'm not, but I heard it from Walid Shoebat, who was a former PLO bomber and Palestinian Muslim who states that not only was it not restricted to Arafat's table, it was a common topic amongst the entire Palestinian Muslim community.

First, who are 'the Arabs' you refer to there? I believe the PA has recognized Israels right to exist.

The actions of the PA speak otherwise.

Also your dismissal of 'their' peace treaties is factually unfounded.

No, it isn't. The states that have signed peace treaties continue to allow terrorist attacks against Israel. Your allegation that they are in full compliance is that which is factually unfounded.

First, Israel has made any bona fide meaningful offer of peace since 1967 that I am aware of.

Then you aren't aware of an awful lot.

Immediately after the 1967 war, Israel signalled to all participants that it was willing to trade land for peace (Walter Lacquer, The Road to War, (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1968), p. 297). And that was just the first offer. Do you seriously need me to educate you on all the rest of the offers? If you're that ignorant, perhaps you should just bow out of this discussion now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jerusalem was never an Arab capital and Palestinians have no special claim to the city. Jerusalem is, however, the historical and cultural capital of Israel.

If you're going to get all semantic, I'd like to pint out there was no state known as "Israel" prior to 1948. The region's Arab population has just as much claim to jersuselum as the Jews.

You are not an international lawyer or a student of international law. What you are saying makes absolutely no sense.

Right back atcha.

The fact is that was your claim true, the UN would be encouraging wars of aggression and conquest. The resolution would state that any aggressor nation that lost territory in a war it initiated would have the right to have it returned. This insures warmongers against the primary risk of initiating war and is an encouragement to aggression and violence. Hardly fitting with the mission of the UN.

Bollocks. The point of most wars of aggression are to capture territory. The point of the prohibition against retaining territory captured in war is to prevent wars of conquest: if you hav enothing to gain, you have no reason to carry out a war of conquest.

There's no missing "the". There's a missing "all."

Both "all " and "the" are specific enough to encompass the entirety of the territories (interestingly, the French version of the 242 contains "the").

QUOTE 

Indeed this interpretation was recently accepted by the International Court of Justice.

When?

Last week.

Historic ruling on Israeli 'occupation'

Yes, they gave women and non-landowners the vote. Shame on them.

Non sequitur.

Almost 90% of Israeli settlers live in suburbs of Jerusalem and Tel Aviv (Jerusalem Post, October 1991). There are 175,000 Jews settled in the West Bank in 150 communities, most of which have less than 1,000 inhabitants. This was an effort to stabilise the Tel Aviv-Jerusalem corridor which has been a near-constant area of heavy fighting. 70-80% of these settlers could be brought within Israel with very minor modifications to the Green Line.

"Suburbs" is a a misnomer that is being used to promote teh expanion of the settlements.

How the Settler Suburbs Grew (NYT)

There are today approximately 200,000 Jewish settlers

living in a variety of West Bank and Gaza communities.

They have arrived in those areas continually over the

past 35 years, ever since Israel's occupation of the

region after its victory in the 1967 war. For the

first 10 years, settlement was limited to the eastern

edges of the Jordan Valley by the Labor governments of

Levi Eshkol, Golda Meir and Yitzhak Rabin. They did

not allow settlements in the densely populated

Palestinian upland areas, assuming that this area

would eventually become an autonomous Palestinian

region linked to Jordan.

It was only after the Yom Kippur war of 1973 and, more

important, the rise of Israel's first right-wing Likud

governments, led by Menachem Begin from 1977 to 1983,

that settlement policy was extended to include the

whole of the West Bank region. Spurred on by the

religious settler movement Gush Emunim, settlements

began to sprout up throughout the mountainous interior

as well as in close proximity to the "green line"

boundary between Israel and the West Bank, with their

inhabitants hoping to prevent any future Israeli

withdrawal from those areas. Gush Emunim supporters

believed that the land conquered in 1967 had been

returned to its rightful owners as promised to their

biblical ancestors by God. Hence, they were not

interested in such practical problems as demography,

security or the political rights of another people.

And they set out to make it as difficult as possible

for any government to relinquish the land in a future

political agreement.

This article also points out how most israelis recognioze it's the settlements that are one of the biggest obstacles to real peace and security.

You're saying Jews have no right to live in the West Bank. Where else don't Jews have the right to live? How about Toronto or Vancouver?

Bullcrap. I'm saying no one, regardless of race, creed or whatever, has the right to live on illegally occupied land.

No, they do care. Firing on unarmed people without very good cause is grounds for severe punishment because it's illegal in Israeli law, the same as for American, Canadian, or British servicemen or the servicemen of any other democracy. The sad fact is that Palestinian terrorists give them no choice by hiding in the civilian population in direct contravention of the Geneva protocols.

Nevermind that Israel's policies of "targetted" murder of militant leaders are themselves legally dubious.

So, if an illegal killing results in civilians being placed illegally in harms way, who's to blame?

Given your incredibly poor understanding of international law it's probably a given that you are misinterpreting this. I note you don't cite the ICJ, so we can't verify anything you've said.

Given your remarkable hubris, I'll just file this blurb in the ever-growing "Hugo's a pompous blowhard" file and move on.

The citation is above, the story has been getting heaps of press. Read something other than the usual propaganda for a change.

No, Blackdog, I think the key difference between us is that you are arguing based on pure conjecture and in absolute disregard for fact, whereas I am not.

Your biggest problem, aside from the ttanic ego, is your complete inability to see anything in terms other than black and white (or white and white in your case.) I've acknowleged that all is not well withinh Palestinian society and identified reasons other than the actionms of israel that contribute to the situation. You however are incapable of making anything but absoutist statements which imply your belief in the total and complete purity of every Israeli action. Which is, of course, uterly irrational.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you're going to get all semantic, I'd like to pint out there was no state known as "Israel" prior to 1948. The region's Arab population has just as much claim to jersuselum as the Jews.

Jerusalem has been the Jewish capital since King David founded it around 1000BC. Please tell me what gives the Palestinians "just as much claim" to Jerusalem. English Common Law establishes ownership as relative, and the Jews founded and built the original city and have always lived there. Therefore, the Jews have the right to Jerusalem. Even still, they've been willing to compromise with the Palestinians, to no avail.

The point of most wars of aggression are to capture territory.

Exactly, and your interpretation of 242 says, "Go ahead and start a war! You can't lose!" which is ridiculous. Furthermore, 242 also states that Israel and the other nations have to make peace (paragraph 3). Since Israel has made peace with all the 1967 opponents except Syria in which they accepted the territorial boundaries settled in those negotiations, that complaint is invalid. Note, too, that Syria has been offered the return of the land she lost in 1967 in exchange for peace and has rejected it.

Both "all " and "the" are specific enough to encompass the entirety of the territories

But neither word was in 242. Why don't you understand this?

Last week.

Historic ruling on Israeli 'occupation'

Yes, I was right. You don't know a thing about it.

The ruling is illegal becuse it violates Article 36 of the ICJ's Statute, which states that contentious issues can only be brought before the court with the consent of all sides. In this case, Israel (as well as the USA, Great Britain, Russia and many other countries) did not consent so the ruling is invalid.

Furthermore, by boycotting the case or voting against it, 101 member-states - a majority in the UN - expressed disagreement that this was any of the court's business in the first place. I have loads more on this ruling and if you're genuinely interested in learning about it I'll post it but I'm aware that these posts are getting rather long-winded, so I haven't as of yet.

Non sequitur.

You don't know what non-sequitur means. Explain how what I said is a non-sequitur.

"Suburbs" is a a misnomer that is being used to promote teh expanion of the settlements.

I don't see how this contradicts anything I just said.

I'm saying no one, regardless of race, creed or whatever, has the right to live on illegally occupied land.

So you advocate throwing all the Palestinians out too? Palestine was illegally occupied from 1948.

Nevermind that Israel's policies of "targetted" murder of militant leaders are themselves legally dubious.

It is a legal policy. In war, command and control structures and personnel are legitimate targets. Furthermore, it's a good idea. It sends the message to terrorist leaders that not just the suckers they strap bombs to but they themselves are at risk. It might make them think twice before ordering terror strikes from the comfort of their mansions.

So, if an illegal killing results in civilians being placed illegally in harms way, who's to blame?

No, you can't argue that yet because you have not successfully proven that these "killings" are illegal.

I've acknowleged that all is not well withinh Palestinian society

Oh? When did you do that? You've said off-hand comments like "neither side has the monopoly on humanity" but you make it pretty clear that you're backing one side over another and you're not willing to discuss any idea of Palestinian responsibility for some or all of these problems.

You however are incapable of making anything but absoutist statements

Is that so? Between my "hubris" and "blowhard... giant ego" you'd think you'd have no problem blowing my arguments out of the water. But instead you're ducking my arguments, conjecturing and avoiding my points as fast as you possibly can.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Palestine could have asked for an independent state at anytime between 1948 and 1967. They did not.

They can always ask, eh? But it's irrelevant anyway.

In 1979 the Palestinians were offered full autonomy, which, it is widely agreed, would have shortly led to full independence. The Oslo process was acknowledged to be the start of a road to an independent Palestinian state before the Palestinians violated the agreements.

Please explain how the Palestinians should be obliged to accept less-than freedom, and condition's for their human rights?

... even the most right-wing of Israelis generally believe that a Palestinian state is inevitable.

Then what the hell are they arsing about for? Leave now -- save time and lives.

The fact is that they are waiting for some signs that such a Palestinian state would be something other than a training and supply camp for terrorists,

You say 'the fact is', like that is a fact. But here's another concept for you. There are vast financial, human and psycholical interests embedded in the Occupied territories now, and Israel is resistant to leaving them behind. Furthermore, Israel has yet to come to a recognition of the ethical imperatives of it's situation viz. the Palestinians.

States frequently pose a danger to eachother, but that, in and of itself, does not allow one to attack or occupy the other.

Palestine is not and was not a state.

We were speaking prospectively -- the danger such a state would pose...

It was an illegally occupied territory which was won in a war of aggression launched by the Arab states including the state that the West Bank was won from.

I can't make heads or tails of that!

-What system of laws are you refering to?

-Illegally occupied by who?

-'won' in what sense?

-How can you win it from a state if it isn't theirs?

-How does any of that permit the denial of the right of self-determination to the Palestinians?

Most Tibetans [refuse to accept subjection] too, however, the Tibetans have not slaughtered thousands of Chinese civilians and soldiers in their refusal.

Interesting phraseology ... are you drawing a legal equation between civilian and military casualties?

Anyhow, the actions of some of the Occupied people does not change the rights of the People itself. This is a red herring that Israel has waved for years. Isn't it starting to stink?

Order an end to the infitada, reign in the terrorists and offer some reasonable proposals for peace.

How should they reign in the terrorists when their security forces are being targetted by Israeli forces? Moreover, how should they reign in the terrorists at all? How is GWB doing getting ahold of Osama?

What would you regard as reasonable proposals for peace?

The actions of the PA speak otherwise.

Sez ... ?

The states that have signed peace treaties continue to allow terrorist attacks against Israel.

"Allow"?

Immediately after the 1967 war, Israel signalled to all participants that it was willing to trade land for peace (Walter Lacquer, The Road to War, (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1968), p. 297). And that was just the first offer. Do you seriously need me to educate you on all the rest of the offers? If you're that ignorant, perhaps you should just bow out of this discussion now.

Oh, indeed, 'educate' me. Save time though, start with what you regard as the 'best' offer they made.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please explain how the Palestinians should be obliged to accept less-than freedom, and condition's for their human rights?

Israel has granted them far more human rights than they ever had. Their rights are less than other Israelis because where they live is in a war zone and there are enemies in their midst. This has been the same for democracies throughout history. Look at the post-war occupation of Germany and Japan for examples. I don't see you decrying them.

Then what the hell are they arsing about for? Leave now -- save time and lives.

Because, as I said, the fact is that they are waiting for some signs that such a Palestinian state would be something other than a training and supply camp for terrorists.

But here's another concept for you. There are vast financial, human and psycholical interests embedded in the Occupied territories now

Israel has repeatedly offered to give them up in exchange for peace.

We were speaking prospectively -- the danger such a state would pose

You did not make that clear.

What system of laws are you refering to?

International law. The pre-1967 occupation was regarded as illegal by every country except Britain and Pakistan.

Illegally occupied by who?

Jordan.

'won' in what sense?

In the sense that Jordan began a war against Israel and lost the territory in the course of that war.

How can you win it from a state if it isn't theirs?

Because not being the rightful owner of something does not mean you don't have it or that it cannot be taken away.

How does any of that permit the denial of the right of self-determination to the Palestinians?

It doesn't, which is why Israel has granted the Palestinian Authority jurisdiction over 98% of the West Bank, which is why Israel has instituted free votes, and which is why Israel has repeatedly offered to cede territory and has openly intimated that it would accept an independent Palestinian state if a reasonable roadmap for one was drawn up and adhered to.

Interesting phraseology ... are you drawing a legal equation between civilian and military casualties?

No. I'm pointing out that Tibetans have killed neither civilian nor soldier in their protest.

Anyhow, the actions of some of the Occupied people does not change the rights of the People itself.

That's your opinion. It isn't law and it isn't practical.

Moreover, how should they reign in the terrorists at all?

Arafat has demonstrated that he can easily silence dissent by arresting and executing dissidents. He has arrested many terrorists and then released them immediately. The leader of Hamas is not only allowed to walk free within Arafat's jurisdiction, he is allowed to hold rallies.

How should they reign in the terrorists when their security forces are being targetted by Israeli forces?

When did Israeli forces target PA security forces? What are your examples?

What would you regard as reasonable proposals for peace?

As I said, the creation of a feasible roadmap towards a Palestinian state along with an agreement to cease all violence and terrorism.

Sez ... ?

The failure of Arafat to charge or detain any terrorists he arrests, for a start.

"Allow"?

Yes. Buildings on the Gaza Strip are the exits from tunnels that lead from buildings in Egypt. Terrorists smuggle in arms and supplies through these tunnels from Egypt. It would not take much for the Egyptian security forces to locate and close these tunnel entrances, but they make no such effort.

Oh, indeed, 'educate' me. Save time though, start with what you regard as the 'best' offer they made.

I gave you the first offer they made. As I said, if you are this truly ignorant on the issues (for example, not knowing one iota of the pre-1967 history of Palestine) you are not qualified to hold an opinion. I suggest you educate yourself. You can start with The Complete Idiot's Guide to Middle East Conflict, 2nd Edition, by Mitchell G. Bard, NY, 2003. It will give you the basics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

vancouver.indymedia.org

Greg Philo

So why does the news not give proper explanations of the history and context of events?

One reason is that the news, exists in a very commercial market concerned with audience ratings. Pictures and action dominate and it is better to have great pictures of being in the middle of a riot with journalists ducking stones than to explain what the conflict is about. There is a second perhaps more crucial reason why the TV newsrooms do not dwell on history and origins of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. This is that to refer to them as under-lying the violence could be very controversial. Israel is closely allied to the United States and there are very strong pro- Israel lobbies in the US and to some extent in Britain. It is clear that a lack of discussion on the news of the origins of the conflict and the controversial aspects of the occupation would operate in favour of Israel. For example, Israel prefers to stress the attacks and bombings made upon it and the anti-semitism of some Islamic groups, rather than to have the legality of its own actions subject to public debate. The settlement policy is widely regarded as illegal in International Law and this has certainly been the view of the British Government. Some newspaper reports consistently refer to the settlements as 'illegal' but this is not done routinely on television news. Without the discussion of origins and causes, we are left with accounts on the news of day to day events, in which it can appear that the 'normal' world is disrupted only when the Palestinians riot or bomb. This is of course the view of the Israeli government and the news tended to oscillate between this and the view that violence was perpetrated by both sides in a 'cycle' of 'tit for tat' killings. The Palestinians believe that they are resisting an illegal and violent occupation. From the Israeli Government view the Palestinian militants are merely terrorists to whom they are 'responding'. There were many examples of the Israeli viewpoint being actively adopted by journalists and built into the structure of coverage. Palestinian bombings were frequently presented as 'starting' a sequence of events which involved an Israeli 'response', as in: '

----------------------------------------------------------------------

I think this article explains a lot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The main conflict with Israel and Palestine, at its most basic level, is of course land. The Palestinians want a place to call their own, and portions of Israel happen to be their historic homes. Israel wants to keep all the land it has obtained since its inception, and continue to expand when possible.

Obviously, these ideals cannot fully exist simultaneously. Concessions are necessary; both parties must give a little. At the end of the day, both groups need a place to call home.

If there is truly to be a solution, which will likely by brokered by a committee from the UN or a similar international alliance, Israel must withdraw from Palestinian territories. The borders of the new state will have to be negotiated by all, but enforced by the outsiders.

I would suggest that once Israel withdraws to internationally recognized boundaries, Palestinian extremists will have no reason to continue bombing. Even if the extreme extremists who want to annihilate all Jews continue their campaigns, they will lose all popular support and will endure even harsher international condemnation. Once normal, hard-working Palestinians have a hut to come home to without worrying that it was bulldozed during the day, popular support for the militant factions will evaporate.

I don't think that any American delegation, on its own, will succeed at resolving this conflict. Palestinian leaders go in with too much cynicism (rightly so) about American biases and motives. Nor will an Israeli-Palestinian summit likely resolve it, for two reasons. One, both sides are too wary of each other, and don't trust that any agreement would be honoured. Two, Palestinian leadership is too fractured. There are more factions of Palestinian militants than there are of the IRA. These groups often do not honour the agreements made by the other factions.

For any agreement to work, there would have to be unbiased [read: international] military support along any border, and meaningful repercussions and consequences for any infractions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

d. The Palestinians want a place to call their own, and portions of Israel happen to be their historic homes.

Not quite accurate there. The land that the Palestinians want does not BELONG to Israel. Israel just occupies it since it invaded those lands in l967. Not that historic.

Other than that: your ideas are fairly sound.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Excuses, excuses excuses. Israel has always had the upper hand. Israel has made aggressive attacks not defensive actions.

Wrong, conjecture. See above for why.

Israel wants to keep all the land it has obtained since its inception, and continue to expand when possible.

Wrong, conjecture. See above for why.

I would suggest that once Israel withdraws to internationally recognized boundaries, Palestinian extremists will have no reason to continue bombing.

"Palestinian extremists" (the PLO) began bombing Israel in 1964, when the West Bank was still under Jordanian control.

There are more factions of Palestinian militants than there are of the IRA.

Arafat retains control and has been very ruthless in suppressing opposition. In the first Intifada, more Palestinians were killed by him than by the Israelis.

The settlement policy is widely regarded as illegal in International Law and this has certainly been the view of the British Government.

The British Government petitioned the International Court of Justice that their ruling on Israel was invalid and unjust.

I think people have leapt into this thread without reading it first. All these points were already addressed. If you have a valid response to the facts I have quoted, post them, but I won't accept hearsay and repetition of empty rhetoric as an argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't forget the American girl dressed in brightly coloured clothing that they ran over and killed with a bulldozer.

Rachel Corrie (if that's who you mean, I doubt you even knew her name) was in Israel despite a US State Department travel warning. She was in an area designated by the IDF as being the scene of a military operation and Israel had already issued countless warnings that civilians in the area of a counter-terror operation are at unnecessary risk.

The Associated Press showed a picture of her shouting at the bulldozer with a megaphone "at the time of her death." This was, in fact, taken hours earlier. When she died she was sitting down and waving, and the Israeli Judge Advocate's Office found that the bulldozer driver's view was obstructed by debris and he could not possibly have seen her.

The IDF had already warned Corrie and her fellow protesters that they were in danger and to move out of the way. The leader of their movement, the International Solidarity Movement (ISM), admitted later that “it’s possible they were not as disciplined as we would have liked.”

The reason why this got so much press coverage was that it was the first incident of its kind. To use it as an example of Israeli aggression is ridiculous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jerusalem has been the Jewish capital since King David founded it around 1000BC. Please tell me what gives the Palestinians "just as much claim" to Jerusalem. English Common Law establishes ownership as relative, and the Jews founded and built the original city and have always lived there. Therefore, the Jews have the right to Jerusalem. Even still, they've been willing to compromise with the Palestinians, to no avail.

Jerusalem has changed hands a couple of times since then (furthermore, as home to the Dome of the Rock, it is a Muslim holy site as well).

Exactly, and your interpretation of 242 says, "Go ahead and start a war! You can't lose!" which is ridiculous. Furthermore, 242 also states that Israel and the other nations have to make peace (paragraph 3). Since Israel has made peace with all the 1967 opponents except Syria in which they accepted the territorial boundaries settled in those negotiations, that complaint is invalid. Note, too, that Syria has been offered the return of the land she lost in 1967 in exchange for peace and has rejected it.

No, my interpretation of 242 is: don't start a war, as you've nothing to gain. What's the sky like in your Bizzaro world?

But neither word was in 242. Why don't you understand this?

hence the openess to interpretation.

The ruling is illegal becuse it violates Article 36 of the ICJ's Statute, which states that contentious issues can only be brought before the court with the consent of all sides. In this case, Israel (as well as the USA, Great Britain, Russia and many other countries) did not consent so the ruling is invalid.

Furthermore, by boycotting the case or voting against it, 101 member-states - a majority in the UN - expressed disagreement that this was any of the court's business in the first place. I have loads more on this ruling and if you're genuinely interested in learning about it I'll post it but I'm aware that these posts are getting rather long-winded, so I haven't as of yet.

Wrong yet again. The ruling is an advisory opinion, and non-binding. It was brought to the ICJ by the Gneral Assembly: Link. (This also states that your contention that 101 member states voted against the request is false: 90 voted for, 8 against, 74 abstained.)

You don't know what non-sequitur means. Explain how what I said is a non-sequitur.

Because your statement about "giving women and landowners the vote" did not follow logically from what preceded it (Israel's attempts to legally change the status of territory in the OT, via annexation).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Israel has granted them far more human rights than they ever had.

The prior treatment of Palestinians at the hands of others is utterly irrelevant.

Their rights are less than other Israelis because where they live is in a war zone and there are enemies in their midst.

Don't make me laugh. They are in a war zone because they are resisting an occupation. Israel is denying them the right to self determination, not the other way around. But tell me this... If the "war" stopped, would they have the same rights as "other Israelis"?

This has been the same for democracies throughout history. Look at the post-war occupation of Germany and Japan for examples. I don't see you decrying them.

Several things differentiate those occupations from this one:

-the states of Japan and Germany had been aggressors in a War; as there was no Palestinian state it cannot have been an aggressor in war.

-the allied occupations of Japan and Germany were carried out at first prior to, then acquiesced to by the UN. This is not true of the Occupation in Palestine.

-the allied occupations of Japan and Germany were brought to an end within a reasonable time.

-the allied occupations of Japan and Germany did not involve substantial violations of other human rights, as Israel's has.

-the allied occupations of Japan and Germany did not involve massive illegal proto-annexations and colonization, as Israel's has.

I find it so interesting how, when someone identifies Israel's Occupation with other notorious human rights abuses, there is usually a vocal contingent there to decry the 'hatefulness' of the comparison.

Let me say that I am equally offended when somebody tells me my forbears in the armed services made their sacrifices in WWII in a cause no better than the vicious game of fanaticism and death being played out over the Occupied Territories. No sir. Israel's bloody psychodrama with the Palestinians is in no way on a moral or operational par with the challenge and defeat of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan.

...the fact is that they are waiting for some signs that such a Palestinian state would be something other than a training and supply camp for terrorists.

Here are my two main reasons for doubting that the is "the fact":

1) It cannot be the policy because it makes no sense. It cannot succeed, it is guaranteed to fail. It's like if I tell you I'll only strangle you until you stop trying to breathe -- then you're free to go. Can you go for a deal like that?

2) the Settlement policy is clearly not "just waiting". It is filling up the west bank with Israelis. Israel's actions in this regard are in direct oppostion to your contention.

But here's another concept for you. There are vast financial, human and psycholical interests embedded in the Occupied territories now

Israel has repeatedly offered to give them up in exchange for peace.

The last conditions imposed on such a deal in the Oslo process were ludicrous, so much so that it cannot be considered a bona fide offer. I don't have specific information on prior offers, but I suspect they were not very much better.

... not being the rightful owner of something does not mean you don't have it or that it cannot be taken away.

1) If it was occupied illegally by Jordan, who was otherwise the rightful sovereign and/or mandated administrator?

2) Does this entity not then, according to international law have the entitlement to claim the territory back from under Israel military occupation?

That's your opinion. It isn't law and it isn't practical.

Is Israel willing to have an impartial arbiter rule on that?

Moreover, how should they reign in the terrorists at all?

Arafat has demonstrated that he can easily silence dissent by arresting and executing dissidents. He has arrested many terrorists and then released them immediately.

Arafat's success at those times depended in large part on the acqueisence of a majority of factions, rather than solely on his ability to supress them. Moreover, Arafat's state has been demolished now.

[qoute]

When did Israeli forces target PA security forces? What are your examples?

What would you regard as reasonable proposals for peace?

As I said, the creation of a feasible roadmap towards a Palestinian state along with an agreement to cease all violence and terrorism.

Don't make me chase you around ... what is a 'feasible roadmap'? What constitutes a proper Palestinian state?

Also, what about refugees and reparations?

It would not take much for the Egyptian security forces to locate and close these tunnel entrances, but they make no such effort.

So you posit a positive obligation on Israels neighbors to safeguard it against the consequences of its foreign policy. Interesting. But groundless.

... I gave you the first offer they made.

??? I must have missed that. What were the terms of the offer again? When was it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jerusalem has changed hands a couple of times since then

The Jews have the longest period of ownership and were founders of the city. That makes it theirs, in English Common Law. The Palestinians have never attached any special significance to Jerusalem before now.

furthermore, as home to the Dome of the Rock, it is a Muslim holy site as well

The Palestinian Authority was offered jurisdiction over the Muslim holy sites on Temple Mount and rejected that offer.

No, my interpretation of 242 is: don't start a war, as you've nothing to gain.

Alright, I can see I'm not getting through to you with that logic. Let's try another avenue. If the inclusion of the word "all" is irrelevant and does not matter, as you claim, why did the Soviet and Arab delegates try so hard to have the word "all" included, and why do international lawyers agree that that word is of crucial importance?

We are dealing with documents of law here. They are worded very specifically so as to leave no doubt. What you are telling me is that you know more of international law than the Soviet delegation to the UN, which I find extremely hard to believe.

The ruling is an advisory opinion, and non-binding.

So what we have is a non-binding opinion offered in complete contradiction of the statute of the very body that offered it. Good case.

I think Israel's reaction was perfectly sound, basically, "Yeah, whatever."

This also states that your contention that 101 member states voted against the request is false: 90 voted for, 8 against, 74 abstained

I'll double-check my source. However, it wouldn't matter if it was unanimous barring Israel, according to the Statute of the ICJ it was none of the Court's business in the first place.

Because your statement about "giving women and landowners the vote" did not follow logically from what preceded it

What you said was:

Israel, as an occupying Power, has undertaken measures to change the legal status... and character ... of the territory

Altering the electoral rules would change the character of the territory, would it not? Especially for such sweeping reforms as allowing women (roughly 50% of the population) and non-landowners the vote where they had never had it before? Essentially it changes the land from an aristocracy to a democracy. That changes the character, I'm sure you can agree, and the legal status. You don't seem to have noticed that you included multiple points in one sentence and so I split it up to better address those points. I shall be careful not to do that again, lest you accuse me of similar errors in the future.

Now, do you have any response to the many, many points you have just allowed to fall by the wayside? I did put a lot of time and effort researching and making these posts and I think it rude that you won't even respond.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The prior treatment of Palestinians at the hands of others is utterly irrelevant.

No, it is not. It actually speaks to the rabid anti-Semitism held by the Palestinian people. You see, Jordan illegally occupied them for 19 years and they never said a peep. Israel then took over and actually granted them more rights, freedoms and autonomy than they ever had under Jordanian rule, and suddenly it is an outrage. The only plausible explanation is that the Palestinians are violently anti-Semitic, and that says to me that withdrawing from the West Bank alone will solve nothing for Israel.

They are in a war zone because they are resisting an occupation.

Don't you make me laugh. Their "resistance" started three years before they were occupied.

But tell me this... If the "war" stopped, would they have the same rights as "other Israelis"?

No, because that would mean Israel is annexing the West Bank, and Israel is not interested in adding that to her territory. If the war stopped, Israel would take it as a sign of good faith and move towards greater Palestinian autonomy and an eventual Palestinian state.

the states of Japan and Germany had been aggressors in a War; as there was no Palestinian state it cannot have been an aggressor in war.

Palestine was occupied by Jordan who was the aggressor in a war.

the allied occupations of Japan and Germany were carried out at first prior to, then acquiesced to by the UN.

But it is true that the UN has never said anything about the Chinese occupation in Tibet. I suppose you think, then, they have every right to be there, throwing priests in jail and committing acts of violence against the populace?

the allied occupations of Japan and Germany were brought to an end within a reasonable time.

You should add to the end of that sentence, "after the end of hostilities." After fighting stopped, it took a good few years for occupation to end. Fighting has not stopped in the West Bank and Gaza, but if it did, you'd expect Israeli occupation to end in a similar period of time.

the allied occupations of Japan and Germany did not involve substantial violations of other human rights, as Israel's has.

I keep asking you to be specific and you keep ducking the issue. Tell me what you are talking about and I'll address that. You could say, with all truth, that the Canadian government was committing "substantial violations of other human rights" but the fact is that without examples you cannot tell whether these are unfortunate exceptions or policy.

the allied occupations of Japan and Germany did not involve massive illegal proto-annexations and colonization

Once again, you need to be specific, and you are not.

Israel's bloody psychodrama with the Palestinians is in no way on a moral or operational par with the challenge and defeat of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan.

You are blustering. Statements like this, combined with your near-total lack of factual knowledge, do nothing more than showcase your own ignorance.

It cannot be the policy because it makes no sense. It cannot succeed, it is guaranteed to fail. It's like if I tell you I'll only strangle you until you stop trying to breathe -- then you're free to go. Can you go for a deal like that?

Your example is not fitting. It's would be more like saying, "I'll let you go once you stop trying to hit me."

the Settlement policy is clearly not "just waiting". It is filling up the west bank with Israelis.

What you are basically saying is that for there to be peace, the West Bank must be judenrein. That says volumes about the Palestinian sentiments, for they are basically stating that they will not live in peace beside Jews, ever. I won't even state what it says about you, as you've found such comments offensive in the past. But think about it.

The last conditions imposed on such a deal in the Oslo process were ludicrous, so much so that it cannot be considered a bona fide offer.

Be specific. What were the conditions and why were they a problem?

1) If it was occupied illegally by Jordan, who was otherwise the rightful sovereign and/or mandated administrator?

The UN made a partition plan in 1947 in which the West Bank was to have formed part of an independent Arab state in western Palestine. The Jews accepted this plan, the Arabs did not. Jordan invaded the territory in 1948 and formally annexed it in 1950.

Does this entity not then, according to international law have the entitlement to claim the territory back from under Israel military occupation?

The owning entity never came into existence because of the actions of the surrounding Arab nations.

Is Israel willing to have an impartial arbiter rule on that?

If the arbiter is truly impartial, very probably yes. Do you know of one? (hint: it's not the UN)

Arafat's success at those times depended in large part on the acqueisence of a majority of factions, rather than solely on his ability to supress them. Moreover, Arafat's state has been demolished now.

No, it has not. Arafat is still in command. I suppose you could say that a majority of factions were acquiescent, most people are when you are slitting their throats.

Don't make me chase you around QUOTE]

Is this a joke? Haven't I spent ages asking you to back up your posts with fact and sources, and you still are not doing that, are you?

what is a 'feasible roadmap'?

Something that contains a process by which Palestine can acquire the organs of a modern and democratic state: democratic institutions, a proper police force, an independent and unpoliticised army, a judicial system, etc. to the point where they can successfully rule themselves.

What constitutes a proper Palestinian state?

A sovereign state with the attributes described above, and more. I wouldn't have thought I'd have had to define "state" to you.

Also, what about refugees and reparations?

What about them? Where are the Arab concessions for the 1 million Jews who fled their countries for Israel? Where are their reparations for the wars they have started with Israel, and the damage that terrorism has caused?

So you posit a positive obligation on Israels neighbors to safeguard it against the consequences of its foreign policy. Interesting. But groundless.

No, I expect Israel's neighbours to abide by the peace treaties they signed.

I must have missed that. What were the terms of the offer again? When was it?

There were no terms because the Arabs never began any dialogue with Israel. Israel intimated that she wanted peace and would trade the land she had gained to get it. The Arabs hid behind the sofa and pretended not to be home.

Then in August, they met in Khartoum and signed the "Three Noes": "no peace with Israel, no negotiations with Israel, no recognition of Israel." And that pretty much put an end to any Israeli delusions that the Arabs might be willing to accept an offer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The "rabid anti-semitism" you allege among Palestininas is irrelevant to the question of their right to self-determination, as is the treatment they received from parties prior to Israel's Occupation.

Furthermore, whatever geo-political machinations by Arab states you claim led to the Occupation are equally irrelevant to the question of whtether Palestinians have a right to self-determination.

You said Palestinians don't have the right to the same rights as "other Isrealis", because of the resistance to the Occupation, but when I ask if they would have these rights if the resistance stopped, you admit they would not. You are belied by your own inconsistencies.

You ask me to be sepcific about violations of human right in the West Bank. Fine: the Occupation iteslf is a violation of human rights, the demolition of homes is a violation of human rights, the roundups and detentions without trials are violations of human rights, military action heedless of civilian casualties is a violation of human rights, and torturing prisoners is a violation of human rights.

You ask me to be specific about my phrase 'illegal proto-annexations. I beilve you are being disingenuous. I refer to the settlement of Israeli citizens intGaza and the West Bank.

We have each offered a metaphor to describe Israel's Occupation:

Sweal: "I'll only strangle you until you stop trying to breathe -- then you're free to go."

Hugo: "I'll let you go once you stop trying to hit me."

You position is faulty since it ignores the fact that they have no basis to have hold of them in the first place.

Now, for second time you have alluded to some anti-semitism on my part with your reference to 'judenrien'.

It is both a fallacious argument in terms of the obligations of occupying powers under international law, and an abusive aspersion to cast on me.

That sort of thing is the reflex of a person of low character, who is losing an argument, and knows it.

As this is the second time you have resorted to such abuses, I conclude you cannot discuss this issue with civility, and so, I will no longer discuss it with you at all.

Good day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The "rabid anti-semitism" you allege among Palestininas is irrelevant to the question of their right to self-determination

Once again, Israel is not interested in having an independent state on her border who hates Israel with a ferocious intensity and wants her destroyed and her people dead. This is common sense.

when I ask if they would have these rights if the resistance stopped, you admit they would not. You are belied by your own inconsistencies.

Once again, Israel is not interested in adding the West Bank to her territory on any permanent basis so it does not make sense for her to commit an act of annexation, does it?

the Occupation iteslf is a violation of human rights

No more so than any other military occupation, for instance, the occupation of Nazi Germany or imperialist Japan. Those are comparable. With Germany, for instance, you have a people whose sworn goal was to destroy you and who cannot be trusted with their own state again until we can safely say that that goal has been changed and the leadership changed - like Palestine.

demolition of homes is a violation of human rights

Israeli intelligence attempts to find out which homes are being used as bases of terrorist operation or as the outlets for tunnels used to supply terrorists. They then take that information before a judge or the military equivalent, who alone can order the demolition.

It's like the way the Canadian police obtain a search warrant. Before they can violate a citizen's rights, they have to have good evidence and prove their case to a judge who will empower them to break and enter a private citizen's dwelling.

the roundups and detentions without trials are violations of human rights

Who was rounded up and detained without trial and when? The Israeli judicial system is modeled on the British and subscribes to habeas corpus, so if any such arrests and detentions have taken place it is against Israeli law.

The only exception is the same as the British system where the state can request a closed trial because evidence presented in that trial might, if made public, endanger the source of that evidence. As in the British system, the accused has the right to appeal against a closed trial to a judge.

military action heedless of civilian casualties is a violation of human rights

Any examples of these military actions? Any evidence that no inquiries were held into them, if they existed?

torturing prisoners is a violation of human rights

Who was tortured, when, and where? Please also prove that no investigation of the torturers took place.

Mine is more accurate, since it captures the nature of the position more completely.

No, it is wrong. When the Palestinians have ceased the violence in the past they have been given more powers. The Israelis armed their independent security forces, granted them elections and so forth. When they start committing acts of terror again, unsurprisingly the IDF clamps down. It's very logical.

Now, for second time you have alluded to some anti-semitism on my part with your reference to 'judenrien'.

No, I said that was what you were intimating and invited you to examine your own position more closely because you vehemently denied any anti-semitic position in the past. In light of that I wanted to give you an opportunity to explain yourself before I labelled you as anything. Hence my comment took the form of a warning about what your statements said about you and the advice that you should think about it.

That sort of thing is the reflex of a person of low character, who is losing an argument, and knows it... As this is the second time you have resorted to such abuses, I conclude you cannot discuss this issue with civility, and so, I will no longer discuss it with you at all.

If you seriously wish to continue this debate and the only thing stopping you is my attitude, then I will wholeheartedly recant every aspersion I have cast upon your character. I hereby state categorically that I do not believe you are an evil person, that you harbor any hatred or animosity towards Jews or that you hold any bias against them. I apologise for any slander directed against you, real or perceived, and I can only say that any such comments were motivated by a bigotry I thought I perceived behind your words but which was not, in fact, there.

Do you accept my apology, and consent to continue this debate?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Jews have the longest period of ownership and were founders of the city. That makes it theirs, in English Common Law. The Palestinians have never attached any special significance to Jerusalem before now.

The Jews? Any Jew? Prior to 1948, there was no national entity known as Israel. Does that mean, then, that any Jew could simply claim ownership of any part of Jerusalem?

The Palestinian Authority was offered jurisdiction over the Muslim holy sites on Temple Mount and rejected that offer.

On what grounds?

Alright, I can see I'm not getting through to you with that logic. Let's try another avenue. If the inclusion of the word "all" is irrelevant and does not matter, as you claim, why did the Soviet and Arab delegates try so hard to have the word "all" included, and why do international lawyers agree that that word is of crucial importance?

We are dealing with documents of law here. They are worded very specifically so as to leave no doubt. What you are telling me is that you know more of international law than the Soviet delegation to the UN, which I find extremely hard to believe.

First: your logic on this is completely backwards.

Second: In agree the inclusion of the word all is important: the Arab nations fought to have it included in otrder to aboid the hair-splitting that resulted in the current situation whereby Israel can ride a loophole to hang on to its ill-gotten gains.

So what we have is a non-binding opinion offered in complete contradiction of the statute of the very body that offered it. Good case.

I think Israel's reaction was perfectly sound, basically, "Yeah, whatever."

Your still wrong in stating the ruling was in violation of the ICJ's mandate. It's within the ICJ's mandate to give a non-binding legal opinion when asked to do so by relevant UN organisations, as happened in this case.

Altering the electoral rules would change the character of the territory, would it not? Especially for such sweeping reforms as allowing women (roughly 50% of the population) and non-landowners the vote where they had never had it before? Essentially it changes the land from an aristocracy to a democracy. That changes the character, I'm sure you can agree, and the legal status. You don't seem to have noticed that you included multiple points in one sentence and so I split it up to better address those points. I shall be careful not to do that again, lest you accuse me of similar errors in the future.

First: Palestinian Arab residents of the Occupied Territories don't have any legal status within the state of Israelm, so your argument only applies to the settlements.

Israel has continued to expand settlements into the territories, which confirms my earlier statement that they are changing the legal status of the territories through changing the ownership.

Israel and legal status of settlements.

Now, do you have any response to the many, many points you have just allowed to fall by the wayside? I did put a lot of time and effort researching and making these posts and I think it rude that you won't even respond.

I resopond to the point sI can with the time I have, which itself is limited. Sorry, but i have other demands on my time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Jews? Any Jew? Prior to 1948, there was no national entity known as Israel. Does that mean, then, that any Jew could simply claim ownership of any part of Jerusalem?

This was, in fact, the goal of the pre-1948 Zionist movement: to buy up land in what would become Israel for Jewish settlement.

However, the fact remains that Jerusalem is the historic Jewish capital, and the only reason they have not remained there throughout history is foreign aggression and invasion, by Babylonians, Crusaders, Arabs and so forth. To argue that this means that Israel no longer has any special claim to Jerusalem is arguing that might makes right, that the robbed have no right to redress. And English Common Law holds that, as the original owners of Jerusalem, the Jews are the true owners of the city (ownership is relative, not absolute).

On what grounds?

Because Arafat is unwilling to accept any compromise on Jerusalem and will reject out-of-hand any offer that does not give him complete control of the city.

In agree the inclusion of the word all is important: the Arab nations fought to have it included in otrder to aboid the hair-splitting that resulted in the current situation whereby Israel can ride a loophole to hang on to its ill-gotten gains.

So, we are in agreement that Israel has fully complied with Resolution 242 and that if Israel is breaking any international laws, it isn't that one.

Oh, and it's pretty laughable that you find territory the Israelis won defending themselves in a war which the Arabs began with the stated goal of annihiliating Israel "ill-gotten gains."

Your still wrong in stating the ruling was in violation of the ICJ's mandate.

No, I am not. Article 36 of the Statute of the ICJ categorically states that a contentious matter may only be brought before the court (not judged, or that the judgement be binding) with the consent of both sides. Israel did not consent, so it was in violation of the ICJ statute for them to even convene on the matter.

Palestinian Arab residents of the Occupied Territories don't have any legal status within the state of Israelm

No, they fall under the jurisdiction of the Palestinian Authority.

Israel has continued to expand settlements into the territories, which confirms my earlier statement that they are changing the legal status of the territories through changing the ownership.

You are right, Israel is seeking to promote Jewish settlement in areas of heavy fighting such as the Tel Aviv-Jerusalem corridor. It is their belief that Jewish settlement in this area will stabilise it and bring peace to the area, for both sides.

Please note that no Arab settlements have been displaced and no Arabs forced to move. The Israeli settlements have all been constructed on uninhabited land.

Here is a statement from the Israeli Foreign Ministry from May 2001:

Politically, the West Bank and Gaza Strip is best regarded as territory over which there are competing claims which should be resolved in peace process negotiations. Israel has valid claims to title in this territory based not only on its historic and religious connection to the land, and its recognized security needs, but also on the fact that the territory was not under the sovereignty of any state and came under Israeli control in a war of self-defense, imposed upon Israel. At the same time, Israel recognizes that the Palestinians also entertain legitimate claims to the area. Indeed, the very fact that the parties have agreed to conduct negotiations on settlements indicated that they envisage a compromise on this issue.

What the Israelis have said is that they have legitimate claims on the area, as do the Palestinians. For that reason they will allow Palestinian settlement too. They see no reason why any Israeli who wished to live in the West Bank in an independent Palestinian state could not do so, just as Arabs and Jews live as neighbours in Israel itself.

The intolerance here comes from the Palestinians, who insist that the West Bank must be purged of Jews before it is acceptable to them. It's unlikely that Jewish settlement would skew a Palestinian state politically, Jews make up 17% of the population right now and it is for certain that many of those would return to Israel in the event of Palestinian independence.

Lastly, this is not forced settlement. Israel acquired this land fairly and is there legally. It has been offered back to the party they won it from, that offer was rejected. Because Israel is a free society, they do not believe in stopping free citizens who wish to return to settle the historically Jewish area of the West Bank. Jews who settle there are invited to go, but not forced.

I resopond to the point sI can with the time I have, which itself is limited. Sorry, but i have other demands on my time.

Well, then I look forward to hearing your responses in the fullness of time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, I am not. Article 36 of the Statute of the ICJ categorically states that a contentious matter may only be brought before the court (not judged, or that the judgement be binding) with the consent of both sides. Israel did not consent, so it was in violation of the ICJ statute for them to even convene on the matter.

It doesn't say that at all.

1.The jurisdiction of the Court comprises all cases which the parties refer to it and all matters specially provided for in the Charter of the United Nations or in treaties and conventions in force.

Am I to assume then that you know more about international law and the workings of the ICJ than the people running it do? Because one would expect that such a glaring violation of the court's own statutes would be seized upon by Israel. Yet on that matter, they've ben silent.

U.N. votes 150-6 against West Bank barrier

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,713
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nyralucas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...