Jump to content

Peace in Occupied Palestine


Figleaf

Recommended Posts

If you want to claim something is against the law, you can at least show the law that you suppose that it is in violation of.

Are you unfamiliar with it and need to be convince it exists, or are you aware of it and just making work for me?

Have you or have you not actually read the law which you claim that Israel is violating?

I've read about it in authoritative sources.

Do you or do you not have a link to a source that lists this law?

Not at my fingertips.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 88
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

If we start at the end of Ottoman rule and the begining of the British protectorate, it is difficult to see exactly what ethical premise allowed for the establishment of Israel on Palestinian lands at all. But if you accept that the world community had the authority to permit the establishment of Israel, then you must logically accept that it's proposed disposition of the remaining lands is authoritative too.

Contrary to popular belief, Israel wasn't "established" by either Britain or the "world community". There was a UN partition plan, to split the area between a Jewish and an Arab state. Though the Jews were less than completely happy with the plan, they accepted it, but the Arabs rejected the plan, and invaded Israel.

You are overlooking important details, and using terminology inexactly. The Jewish settlers in the region assigned to them under the partition plan unilaterally declared the existence of Israel at the time the British Mandate expired. This unilateral declaration was recognized in the United Nations. Both the surrounding Arab states as well as the Arab people living in the affected region (the 'Palestinians') rejected both the partition plan as well as the authority of the UN or western powers to create the plan. Various Arab states went to war to resist that plan in 1948.

The reason is that the actions of the states of Jordan or Egypt are not attachable to the Palestinian people.

Actually, yes, they are.

No, they are not.

The Arabs in Gaza, under the jurisdiction of Egypt, participated in the attacks against Israel, as did the Arabs in the West Bank, under the jurisdiction of Jordan.

It may be that inhabitants of those regions joined the fighting, but that doesn't change the fact I noted earlier. The actions of Arab states are not attachable to the Palestinian people.

I would say that the loss (by Jordan) of the West Bank land on which these people lived, and subsequent massacre of Palestinian refugees in Jordan and expulsion of Palestinian refugees was a bigger wrong to them than anything Israel has done. At the time, Jordan was accused of Genocide of the Palestinian people and the death of ~20,000 Palestinians, but since then this has mostly been forgotten and all the Palestinian problems blamed on Israel.

All of which changes nothing about what I have said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its called international law. There are doctrines in international law or basic precepts. Such doctrines have arisen from many sources over the years including conventions, and cases in international court. You won't find it in any one document or case just as for example if you ask me where does the concept of soverignty come from.

The Israel/Palestine conflict is one of those sources from which traditions in international law have drawn from. Specifically, within the history of international law, the Israeli/Palestine conflict is treated as occupation. Sure it is disputed by Israel and others who support the occupation, but other bodies with just as much legitimacy to label and treat the situation as it is, treat it as occupation. Which is de facto, a foreign military and civilian occupation of a people who are subject to and displaced by said power. Suffering or benefiting from whatever consequences result from that.

No that is not it. That is what a layman thinks. Its like saying, you shoot, someone dies. Its murder. No not necessarily. For it to be murder, ne has to establish the person who committed the act intended to kill the person (mens rea) (criminal intent), in fact carried out the action, and was not justified in carrying out the action. No I am sorry to say you can't take international law and turn it into simplistic concepts that suit day to day language.

You seem to be denying that an occupation is what is in fact happening. You are attempting to justify it be appealing to an abstract notion of law (as you admit plainly above), thereby denying reality, both human and political. I suppose one could also deny that Britain, Spain, and France occupied the Americas. But in reality that is indeed what happened, (and continues to happen) ...denying it would be intellectually dishonest. You can call it layman if you want, i will call my criteria the fundamental basis of any law that could realistically deal with the actual problems of occupation.

Thank you for acknowledging that. I appreciate you at least concede that.

Yeah well, im not looking for Israel to be "pushed into the sea".

None. It is politically in my opinion only exasperating things. It may have at one point be intended as an anti-terrorist concept, i.e., use settlement posts as early warning posts for terrorist acts, but it politically has only served as a magnet for more terrorist attacks.

No purpose? Surely it serves some sort of religious purpose. It satisfies the urge for manifest destiny. It serves a similar purpose to how the European settlers viewed North America.

Im glad you at least concede that settlements are significantly bad news.

In fact at poin that was exactly what these settlers were used for in the war on terror. They also became a symbol that reminded the West Bank Palestinians that they were impotent and powerless to control their future.

Yes, i suppose politicians in all nations capitalize on religious fundamentalism in their societies. You speak in the past tense though - you are aware that settlement construction is still very active in the west bank? Not only are old settlements continously expanding, but brand new ones are being constructed!

Time and time again show 80-90% of Israelis polled do not want anything to do with the West Bank and realize the settlements have to be disbanded for there to be peace. Please believe me the majority of Israelis understand for their to be peace there needs to be a second Palestinian state in the West Bank.

Wow, talk about a huge democratic deficit. What is the matter, not only with Israel, but the US, Canada, and much of Europe that our leaders constantly do the opposite of what the voters want? I know the majority of Israelis do not support the continued occupation, but i have come to realize over the last decade or so that governments rarely if ever act in the interests of their people, and very rarely follow the popular mandate. (usually when countries do follow the popular will of the people, some powerful democratic nation comes along and incites a coup or an insurgency, in order to protect business and trade interests. In other words, it seems increasingly irrelevent to me what 80-90% of Israelis want in polls, until they take to the streets and cause the government and economy to halt, there will be no change to the elite orthodox interests that are influential in Israel.

The issue holding up peace is not disbanding settlements, but how and when to do it. It became impossible to do, when Arafat suddenly reverted back to the destroy Israel at all costs approach he did. It in fact prevented the Palestinian moderates within the Palestinian Authority from making an orderly transition.

That does not explain the ongoing settlement activity. The issue is more how to stop it from happening first and foremost, and only secondly how and when to remove the existing ones.

It does not mean in the future it can not be done.

I think the question is not will it be done, its who does it. I think you would agree with me that if Israel is ever weakened enough that the settlements are left unprotected, it wont be pretty. It has potential to be an outright bloodbath. But perhaps you don't agree with me that if Israel does not do it in good time, that is is only a matter of time before things begin to topple over the brink?

I am not sure what you meant by the above? Muslim and Christian Israelis have full participation and equal legal rights within Israel. Palestinians in the West Bank have made it clear they do not wish to be Israeli or Jordanian but which to be citizens in their own country. It would be unrealistic to think West Bank Palestinians want to be anything but independent Palestinians.

Yes, anybody living within Israel as a citizen is able to vote freely in Israeli elections, that is true. My apologies for misstating that. But i was wondering if the muslim population, about as big as the jewish population with double the birth rate, be allowed to participate freely in Israeli elections, if Israel failed to ever withdraw and a one state solution was the only likely or possible outcome?

Or would they be treated the same as Muslim citizens of East Jerusalem who are mostly barred or prevented from voting in Palestinian elections (remembering that Israel is the occupying force and as such has a responsibility to allow and facilitate, even encourage, voting in free national elections). In 2006 ~6000 residents of east jerusalem (of a total arab population in east jerusalem of ~220 000 residents) were allowed to vote locally in the Jan. 2006 Palestinian elections. The rest were told they had to travel to west bank polling stations if the wanted to vote, not an easy task with all the checkpoints and barriers they have to travel through. They are limited from voting in their own elections on land that is under Israeli occupation.

Trapped in a never ending hell. As long as terrorists exploit their name and statelessness to justify terrorism, they suffer because each time Israel retaliates to defend its people they get caught in the cross fire not to mention they suffer at the hands of the terrorists who forbid them from doing anything peaceful with Israel or Jordan.

Israel typically retaliates with a far more deadly form of terrorism. Israelis are also being exploited by their own 'evil' men and women of power who pursue ideology and conflict, as opposed to rationality and peace.

But yes, palestinians will be caught in a cycle of terror, and so will Israelis. All for some abstract notion of religion and nationality, on both sides.

Israel has nod esire to control the entire region politically. Israel's concern is blatant and transparent. It is concerned with preventing terrorist attacks NOTHING else...

...Disarm the terrorists, take away the terrorist attacks, the IDF and Israeli government has no reason to concern itself with anything outside the 1949 to 1967 borders which it and the Arab League have already agreed everyone can live with as well as the Arab League conceding such a border is not realistic if terrorist attacks can continue from the West Bank or Gaza.

I dont believe that. If that was true they would not have immediately annexed east jerusalem and called all of jerusalem their capital, and they certainly would not persist to this day in expanding and building brand new religious settlements in the west bank. If what you say is true Israel would not have engaged in their own brand of terror by peppering southern lebanon with massive amounts of cluster bomblets last summer, engaging in assasinations, air war, or the bulldozing of homes. Engaging in terror is surely a perverse way to prevent terror. Israel is as much in pursuit of an ideology as any nation, or would-be nation. And they have shown quite clearly they are willing to kill and die for it, at all costs. As have the palestinians, as have all nations.

Absolutely. To me what is happening now is not the end. People said the same thing about Northern Ireland and yet the terrorists were disarmed and when that disarmament was achieved, peaceful dialogue then ensued.

I will say it again. If a way could be found to disarm the terror, peace is possible. Ironically if Fatah considers Hamas now its most serious enemy, it may choose to make serious signals to ISrael it will leave peacefully with it and prevent terror attacks from the West Bank which will in fact be the first stage of the Palestinian nation of the West Bank and enable Israeli politicians and military to justify pulling out since they can tell their people-we have good reason to believe we can pull out.

There is absolutely nothing from preventing Israel to begin withdrawing right away. Their security situation would remain unchanged in the short term, but it would change other things. It would immediately change the perception that Israel has no desire to expand into much of the west bank, it would also greatly reduce the influence and power of those armed groups who use occupation as a cause and recruitment tool for resistance. And ultimately it would restore international legitimacy for israel. It is unrealistic to ask the palestinians to disavow violence when even israel itself was created with violence and continues to rely on it, as have all nations. If we support the existence of Israel or any other nation, that means we support the idea that ends justify the means. We cant realistically take that away from the palestinians. We can't realistically expect nations like the US, Israel, or any nation to renounce violence as a means to their ends, its never going to work with the palestinians.

What needs to happen is negotiations between whoever the legitimate leaders of the palestinian people happen to be, even in the midst of violence, and both sides have to make politically uncomfortable and painful compromises. That takes courage but it really is the only hope.

Israel's agenda can't be more transparent. It is so blatantly transparen I am suprised you said that. In fact it is so blatantly transparent that the Arab League, Mr. Abbas, Hamas, Hezbollah, the very Arab nations you say do not understand what they want,know exactly what they want.

Its called being left alone to live in peace.

As you have read already i don't agree with you on that, for good reasons. One could easily say that all Palestinians want is to be "left alone to live in piece" and it would be just as false. Everybody wants more than that, and nobody ever leaves anybody alone to live in piece. All of human civilization is the exact opposite of that.

It is precisely because this is so well kown, Hamas, Hezbollah,PFLP, and countless other terrorist cells deliberately make statements to recognizing its desire for peace and being left alone, and taunt this desire by constantly calling on their people to wipe out Israel and kill Jews and Israel supporters world wide until its done. That is the point of the terror....to ridicule the notion Israel could be safe and be tolerated by its Arab neighbours.

But one could easily quote Israelis who either refuse to recognize the existence of palestinian people or hold blatantly racist views towards them. Holding them as beasts or sub human. Im sure there are plenty of Israelis who just wish all the Palestinians would disappear, somehow.

But more importantly, by the same token, on both sides of the conflict, i read some very human and caring statements that do urge peace and genuinely want reconciliation. Thing is other interests, often corrupt and ideological ones, are always calling the shots and really ruining it for everybody. Same old story.

Andrew

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have one simple question about past and future negotiations:

In principle, why should Israel be allowed to keep ANY of the West Bank?

The only rule Israel respects is the rule of force - their own. And it has been longstanding Zionist policy to eject all Arabs from Jewish land since the origin of Zionism going back some 75 years now to the Balfour Declaration.

And it has been a Palestinian/Arab policy to demand that the State of Israel be disbanded.

They are made for each other.

Unfortunately, 'peace' is not what either side is looking for. Both are looking for 'unconditional victory' of their own side (and the utter destruction/anniliation of the other side).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ScottSA, FYI:
http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/index.p...&CODE=01&HID=17

POSTING CONTENT

All posts must contain some aspect of an argument or attempt to stimulate discussion. ...

You seem to have a lot of difficulty adhering to the forum rules. Hopefully that means you won't be around for much longer.

Well sweal, you've already been banned, so you shouldn't be here at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There can never be a 'one state' solution or a 'right of return' as that would be the elimination of Israel.

Are you suggesting that Israel is only modern industrialized and educated nation in the world that cannot live in a pluralistic society?

Why not?

Andrew

Because pluralistic societies work better when one side isn't trying to kill the other side because they think the other side are monkeys and pigs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There can never be a 'one state' solution or a 'right of return' as that would be the elimination of Israel.

Are you suggesting that Israel is only modern industrialized and educated nation in the world that cannot live in a pluralistic society?

Why not?

Andrew

Because pluralistic societies work better when one side isn't trying to kill the other side because they think the other side are monkeys and pigs.

But this is exactly why pluralistic societies developed, as a response to tribalism. By either side in this conflict insisting on preserving some religious or ethnic character for their state they are dooming themselves to constant violence.

Andrew

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There can never be a 'one state' solution or a 'right of return' as that would be the elimination of Israel.

Are you suggesting that Israel is only modern industrialized and educated nation in the world that cannot live in a pluralistic society?

Why not?

Andrew

Israel has not yet decided if they are a pluralistic nation or not. It is halfway. In some respects, Israel is a Jewish Nation. In other respects, Israel is a pluralistic nation-state.

Until Israel decides this question for themselves, regarding their own relgion, you may assume that Israel is NOT a pluralistic society at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There can never be a 'one state' solution or a 'right of return' as that would be the elimination of Israel.

Are you suggesting that Israel is only modern industrialized and educated nation in the world that cannot live in a pluralistic society?

Why not?

Andrew

Israel has not yet decided if they are a pluralistic nation or not. It is halfway. In some respects, Israel is a Jewish Nation. In other respects, Israel is a pluralistic nation-state.

Until Israel decides this question for themselves, regarding their own relgion, you may assume that Israel is NOT a pluralistic society at all.

One one level Israel is pluralistic in that it confers the exact same legal rights to non Jews as it does Jews, i.e., same access to hospitals, schools, government services, same legal rights granted in the courts, guarantee to be serviced in Arabic, vote.

On a non political level, on a purely religious one, it is not pluralistic and struggles with the definition of who it should define as a Jew which it confers one legal right it does not give non Jews which is the automatic right to Israeli citizenship. That said, I am not sure if I, a Reform Jew would be recognized as a Jew and be granted the right of citizxenship simply for being Jewish, since by the Rabbinical courts in Israel do not recognize me as being Jewish. So its a complicated issue and it sound slike it discriminates in favour of Jews with that one right but it does discriminate even with Jews. There was a huge debate when Ethiopian Jews came to Israel because these same Rabbinical courts questioned their Jewishness until a compromise had to be reached.

With the exception of this law of return which applies only to qualifying Jews giving them automatic Israeli citizenship Israel is as pluralistic as any Western nation if not more so when we look at the way say Europeans, i.e., France have treated their citizens of colour or African or Arabic origins or the way many European countries have treated their "guest workers" from Turkey, etc. Of course if you are British, do you really think a Jew or a Muslim or a Catholic could be a Baron or Lord?

In the Muslim countries where there is no seperation of religion from state, if you are a Christian or Jew, you are not allowed to vote or own property. Then again the problem was further solved by simply throwing all the Jews out and to this day simply killing or persecuting Christians, Bahaiis, or Hindus.

Now you want to talk pluralism, we must ask is any country really pluralistic? Can it be? We of course think we are in Canada but if you were aboriginal or say a young black man stopped by the police simply because you are young and driving a nice car, you may not think so.

If you are a new Canadian struggling to find a job you may not think so.

If you are someone with a mental illness or disability who no one wants to hire or does not provide access to, you would not think so.

Its all in the eye of the beholder and it can be subjectively and selectively used by people in political arguements.

I think pluralism varies and can occur on different levels and in many variable forms. Say for example the U.S. We know its constitution insists religion and state are seperated to guarantee pluralism but if you are aboriginal, Latino or Black, you may have strong opinions as to how pluralistic it has been when it comes to the history of your people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Being the nation that has fought off the attacks from Jordan, Israel would be within her rights to demand a buffer between herself and her enemies. This principle was put in place after the second world war with italy and germany by ceding territory to the nations that were attacked by Italy and Germany.

Back then of course the populations of those territories ceded were transported and moved. This is not practical now given that Jordan will not accept the populations and would rather come down with a case of the clap than have the palestinians as citizens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because they were attacked from that land and those who attacked were defeated. You don't get to go back to square one and start over again until you win if you were defeated.

So Japan is really US territory now?

Ask the japanese residents of her northern Islands.....hint, they don't live their any more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ScottSA, FYI:
http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/index.p...&CODE=01&HID=17

POSTING CONTENT

All posts must contain some aspect of an argument or attempt to stimulate discussion. ...

You seem to have a lot of difficulty adhering to the forum rules. Hopefully that means you won't be around for much longer.

Ironic, isn't it, given that figleaf has finally been given a 30 day holiday :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There can never be a 'one state' solution or a 'right of return' as that would be the elimination of Israel.

Are you suggesting that Israel is only modern industrialized and educated nation in the world that cannot live in a pluralistic society?

Why not?

Andrew

Because pluralistic societies work better when one side isn't trying to kill the other side because they think the other side are monkeys and pigs.

But this is exactly why pluralistic societies developed, as a response to tribalism. By either side in this conflict insisting on preserving some religious or ethnic character for their state they are dooming themselves to constant violence.

Andrew

With due respect, this is utter nonsense. I can't think of a single case in which pluralism emerged from tribalism without going through several steps first. Even our own homie tribalists in North America haven't quite made it out of the woods, so to speak, on that score yet. Can you give me an example of political pluralism developing on its own "as a response to tribalism?" But leaving that aside for a moment, aren't you actually answering your own question?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There can never be a 'one state' solution or a 'right of return' as that would be the elimination of Israel.

Are you suggesting that Israel is only modern industrialized and educated nation in the world that cannot live in a pluralistic society?

Why not?

Andrew

Show me a pluralistic Muslim country? There isn't one. Thus, the Jews have a pretty good idea what would happen with a "one state" solution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the Muslim countries where there is no seperation of religion from state, if you are a Christian or Jew, you are not allowed to vote or own property.
Nor, in most cases, can Muslims.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One one level Israel is pluralistic in that it confers the exact same legal rights to non Jews as it does Jews, i.e., same access to hospitals, schools, government services, same legal rights granted in the courts, guarantee to be serviced in Arabic, vote.

I recommend you check out marriage laws in Israel and notice who has the State authority over the issue there. Israel is thus not a pluralistic society.

Israel wants to pretend that it is pluralistic, but it doesn't meet the basic definition.

On a non political level, on a purely religious one, it is not pluralistic and struggles with the definition of who it should define as a Jew which it confers one legal right it does not give non Jews which is the automatic right to Israeli citizenship. That said, I am not sure if I, a Reform Jew would be recognized as a Jew and be granted the right of citizxenship simply for being Jewish, since by the Rabbinical courts in Israel do not recognize me as being Jewish. So its a complicated issue and it sound slike it discriminates in favour of Jews with that one right but it does discriminate even with Jews. There was a huge debate when Ethiopian Jews came to Israel because these same Rabbinical courts questioned their Jewishness until a compromise had to be reached.

With the exception of this law of return which applies only to qualifying Jews giving them automatic Israeli citizenship Israel is as pluralistic as any Western nation if not more so when we look at the way say Europeans, i.e., France have treated their citizens of colour or African or Arabic origins or the way many European countries have treated their "guest workers" from Turkey, etc. Of course if you are British, do you really think a Jew or a Muslim or a Catholic could be a Baron or Lord?

In the Muslim countries where there is no seperation of religion from state, if you are a Christian or Jew, you are not allowed to vote or own property. Then again the problem was further solved by simply throwing all the Jews out and to this day simply killing or persecuting Christians, Bahaiis, or Hindus.

Now you want to talk pluralism, we must ask is any country really pluralistic? Can it be? We of course think we are in Canada but if you were aboriginal or say a young black man stopped by the police simply because you are young and driving a nice car, you may not think so.

If you are a new Canadian struggling to find a job you may not think so.

If you are someone with a mental illness or disability who no one wants to hire or does not provide access to, you would not think so.

Its all in the eye of the beholder and it can be subjectively and selectively used by people in political arguements.

I think pluralism varies and can occur on different levels and in many variable forms. Say for example the U.S. We know its constitution insists religion and state are seperated to guarantee pluralism but if you are aboriginal, Latino or Black, you may have strong opinions as to how pluralistic it has been when it comes to the history of your people.

All of this says that there is a lot of 'grey area' when it comes to pluralism and not all nations are perfect. I agree.

However, there is a basis functional defintion of poltiical pluralism and Israel doesn't meet it in a way that most Western nations actually do. Granted even the most pluralistic western nation falls short of absolute perfection-pluralism, but that is secondary to the key point here. Israel is not a pluralist society even at the basic political definition.

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.

Guest
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 - Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...