Topic: Palestine & israel? What do you think about that situation? - page 8. (Read 15034 times)
Beliathon's response isn't really off topic. I see his point as being that so much of the Palestinian/Israeli conflict is tied up in religious aspects, and when you look at it through that lens, it's completely on topic. It would be easier to solve the land dispute if people didn't believe in an afterlife, because they might be more ready to accept that you get one life and we have to learn to live together, because there are no second chances to live better next time.
We are the gods of life and death now,
I am not telling you to pray God or something but just asking a question:
If you think humans are gods of life and death, can you predict an exact time of a death or birth?
Please guy, can we stay on topic? However thanks for your opinion but keep off the religion question of this thread
. I want to discuss about the political side/view.United Nations serve the needs of a few countries only.It's useless.
This is obvious, if they want to help Palestine who can stop them? The problem is they don't want "at all" help the Palestinian people.
United Nations serve the needs of a few countries only.It's useless.
hero member
Activity: 560
Merit: 509
I prefer Zakir over Muhammed when mentioning me!
We are the gods of life and death now,
I am not telling you to pray God or something but just asking a question:
If you think humans are gods of life and death, can you predict an exact time of a death or birth?
I think religion has absolutely no place in a world in which the atom can be split and viruses can be crafted. There is no room for superstition in the twenty first century, no room at all.
We are the gods of life and death now, the sole steward species of Earth, and we ought to take that power - that responsibility - very seriously. Real gods shouldn't worship false gods, it's a piss-poor excuse to behave like barbarians.
We are the gods of life and death now, the sole steward species of Earth, and we ought to take that power - that responsibility - very seriously. Real gods shouldn't worship false gods, it's a piss-poor excuse to behave like barbarians.
The flotilla raid happened because Israel (and to some extent Egypt) are controlling what enters Gaza to try to prevent weapons from being smuggled into Gaza. The explicit purpose of the flotilla was to break the blockade. More than one ship was raided. The only one where people were killed was the one where the people fought.
The United Nations should control the maritime area around the Gaza Strip. It should be their responsibility to prevent weapons from being smuggled in to Gaza. Israel should be kept out of that part of the world.
There are a lot of state help Israel, but when someone wants to help Palestine they is stopped : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_flotilla_raid
The flotilla raid happened because Israel (and to some extent Egypt) are controlling what enters Gaza to try to prevent weapons from being smuggled into Gaza. The explicit purpose of the flotilla was to break the blockade. More than one ship was raided. The only one where people were killed was the one where the people fought. Quoting from the wikipedia article you cited:
"The five other ships in the flotilla employed passive resistance, which was suppressed without major incident."
However, I think it's not quite true to say that groups are stopped when they want to help the people in the Palestinian territories:
"Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip receive one of the highest levels of aid in the world."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_aid_to_Palestinians
It's several billion dollars worth of aid each year. Most of this aid comes from Europe.
If the Palestinian state (which state?) will be recognized by the UN I think a lot of things will change.
If you think a lot of things will change, then it should be easy for you to give two or three specific examples of things that will change.
Yes, I think when I said "the only power the US has at the UN..." it was oversimplifying, especially in light of the examples you bring up. Your word "influence" seems appropriate. I'll propose two statements that I suspect most people will agree are true. (If I'm wrong, feel free to chime in.)
(USIUN) The US has more influence on the UN than most other countries.
(USUNI) The US sometimes uses its influence at the UN to help Israel.
People are free to think these are good or bad things, of course, I'm just saying it might be two points we at least agree are true.
There was the embryo of a discussion a few pages ago about whether or not Palestine was a "country" when under British rule after WW1. Some people here think it was, and I think it wasn't. I said it wasn't because it was never under autonomous self-rule. Arguably it's more under autonomous self-rule now than it has ever been. I'm not sure of a criteria that counts the Palestine under British rule as a country, but doesn't, for example, count Kurdistan as a country.
Fun questions to play with your definition of "country": Was the Confederate States of America a country in the early 1860s? Is it now an occupied country? It depends on who you ask, of course, and I'm sure it can start some fights if asked in the right (wrong?) saloons.
(USIUN) The US has more influence on the UN than most other countries.
(USUNI) The US sometimes uses its influence at the UN to help Israel.
People are free to think these are good or bad things, of course, I'm just saying it might be two points we at least agree are true.
There was the embryo of a discussion a few pages ago about whether or not Palestine was a "country" when under British rule after WW1. Some people here think it was, and I think it wasn't. I said it wasn't because it was never under autonomous self-rule. Arguably it's more under autonomous self-rule now than it has ever been. I'm not sure of a criteria that counts the Palestine under British rule as a country, but doesn't, for example, count Kurdistan as a country.
Fun questions to play with your definition of "country": Was the Confederate States of America a country in the early 1860s? Is it now an occupied country? It depends on who you ask, of course, and I'm sure it can start some fights if asked in the right (wrong?) saloons.
There are a lot of state help Israel, but when someone wants to help Palestine they is stopped : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_flotilla_raid
I haven't counted the countries that recognize a Palestinian state, but I expect you're right that it is a majority (both in terms of number of countries and counted by population). It's not surprising. A huge part of the world is Muslim and they have their own motivations. (The Muslim world also has the numerical advantage in places like the UN since they have many different distinct states.) Among the rest of the world there is either a history of Jew-hatred, antipathy towards the US, or both.
Frankly, I suspect if we could have a worldwide referendum with the simple question: "Should the Jews be exterminated?" It would probably pass. That doesn't make me more comfortable with the idea.
I'm curious how people think the situation would change if a Palestinian state were to be recognized by the UN. Do they think rockets would stop being fired into Israel? Do they think Israel would stop responding? Israel responds to Syria (or its proxies in southern Lebanon) when they attack Israel. Would Israel let weapons flow freely into Gaza? It doesn't seem like it would change much.
I've heard rumours that Obama might recognize a Palestinian state before leaving office. If so, maybe we'll find out if anything would change.
Frankly, I suspect if we could have a worldwide referendum with the simple question: "Should the Jews be exterminated?" It would probably pass. That doesn't make me more comfortable with the idea.
I'm curious how people think the situation would change if a Palestinian state were to be recognized by the UN. Do they think rockets would stop being fired into Israel? Do they think Israel would stop responding? Israel responds to Syria (or its proxies in southern Lebanon) when they attack Israel. Would Israel let weapons flow freely into Gaza? It doesn't seem like it would change much.
I've heard rumours that Obama might recognize a Palestinian state before leaving office. If so, maybe we'll find out if anything would change.
If the Palestinian state (which state?) will be recognized by the UN I think a lot of things will change.
Someone made a point earlier about the US "controlling the UN" or something along those lines, and you dismissed it. Perhaps controlling is too harsh a word, but influencing is not, and the US has been instrumental in influencing a lack of UN-recognition for Palestine as a state, even as a majority of the nations on this planet have recognized it.
Yes, I think when I said "the only power the US has at the UN..." it was oversimplifying, especially in light of the examples you bring up. Your word "influence" seems appropriate. I'll propose two statements that I suspect most people will agree are true. (If I'm wrong, feel free to chime in.)
(USIUN) The US has more influence on the UN than most other countries.
(USUNI) The US sometimes uses its influence at the UN to help Israel.
People are free to think these are good or bad things, of course, I'm just saying it might be two points we at least agree are true.
There was the embryo of a discussion a few pages ago about whether or not Palestine was a "country" when under British rule after WW1. Some people here think it was, and I think it wasn't. I said it wasn't because it was never under autonomous self-rule. Arguably it's more under autonomous self-rule now than it has ever been. I'm not sure of a criteria that counts the Palestine under British rule as a country, but doesn't, for example, count Kurdistan as a country.
Fun questions to play with your definition of "country": Was the Confederate States of America a country in the early 1860s? Is it now an occupied country? It depends on who you ask, of course, and I'm sure it can start some fights if asked in the right (wrong?) saloons.
I haven't counted the countries that recognize a Palestinian state, but I expect you're right that it is a majority (both in terms of number of countries and counted by population). It's not surprising. A huge part of the world is Muslim and they have their own motivations. (The Muslim world also has the numerical advantage in places like the UN since they have many different distinct states.) Among the rest of the world there is either a history of Jew-hatred, antipathy towards the US, or both.
Frankly, I suspect if we could have a worldwide referendum with the simple question: "Should the Jews be exterminated?" It would probably pass. That doesn't make me more comfortable with the idea.
I'm curious how people think the situation would change if a Palestinian state were to be recognized by the UN. Do they think rockets would stop being fired into Israel? Do they think Israel would stop responding? Israel responds to Syria (or its proxies in southern Lebanon) when they attack Israel. Would Israel let weapons flow freely into Gaza? It doesn't seem like it would change much.
I've heard rumours that Obama might recognize a Palestinian state before leaving office. If so, maybe we'll find out if anything would change.
The only power the US has at the UN is the ability to veto anti-Israel resolutions in the Security Council (see Negroponte Doctrine).
In follow-up to my previous post, would just like to address this a little more. The US does have more influence than you let on. The US has been quite obstructionist in Palestine's attempts to gain international recognition.
Quote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_recognition_of_the_State_of_Palestine#Background
On 22 November 1974, United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3236 recognised the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination, national independence and sovereignty in Palestine. It also recognised the PLO as the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people, and accorded it observer status in the United Nations. The designation "Palestine" for the PLO was adopted by the United Nations in 1988 in acknowledgment of the Palestinian declaration of independence, but the proclaimed state still has no formal status within the system.
Shortly after the 1988 declaration, the State of Palestine was recognised by many developing states in Africa and Asia, and from communist and non-aligned states. At the time, however, the United States was using its Foreign Assistance Act and other measures to discourage other countries and international organisations from extending recognition. Although these measures were successful in many cases, the Arab League and the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC) immediately published statements of recognition of, support for, and solidarity with Palestine, which was accepted as a member state in both forums.
In February 1989 at the United Nations Security Council, the PLO representative acknowledged that 94 states had recognised the new Palestinian state. It subsequently attempted to gain membership as a state in several agencies connected to the United Nations, but its efforts were thwarted by U.S. threats to withhold funding from any organisation that admitted Palestine. For example, in April of the same year, the PLO applied for membership as a state in the World Health Organization, an application that failed to produce a result after the U.S. informed the organisation that it would withdraw funding if Palestine were admitted. In May, a group of OIC members submitted to UNESCO an application for membership on behalf of Palestine, and listed a total of 91 states that had recognised the State of Palestine.
In June 1989, the PLO submitted to the government of Switzerland letters of accession to the Geneva Conventions of 1949. However, Switzerland, as the depositary state, determined that because the question of Palestinian statehood had not been settled within the international community, it was therefore incapable of determining whether the letter constituted a valid instrument of accession.
Due to the incertainty [sic] within the international community as to the existence or the non-existence of a State of Palestine and as long as the issue has not been settled in an appropriate framework, the Swiss Government, in its capacity as depositary of the Geneva Conventions and their additional Protocols, is not in a position to decide whether this communication can be considered as an instrument of accession in the sense of the relevant provisions of the Conventions and their additional Protocols.
Consequently, in November 1989, the Arab League proposed a General Assembly resolution to formally recognise the PLO as the government of an independent Palestinian state. The draft, however, was abandoned when the U.S. again threatened to cut off its financing for the United Nations should the vote go ahead. The Arab states agreed not to press the resolution, but demanded that the U.S. promise not to threaten the United Nations with financial sanctions again.
Many of the early statements of recognition of the State of Palestine were termed ambiguously. In addition, hesitation from others did not necessarily mean that these nations did not regard Palestine as a state. This has seemingly resulted in confusion regarding the number of states that have officially recognised the state declared in 1988. Numbers reported in the past are often conflicting, with figures as high as 130 being seen frequently. In July 2011, in an interview with Haaretz, Palestinian ambassador to the United Nations, Riyad Mansour claimed that 122 states had so far extended formal recognition. At the end of the month, the PLO published a paper on why the world's governments should recognise the State of Palestine and listed the 122 countries that had already done so. By the end of September the same year, Mansour claimed the figure had reached 139.
Shortly after the 1988 declaration, the State of Palestine was recognised by many developing states in Africa and Asia, and from communist and non-aligned states. At the time, however, the United States was using its Foreign Assistance Act and other measures to discourage other countries and international organisations from extending recognition. Although these measures were successful in many cases, the Arab League and the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC) immediately published statements of recognition of, support for, and solidarity with Palestine, which was accepted as a member state in both forums.
In February 1989 at the United Nations Security Council, the PLO representative acknowledged that 94 states had recognised the new Palestinian state. It subsequently attempted to gain membership as a state in several agencies connected to the United Nations, but its efforts were thwarted by U.S. threats to withhold funding from any organisation that admitted Palestine. For example, in April of the same year, the PLO applied for membership as a state in the World Health Organization, an application that failed to produce a result after the U.S. informed the organisation that it would withdraw funding if Palestine were admitted. In May, a group of OIC members submitted to UNESCO an application for membership on behalf of Palestine, and listed a total of 91 states that had recognised the State of Palestine.
In June 1989, the PLO submitted to the government of Switzerland letters of accession to the Geneva Conventions of 1949. However, Switzerland, as the depositary state, determined that because the question of Palestinian statehood had not been settled within the international community, it was therefore incapable of determining whether the letter constituted a valid instrument of accession.
Due to the incertainty [sic] within the international community as to the existence or the non-existence of a State of Palestine and as long as the issue has not been settled in an appropriate framework, the Swiss Government, in its capacity as depositary of the Geneva Conventions and their additional Protocols, is not in a position to decide whether this communication can be considered as an instrument of accession in the sense of the relevant provisions of the Conventions and their additional Protocols.
Consequently, in November 1989, the Arab League proposed a General Assembly resolution to formally recognise the PLO as the government of an independent Palestinian state. The draft, however, was abandoned when the U.S. again threatened to cut off its financing for the United Nations should the vote go ahead. The Arab states agreed not to press the resolution, but demanded that the U.S. promise not to threaten the United Nations with financial sanctions again.
Many of the early statements of recognition of the State of Palestine were termed ambiguously. In addition, hesitation from others did not necessarily mean that these nations did not regard Palestine as a state. This has seemingly resulted in confusion regarding the number of states that have officially recognised the state declared in 1988. Numbers reported in the past are often conflicting, with figures as high as 130 being seen frequently. In July 2011, in an interview with Haaretz, Palestinian ambassador to the United Nations, Riyad Mansour claimed that 122 states had so far extended formal recognition. At the end of the month, the PLO published a paper on why the world's governments should recognise the State of Palestine and listed the 122 countries that had already done so. By the end of September the same year, Mansour claimed the figure had reached 139.
Someone made a point earlier about the US "controlling the UN" or something along those lines, and you dismissed it. Perhaps controlling is too harsh a word, but influencing is not, and the US has been instrumental in influencing a lack of UN-recognition for Palestine as a state, even as a majority of the nations on this planet have recognized it.
Israel is a country. Palestine is not (and never was). Do people really want to argue that Palestine is an actual sovereign state?
This is a losing argument. You're trying to play semantics about what is a "country." If Palestine is not a country, then to which country does the land belong? If the land belongs to no other nation, and the people of that land organize their own government, hold elections, and have a self-identity as a nation, and appoint ambassadors who are received by the world governing body and other nations, is that not a de facto nation?
If de facto status- the fact that no one else claims the land is part of their country, and the people there have a functioning government which speaks for the people- isn't enough, how about diplomatic recognition? More nations on this planet than not have formally recognized Palestine as a country. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_recognition_of_the_State_of_Palestine
I say yes, Palestine should be regarded as a state. Only most of the western world tries to pretend otherwise, and the US has directly worked to prevent UN-recognition.
Take this argument at face value, I am not extending it beyond what I have wrote to make any arguments about Israel, or "occupation" by Israel, etc. I am only arguing that the semantic definition of a "country" is ridiculous given that Palestine functions as an country and the land is not claimed as part of another nation, and the US seems to be the only reason it's not recognized by the UN as a nation.
Zionists aren't a people, but rather a movement working towards a homeland for the Jews. And they succeeded.
people who support zionism are zionists, its not difficultIsrael is a beacon of freedom and democracy in the area. Minorities are granted equal rights and protection under law. Arabic is even an official language in Israel. Individual rights are extremely important. For example, where else in the area would you expect to see homosexuals parading through the streets celebrating their sexual orientation as they do yearly in Tel Aviv? Comparing this to people from societies where freedom of speech is non-existent and where homosexuals are executed is quite a stretch!
The Jews in Palestine mostly settled down in areas where there weren't any existing inhabitants in the first place. Palestine was not a country of its own but rather just a rather big and rather empty area under different rulers. I'm not sure why you think Jews shouldn't be allowed to make use of freely available space in the middle of nowhere, where no one has laid any claims to the land in the first place.
this is mostly correct. the early zionist pioneers were peaceful and didn't displace anyone and actually created opportunities for arabs with their european technology and agriculture. everyone got along. it was only once it became clear the jewish leadership were making moves to create a separate state with a jewish majority inevitably leading to arab disenfranchisement that arabs started being uppity and rioting.The Jews in Palestine mostly settled down in areas where there weren't any existing inhabitants in the first place. Palestine was not a country of its own but rather just a rather big and rather empty area under different rulers. I'm not sure why you think Jews shouldn't be allowed to make use of freely available space in the middle of nowhere, where no one has laid any claims to the land in the first place.
the arabs can burn your freedom of speech loving sodomites alive for all i care
Quote
What are these no-go areas for natives related to Israel, if I may ask?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pdLDv8JNnMAArmy separator between Jews and Palestinians on a main street, Hebron 2015
Serious fair points. Thanks guys. I will think about that and read some more. Sorry for me blasting a couple of posts ago but you have to admit J. J. Phillips you were very condescending in that post man.
Aw, that's all right. Sorry about blasting back. From now on, I'll maintain a cool rationality in all my posts. Well, maybe for the next few minutes.
Well it is the nature of this discussion we are dealing with a very sensitive subject that many many people lost their lives over it
Serious fair points. Thanks guys. I will think about that and read some more. Sorry for me blasting a couple of posts ago but you have to admit J. J. Phillips you were very condescending in that post man.
Aw, that's all right. Sorry about blasting back. From now on, I'll maintain a cool rationality in all my posts. Well, maybe for the next few minutes.
The allied forces occupied Germany during WWII. This was an act of self defense, after Germany had started a war. As I pointed out, military occupation is a perfectly legitimate way to defend oneself. Had the Arabs not attacked Israel, multiple times, Israel would not have been forced to defend itself.
Germany was also forced to hand over areas to other countries after WWII. The attacker lost land. But when Israel takes land from the attacker today, people are up in arms. This double standard is deeply troubling.
Germany was also forced to hand over areas to other countries after WWII. The attacker lost land. But when Israel takes land from the attacker today, people are up in arms. This double standard is deeply troubling.
Absolutely right. I asked earlier:
Is Poland occupying Breslau?
The only person who responded as a Golden Dawn supporter with a modified swastika as his avatar. He said the wrong side won WW2. Very insightful.
Thanks for joining the thread. I've lost patience multiple times, but I keep coming back.
Serious fair points. Thanks guys. I will think about that and read some more. Sorry for me blasting a couple of posts ago but you have to admit J. J. Phillips you were very condescending in that post man.
The allied forces occupied Germany during WWII. This was an act of self defense, after Germany had started a war. As I pointed out, military occupation is a perfectly legitimate way to defend oneself. Had the Arabs not attacked Israel, multiple times, Israel would not have been forced to defend itself.
Germany was also forced to hand over areas to other countries after WWII. The attacker lost land. But when Israel takes land from the attacker today, people are up in arms. This double standard is deeply troubling.
Germany was also forced to hand over areas to other countries after WWII. The attacker lost land. But when Israel takes land from the attacker today, people are up in arms. This double standard is deeply troubling.
Absolutely right. I asked earlier:
Is Poland occupying Breslau?
The only person who responded as a Golden Dawn supporter with a modified swastika as his avatar. He said the wrong side won WW2. Very insightful.
Thanks for joining the thread. I've lost patience multiple times, but I keep coming back.
What about israel? If palestine wasn't a country then also isreal isn't a country.
This is not true. Israel is a country - or an independent, sovereign state which gained independence in 1948.The palestinian people tried to ask the independence to the UN but you know what is happen. They only want to oppress those people and you can't come here and say "Israel is a country - or an independent, sovereign state which gained independence in 1948." What the fu*k are you saying? Why they can't help them instead of kill them?
The UN had a partition plan in 1947. The Palestinians rejected it.
You are so emotional about this cause. Are you of a Jewish heritage?
No, but everyone thinks this when I defend Israel. That's how deep the Jew-hatred goes. Most people think only a Jew could possibly defend Jews.
You denied and ignored hundreds of thousands that were systematically exterminated.
Are you asserting that Israel has killed "hundreds of thousands" of Palestinians? Or am I misunderstanding this?
You are not on a higher moral or intellectual grounds, You are just another asshole. Shove "talking down to people and belittling them" and your reasons for that up your ass.
OK, I'll be sure to do that. And if you ever get a time machine, please travel back to Dresden in mid-February 1945. I think you'd like the people there and I heard it was surprisingly warm for Wintertime.
@u9y42: Great post and thanks for writing it. I can only respond to part of it now, and will likely respond to other parts later when I have more time. Who knows how buried it will be by then.
(1) - Oh, is that so? Well, let's see - Israel has just recently had an election, which has seen Netanyahu and his Likud party retain power - so, what options has Israel actually been pursuing these last few years in order to obtain peace? It certainly isn't the one state solution. Is it the two states solution, as you claim? Netanyahu seems to disagree with you; during the campaign, he stated: "I think that anyone who moves to establish a Palestinian state and evacuate territory gives territory away to radical Islamist attacks against Israel, [...] The left has buried its head in the sand time and after time and ignores this, but we are realistic and understand", and later, during that same interview, he added that, was the Zionist Union to win the elections, "'it would attach itself to the international community and do their bidding', including freezing construction in West Bank and East Jerusalem settlements, and cooperate with international initiatives to return Israel's borders to the 1967 lines". I should add that this was not the first time he expressed these views. In fact, and to be more accurate, since as far back as 1977, the Likud party's position has always been the denial of the right of a Palestinian state to exist - with only occasional divergence.
You make a compelling argument against the statement:
(IIPE) Israel wants an independent Palestinian state to exist.
But that's not what I asserted:
(1) I believe most Israelis would like to find a solution to live in peace next to an independent Palestinian state that does not attack them.
We're living in the aftermath of Arafat's rejection of the deal offered by Barak in 2000 and the subsequent launching of the Second Intifada. To be fair, the Second Intifada was launched as the result of Sharon visiting the Temple Mount, so lots of people blame that on Sharon (Israel). To be even more fair, the Palestinians launched an Intifada resulting in thousands of deaths because a politician visited a site, which can be blamed on the Palestinians.
The lesson that should be learned is that Arafat missed a generational opportunity to end the conflict. After refusing to come to an agreement with Barak and then launching the Second Intifada, it's not surprising that a significant percentage of Israelis do not believe the Palestinians actually want to live in peace next to Israel. This is the view expressed by Netanyahu. That doesn't refute my assertion (1). It only means they don't currently believe the Palestinians are willing to live in peace with Israel under any circumstances. A lot of evidence supports this idea. Maybe this will change, but it would take a cultural shift among Palestinian attitudes towards Israel. The way to refute (1) would be for us to have a hypothetical world in which Palestinians are not attacking Israel for a few years and are not teaching their children to hate Jews. In other words, (1) is really impossible to refute. Well, unless one believes Palestinians have not been attacking Israel or teaching their children to hate Jews.
I'll concede this: If there's a 5 year period when Palestinians are not attacking Israel and are not teaching their children to hate Jews, and Israel doesn't offer them a deal, then I'll start reconsidering my position.
I hope you'll forgive some skepticism, but I remember how people lied about the Turkish flotilla some years ago. Can you give me a source for these items being denied entry? Are they generally forbidden or are you referring to some specific shipment?
I'd like a source for this as well. It would surprise me if Hamas said this, but you seem well-informed. In any case, I think if such a vote among Palestinians to explicitly recognize Israel were held, it would fail in a landslide. If the Palestinians surprised me, I think we'd quickly find out Hamas was lying.
While I do think most Palestinians are irrational and genocidal (comes from the culture), I don't think their position on Israel is irrational. I think they want the Jews dead. Their methods of acheiving this seem likely to be effective. From that point of view they are behaving rationally.
First of all, the UN's Human Rights Council clearly shows how much "objectivity" Israel can expect from international bodies. I had a post earlier that outlined how different regions of the world have a history of Jew-hatred. I expect the ICC to reflect that. The UN refuses to condemn Palestinian actions, but is always ready to condemn Israel (e.g., "Zionism is racism.") The only power the US has at the UN is the ability to veto anti-Israel resolutions in the Security Council (see Negroponte Doctrine).
To put it bluntly: whenever Jews rely on non-Jews to protect them, the result is always a lot of dead Jews. Even in WW2 the Allies kept the holocaust secret because they didn't want their soldiers to think they were fighting to help Jews.
Again, please, don't take all criticism of Israel as ignorance, or antisemitism. You have to admit there are genuine issues that Israel needs to address, and that only it can address - and by that I don't mean Palestinians don't have their fair share of the blame in all this; of course they do. And again, the alternative to that is Israel will eventually find itself isolated and under sanctions; and despite what you might think, that is not something I want to see happen.
I don't think all criticism of Israel is based in ignorance or Jew-hatred*, but I think Jew-hatred plays a huge role.
If there were very little Jew-hatred in the world, the Arab-Israeli conflict would be considered about as important as the dispute over Kashmir or Cyprus.
* I tend to say "Jew-hatred" instead of antisemitism. Some years ago I found people were responding quickly to my use of the word "antisemitism" with the rote phrase "You know, the Palestinians are also semitic!" Then I read that "antisemitism" was a term devised by Germans to be a sterile scientific version of "Judenhass" (Jew-hatred).
Again, thanks for the post and I may respond to more of the specifics at a later time. One of the things I've tried to do in some of my posts is make some labelled clear unambigious statements that people could argue for or against. Thanks for doing this.
[...]
I will say these two things:
(1) I believe most Israelis would like to find a solution to live in peace next to an independent Palestinian state that does not attack them. My evidence for this is Israel's history of making peace deals with neighbors and offering peace deals to various Palestinian representatives. (1)
(2) I believe most Palestinians will settle for nothing less than the utter destruction of Israel. My evidence for this is the history of intafadas, the creation and election of Hamas (who are explicit about their genocidal desires), suicide bombings, and rocket attacks. I think it will be extremely difficult for most Palestinians to ever accept Israel as a nation. (2) If you want to get a sense of how difficult it would be, just notice how difficult it is for you to accept Israel as a proper noun.
Given these two beliefs, it is not surprising I defend Israel, and I defend Israel's right to defend herself. (3) Probably most of you don't believe (1) or (2). I won't ask because I've already asked a lot of questions in previous posts and almost everyone ignores almost every one of them. This is not the way to advance any understanding of our positions. In the future, I reserve the right to reply to questions directed at me by repeating one of my previous questions that got ignored.
I will say these two things:
(1) I believe most Israelis would like to find a solution to live in peace next to an independent Palestinian state that does not attack them. My evidence for this is Israel's history of making peace deals with neighbors and offering peace deals to various Palestinian representatives. (1)
(2) I believe most Palestinians will settle for nothing less than the utter destruction of Israel. My evidence for this is the history of intafadas, the creation and election of Hamas (who are explicit about their genocidal desires), suicide bombings, and rocket attacks. I think it will be extremely difficult for most Palestinians to ever accept Israel as a nation. (2) If you want to get a sense of how difficult it would be, just notice how difficult it is for you to accept Israel as a proper noun.
Given these two beliefs, it is not surprising I defend Israel, and I defend Israel's right to defend herself. (3) Probably most of you don't believe (1) or (2). I won't ask because I've already asked a lot of questions in previous posts and almost everyone ignores almost every one of them. This is not the way to advance any understanding of our positions. In the future, I reserve the right to reply to questions directed at me by repeating one of my previous questions that got ignored.
[...]
People refer to the "occupied territories" -- but this presupposes a certain view. Hamas believes all the land is occupied not just the "West Bank" and "Gaza." Regarding settlements being the problem, that argument would hold more weight if we didn't have the clear example of what happens when all the settlements are removed by Israel. This happened in Gaza. The reaction of the Palestinians was to elect Hamas, have an incredibly bloody civil war and then engage in years of rocket attacks into Israel. All while receiving sympathy and aid from around the world. (2)
[...]
People refer to the "occupied territories" -- but this presupposes a certain view. Hamas believes all the land is occupied not just the "West Bank" and "Gaza." Regarding settlements being the problem, that argument would hold more weight if we didn't have the clear example of what happens when all the settlements are removed by Israel. This happened in Gaza. The reaction of the Palestinians was to elect Hamas, have an incredibly bloody civil war and then engage in years of rocket attacks into Israel. All while receiving sympathy and aid from around the world. (2)
[...]
(1) - Oh, is that so? Well, let's see - Israel has just recently had an election, which has seen Netanyahu and his Likud party retain power - so, what options has Israel actually been pursuing these last few years in order to obtain peace? It certainly isn't the one state solution. Is it the two states solution, as you claim? Netanyahu seems to disagree with you; during the campaign, he stated: "I think that anyone who moves to establish a Palestinian state and evacuate territory gives territory away to radical Islamist attacks against Israel, [...] The left has buried its head in the sand time and after time and ignores this, but we are realistic and understand", and later, during that same interview, he added that, was the Zionist Union to win the elections, "'it would attach itself to the international community and do their bidding', including freezing construction in West Bank and East Jerusalem settlements, and cooperate with international initiatives to return Israel's borders to the 1967 lines". I should add that this was not the first time he expressed these views. In fact, and to be more accurate, since as far back as 1977, the Likud party's position has always been the denial of the right of a Palestinian state to exist - with only occasional divergence.
You make a compelling argument against the statement:
(IIPE) Israel wants an independent Palestinian state to exist.
But that's not what I asserted:
(1) I believe most Israelis would like to find a solution to live in peace next to an independent Palestinian state that does not attack them.
We're living in the aftermath of Arafat's rejection of the deal offered by Barak in 2000 and the subsequent launching of the Second Intifada. To be fair, the Second Intifada was launched as the result of Sharon visiting the Temple Mount, so lots of people blame that on Sharon (Israel). To be even more fair, the Palestinians launched an Intifada resulting in thousands of deaths because a politician visited a site, which can be blamed on the Palestinians.
The lesson that should be learned is that Arafat missed a generational opportunity to end the conflict. After refusing to come to an agreement with Barak and then launching the Second Intifada, it's not surprising that a significant percentage of Israelis do not believe the Palestinians actually want to live in peace next to Israel. This is the view expressed by Netanyahu. That doesn't refute my assertion (1). It only means they don't currently believe the Palestinians are willing to live in peace with Israel under any circumstances. A lot of evidence supports this idea. Maybe this will change, but it would take a cultural shift among Palestinian attitudes towards Israel. The way to refute (1) would be for us to have a hypothetical world in which Palestinians are not attacking Israel for a few years and are not teaching their children to hate Jews. In other words, (1) is really impossible to refute. Well, unless one believes Palestinians have not been attacking Israel or teaching their children to hate Jews.
I'll concede this: If there's a 5 year period when Palestinians are not attacking Israel and are not teaching their children to hate Jews, and Israel doesn't offer them a deal, then I'll start reconsidering my position.
At one point, among the items denied entry into the occupied territory were crayons, paper, books, clothing, newspapers, baby formula and a variety of other food products, and so on ...
I hope you'll forgive some skepticism, but I remember how people lied about the Turkish flotilla some years ago. Can you give me a source for these items being denied entry? Are they generally forbidden or are you referring to some specific shipment?
In fact, ever since 2006, Hamas has clearly stated that the issue of recognizing Israel wasn't their responsibility, but rather, to be left up to popular vote - a vote which they would abide by, even if the results went against their beliefs.
I'd like a source for this as well. It would surprise me if Hamas said this, but you seem well-informed. In any case, I think if such a vote among Palestinians to explicitly recognize Israel were held, it would fail in a landslide. If the Palestinians surprised me, I think we'd quickly find out Hamas was lying.
Now, I'm not going to defend their use of violence here - it's wrong when Israel does it, and it's wrong when Palestinians do it - but they hardly seem the irrational, genocidal actors you're trying to portrait most Palestinians to be; so, let's dig a little deeper...
While I do think most Palestinians are irrational and genocidal (comes from the culture), I don't think their position on Israel is irrational. I think they want the Jews dead. Their methods of acheiving this seem likely to be effective. From that point of view they are behaving rationally.
Finally, why is Israel opposed to the Palestinian move to seek international recognition, or even better, its efforts to join and seek legal action in the ICC? Surely, this is the right path: avoiding further violence, and seeking the punishment of war crimes - both Palestinian and Israeli war crimes. How is this a threat to Israel (assuming Israel does indeed want a two state solution as you had expressed above)?
First of all, the UN's Human Rights Council clearly shows how much "objectivity" Israel can expect from international bodies. I had a post earlier that outlined how different regions of the world have a history of Jew-hatred. I expect the ICC to reflect that. The UN refuses to condemn Palestinian actions, but is always ready to condemn Israel (e.g., "Zionism is racism.") The only power the US has at the UN is the ability to veto anti-Israel resolutions in the Security Council (see Negroponte Doctrine).
To put it bluntly: whenever Jews rely on non-Jews to protect them, the result is always a lot of dead Jews. Even in WW2 the Allies kept the holocaust secret because they didn't want their soldiers to think they were fighting to help Jews.
Well, then let me clear something up. I'm Canadian. I've never even visited Israel. I'm neither ethnically nor religiously Jewish. I never said I was Israeli or Jewish, but people on an earlier thread assumed it because I defended a Jew's right to walk through Paris unmolested. Clearly only a Jew would have such an opinion.
You're right that I'm very hateful though. I have a visceral hatred of Nazis. It bothers me intensely that people pretend to believe the Nazis were evil on a surface level while continuing to advance their beliefs. And most people are too fucking stupid to know they're doing it.
You're right that I'm very hateful though. I have a visceral hatred of Nazis. It bothers me intensely that people pretend to believe the Nazis were evil on a surface level while continuing to advance their beliefs. And most people are too fucking stupid to know they're doing it.
Again, please, don't take all criticism of Israel as ignorance, or antisemitism. You have to admit there are genuine issues that Israel needs to address, and that only it can address - and by that I don't mean Palestinians don't have their fair share of the blame in all this; of course they do. And again, the alternative to that is Israel will eventually find itself isolated and under sanctions; and despite what you might think, that is not something I want to see happen.
I don't think all criticism of Israel is based in ignorance or Jew-hatred*, but I think Jew-hatred plays a huge role.
If there were very little Jew-hatred in the world, the Arab-Israeli conflict would be considered about as important as the dispute over Kashmir or Cyprus.
* I tend to say "Jew-hatred" instead of antisemitism. Some years ago I found people were responding quickly to my use of the word "antisemitism" with the rote phrase "You know, the Palestinians are also semitic!" Then I read that "antisemitism" was a term devised by Germans to be a sterile scientific version of "Judenhass" (Jew-hatred).
Again, thanks for the post and I may respond to more of the specifics at a later time. One of the things I've tried to do in some of my posts is make some labelled clear unambigious statements that people could argue for or against. Thanks for doing this.
Jump to: