• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Bomb disposal squad in Gaza faces risks amid little protection

Valaisee:

Here are two documents out
Innit what the State of Israel has been doing.



Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.
These sources, the Moshe Dayan quote and so on all seem to point towards the same thing.

"For now, it works out. Let's say the truth. We want peace. If there is no peace, we will maintain military rule..."

There was no peace. Jordan continued to claim the West Bank into the 1980s; Egypt was actually suspended from the Arab League for a decade for daring to agree to peace with Israel! There was little or no support among the Arab countries nor presumably the Palestinians for a two-state solution recognizing Israel alongside Palestine. So in the 80s Israel claimed East Jerusalem. Essentially took it off the table. Maybe it could have been back on the table if the 1990s talks had worked out, but now? Pretty sure it's gone. It's Israel's.

I haven't seen any reasonable alternative to this fact: Faced with otherwise irreconcilable differences, the most plausible hope of a deal is for one side to unilaterally back down and make more compromises, or to be gradually pushed back and made to accept an 'unfair' deal as better than no deal at all. Certainly easier to get one side to back down than two sides, right?

Jerusalem may not be negotiable any more. The settlements were always negotiable. "Creeping annexation," your links call them. Sounds about right. Israel might roll back a few years' or even a decade's worth of expansion, but expecting that the Palestinian governments could continue actively or tacitly supporting the fighting, continue denying Israel's legitimacy, continue holding out to get everything they want in a deal, for decade after decade without anything ever really changing and always having the 1967 lines as an immutable fallback position seems totally unrealistic.

Neither side has particularly respected international law before now - least of all the Arab groups when Israel was at its most vulnerable - so with decades of failure already lying behind outside calls to impose those one-size-fits-all prescriptions on all parties involved, seems to me that groups which continue calling for the same thing expecting a different result are really indicating more interest in the nice soundbites and virtuous appearance of lawfulness than in an actually plausible solution.
 
I understand you think the settlements are illegal, bu why Jews living near you in an empty unused land is "suffering"?


The settlements are not illegal because there is no moral or logical basics to the opinion that 100% of the West-Bank belongs to the Palestinians.
Valaisee:

More than 150 countries, the United Nations, thousands of NGOs, the IJC and even past Israeli Supreme Court rulings declare these settlements are illegal because Israel acquired the land through military conquest after it had signed on to international agreements and laws declaring such action illegal.

The land is Palestinian Arab land and it is not empty. Settlers are regularly destroying Palestinian Arab farms, orchards, groves and animals in an effort to drive off the Arab Palestinian people who legitimately live on this land. Settlers also intimidate and violently attack Palestinian Arabs when attacks against property are insufficient means to drive off the rightful owners of the land under established international law.

The issue is not that the Palestinians have an air-tight claim to all the lands in the Occupied Territories. The issue is that given that the State of Israel militarily conquered the land after it signed agreements forbidding the conquest of lands by military means and still militarily occupies it, the State of Israel cannot claim any of the land for its own nor prejudice Palesrinian Arab claims. The State of Israel cannot settle, annex, change previously standing land ownership laws or decide what parts of the Occupied Territories are disputed or not. Furthermore the State of Israel has a legal obligation to protect the militarily occupied population and is instead sponsoring the slow-motion displacement of that population through illegal settlements, using its own citizens to supplant Palestinian Arabs. Totally llegal.

So this whole project is illegal on many levels.

Evilroddy.
 
These sources, the Moshe Dayan quote and so on all seem to point towards the same thing.

"For now, it works out. Let's say the truth. We want peace. If there is no peace, we will maintain military rule..."

There was no peace. Jordan continued to claim the West Bank into the 1980s; Egypt was actually suspended from the Arab League for a decade for daring to agree to peace with Israel! There was little or no support among the Arab countries nor presumably the Palestinians for a two-state solution recognizing Israel alongside Palestine. So in the 80s Israel claimed East Jerusalem. Essentially took it off the table. Maybe it could have been back on the table if the 1990s talks had worked out, but now? Pretty sure it's gone. It's Israel's.

I haven't seen any reasonable alternative to this fact: Faced with otherwise irreconcilable differences, the most plausible hope of a deal is for one side to unilaterally back down and make more compromises, or to be gradually pushed back and made to accept an 'unfair' deal as better than no deal at all. Certainly easier to get one side to back down than two sides, right?

Jerusalem may not be negotiable any more. The settlements were always negotiable. "Creeping annexation," your links call them. Sounds about right. Israel might roll back a few years' or even a decade's worth of expansion, but expecting that the Palestinian governments could continue actively or tacitly supporting the fighting, continue denying Israel's legitimacy, continue holding out to get everything they want in a deal, for decade after decade without anything ever really changing and always having the 1967 lines as an immutable fallback position seems totally unrealistic.

Neither side has particularly respected international law before now - least of all the Arab groups when Israel was at its most vulnerable - so with decades of failure already lying behind outside calls to impose those one-size-fits-all prescriptions on all parties involved, seems to me that groups which continue calling for the same thing expecting a different result are really indicating more interest in the nice soundbites and virtuous appearance of lawfulness than in an actually plausible solution.

Mithrae:

The problem is the State of Israel signed international agreements to get recognition as a state in 1948-49 and has since ignored its obligations regarding those signed agreements. Rewarding a scoff-law state only encourages law breaking by other states. How do you get Russia out of the Crimea and the Donbas if you allow the State of Israel to flaunt international laws which it voluntarily agreed to follow 70+ years ago. Surrendering to slow-motion annexation of even one piece of occupied land is a very dangerous precedent and is both geo-politically and historically foolish.

The answer is to vigorously blockade, boycott, embargo and sanction both the Palestinians' leaderships plus people and the State of Israel until both factions feel so much hardship and pain that they both break down and willingly enter into mediated, bilateral negotiations in order to end the pain and to end the century-plus long conflict. International peace-making forces must be put into all of the Occupied Territories and on the Golan Heights to disarm the populations (Arab and settler), to replace the IDF and to protect the State of Israel from attacks.

Then negotiations and politics, not militancy/terrorism and state violence will eventually break the log-jam and end this impasse.

Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.
 
In the advisory opinion on the annexation wall Israel has built, the decision was called on the legality of the settlements. The panel decided that the 4th GC applied and thus all of the settlements are illegal. That's the legal aspect
What percentages are thrashed out in land swap deals in a just resolution of the conflict aside, the law states that it is illegal to acquire territory via warfare and Israel signed up, voluntarily, to abide by those laws. All of the settlements and all of the settlers living in them are illegal.
More than 150 countries, the United Nations, thousands of NGOs, the IJC and even past Israeli Supreme Court rulings declare these settlements are illegal because Israel acquired the land through military conquest after it had signed on to international agreements and laws declaring such action illegal.
The issue is not that the Palestinians have an air-tight claim to all the lands in the Occupied Territories. The issue is that given that the State of Israel militarily conquered the land after it signed agreements forbidding the conquest of lands by military means and still militarily occupies it, the State of Israel cannot claim any of the land for its own nor prejudice Palesrinian Arab claims. The State of Israel cannot settle, annex, change previously standing land ownership laws or decide what parts of the Occupied Territories are disputed or not. Furthermore the State of Israel has a legal obligation to protect the militarily occupied population and is instead sponsoring the slow-motion displacement of that population through illegal settlements, using its own citizens to supplant Palestinian Arabs. Totally llegal.

So this whole project is illegal on many levels.
The problem is the State of Israel signed international agreements to get recognition as a state in 1948-49 and has since ignored its obligations regarding those signed agreements. Rewarding a scoff-law state only encourages law breaking by other states. How do you get Russia out of the Crimea and the Donbas if you allow the State of Israel to flaunt international laws which it voluntarily agreed to follow 70+ years ago. Surrendering to slow-motion annexation of even one piece of occupied land is a very dangerous precedent and is both geo-politically and historically foolish.
The alleged illegality of the settlements is based on unbinding UN resolutions, therefore it's not against what Israel signed to.
It's not illegal to liberate land that belongs to you via warfare. For the settlements to be illegal you need to explain why 100% of the West-Bank belong to the Palestinians using logic and morality, and one cannot base it on UN resolutions which are decided by the interest of voting countries - not on facts, logic or morality.
 
Mithrae:

The problem is the State of Israel signed international agreements to get recognition as a state in 1948-49 and has since ignored its obligations regarding those signed agreements. Rewarding a scoff-law state only encourages law breaking by other states. How do you get Russia out of the Crimea and the Donbas if you allow the State of Israel to flaunt international laws which it voluntarily agreed to follow 70+ years ago. Surrendering to slow-motion annexation of even one piece of occupied land is a very dangerous precedent and is both geo-politically and historically foolish.

The answer is to vigorously blockade, boycott, embargo and sanction both the Palestinians' leaderships plus people and the State of Israel until both factions feel so much hardship and pain that they both break down and willingly enter into mediated, bilateral negotiations in order to end the pain and to end the century-plus long conflict. International peace-making forces must be put into all of the Occupied Territories and on the Golan Heights to disarm the populations (Arab and settler), to replace the IDF and to protect the State of Israel from attacks.

Then negotiations and politics, not militancy/terrorism and state violence will eventually break the log-jam and end this impasse.

Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.


The only thing to add , imo, would be to include the protection of Palestinians from IDF attacks with all people being protected by UNPK forces
 
The only reason people would argue on " moral and logical " grounds and believe they are right, imo, is if they think Jews are superior to Arabs and/or should have superior rights granted to them than the law applies to others.
There are many other legitimate reasons why Israel can claim ownership of at least some parts of the West-Bank. For example - historical claims based on Jewish presence for centuries up until just before 1948. There are more if you like...
I understand and accept that Palestinian also have legitimate claims to the West-Bank.
 
The alleged illegality of the settlements is based on unbinding UN resolutions, therefore it's not against what Israel signed to.
It's not illegal to liberate land that belongs to you via warfare. For the settlements to be illegal you need to explain why 100% of the West-Bank belong to the Palestinians using logic and morality, and one cannot base it on UN resolutions which are decided by the interest of voting countries - not on facts, logic or morality.

UNSC resolutions ARE legally binding. UNSC 242 ,November 1967, calling for Israel to leave the territories it occupied in the previous June AND ruled the " inadmissibility" of acquiring territory via warfare. To ground the resolution it referred to the UN Charters Chapter 6 regarding the peaceful resolution of conflicts.

Once again it is your own lack of knowledge that needs to be commented on.
 
There are many other legitimate reasons why Israel can claim ownership of at least some parts of the West-Bank. For example - historical claims based on Jewish presence for centuries up until just before 1948. There are more if you like...
I understand and accept that Palestinian also have legitimate claims to the West-Bank.

There have been " Jewish presences" in many places but it doesn't /shouldn't confer any ownership of the entire territory. By your logic, Jewish people can claim New York or Paris , London or Rome as their own.

Before the advent of European Jewish immigration into Palestine in the wake of the birth of Zionism ,Jewish people living in Palestine constituted but a tiny minority and , for the most part, were against the incoming Europeans and their wish to carve out a Jewish state in Palestine.
 
UNSC resolutions ARE legally binding. UNSC 242 ,November 1967, calling for Israel to leave the territories it occupied in the previous June AND ruled the " inadmissibility" of acquiring territory via warfare. To ground the resolution it referred to the UN Charters Chapter 6 regarding the peaceful resolution of conflicts.

Once again it is your own lack of knowledge that needs to be commented on.
Not true:
resolutions adopted by the Security Council acting under Chapter VII of the Charter, are considered binding
All UNSC resolutions against Israel are under the unbinding Chapter 6, not Chapter 7.
 
There have been " Jewish presences" in many places but it doesn't /shouldn't confer any ownership of the entire territory. By your logic, Jewish people can claim New York or Paris , London or Rome as their own.

Before the advent of European Jewish immigration into Palestine in the wake of the birth of Zionism ,Jewish people living in Palestine constituted but a tiny minority and , for the most part, were against the incoming Europeans and their wish to carve out a Jewish state in Palestine.
As I said, there is more:
The land of Israel, including the West-Bank, was always the homeland of the Jews. Before exiled by the Romans Jews were the majority in Israel. Thru history Jews controlled the land for centuries, and when not, it was only temporarily controlled by various foreign empires. The exiled Jews retained their culture and nationhood and just returned to their original homeland.
Although both the Ottoman and British empires had various restriction on Jewish land purchasing and immigration, just before 1948 there ware significant amount of land owed by Jews and Jewish presence in the West-Bank.
 
Mass displacement, mass killings? I never said that these were mass events. They're slow and relentless events on a small scale punctuated by moments of violence which kill or displace many Palestinian Arabs, although it is regularly happening on a much smaller scale. I said the killings and displacements are designed to so demoralise the Palestinian Arabs that they opt out of desperation to leave their homelands. That was the plan discussed in the meeting which was the source of Moshe Dayan's comments and even if it was not officially adopted by that party/group of politicians in September of 1967, it is the defacto policy of the State of Israel today. .
Thanks for the clarification.
Do you have any evidence for demoralising random killings of Paletininas that are not terrorists or their human shields?
The ICJ document not only describes the land annexation policies of the State of Israel. It also goes into great detail about the methods both the State of Israel and Israeli settlers are going to, in order to displace and ghetto Palestinian Arabs in the Occupied Terretories. If you had read the documents fully, then you would have realised this.
The only reference for "displacement" I read was of structures been demolished because of the absence of building permits, what's wrong with that?

But this is not just state colonialism, it's settler colonialism too and thus the prime actors are the settlers with the backing of the State of Israel. While the IDF and IDA have certainly killed and wounded many Palestinian Arabs and while these two arms of the Stete of Israel have been instrumental in dehousing, displacing and walling off Palestinian Arabs and destroying Palestinian infrastructure, it is the militant settlers themselves who are inflicting the bulk of the everyday pressure and stress on Palestinian Arabs in much of the Occupied Territories. This behaviour is illegal and the State of Israel has a legal obligation to stop it, but instead it openly sponsors illegal settlements and discreetly supports settle violence towards Palestinian Arabs.
Those settlers are criminals. Not only that Israel doesn't "discreetly support" them (any evidence for this claim?), the Israeli police hunts them down and prosecutes them.
 
No they can't. The State of Israel uses its influence with the US Government to withold tens of millions of US dollars of military aid to Egypt if they disagree with Egyptian-Palestinian frontier policy. I have already documented this to you earlier in this thread. The El-Sisi military junta of Egypt does not want to forgo that money.
And I have already answered it here:
Your attachment doesn't support your claim:
The issue was only on smuggling of weapons to Gaza, not "tighten or close the frontier".
 
The only thing to add , imo, would be to include the protection of Palestinians from IDF attacks with all people being protected by UNPK forces
oneworld2:

That protection must go both ways with protection of Israelis and Israel proper too. But your point is well taken.

Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.
 
Thanks for the clarification.
Do you have any evidence for demoralising random killings of Paletininas that are not terrorists or their human shields?
Sniping at spectators, emergency health workers, press and peaceful protesters behind The Great March of Return protests. "Mowing the Lawn" in Gaza since 2002.
The only reference for "displacement" I read was of structures been demolished because of the absence of building permits, what's wrong with that?
Read more.
Those settlers are criminals. Not only that Israel doesn't "discreetly support" them (any evidence for this claim?), the Israeli police hunts them down and prosecutes them.



Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.
 
The problem is the State of Israel signed international agreements to get recognition as a state in 1948-49 and has since ignored its obligations regarding those signed agreements. Rewarding a scoff-law state only encourages law breaking by other states. How do you get Russia out of the Crimea and the Donbas if you allow the State of Israel to flaunt international laws which it voluntarily agreed to follow 70+ years ago. Surrendering to slow-motion annexation of even one piece of occupied land is a very dangerous precedent and is both geo-politically and historically foolish.
This seems a bit backwards; Israel is hardly important enough to set the script for behaviour of the world's countries. The question should be "Why would Israel or Palestine scrupulously obey every facet of international law when countries like Russia, the USA and for that matter many Arab states have flouted it with virtual impunity?"

You've provided one possible reason which is purely theoretical and IMO highly unlikely, but would at least be pragmatically compelling if implemented; the brute force which other countries could bring to bear against Israel and Palestine, which wouldn't really be practicable as a means of bringing the USA or Russia or even a unified Arab League into line. But it seems to me that holding weak or isolated countries to a higher standard, or imposing higher standards of enforcement/punishment against them, is a much more troubling precedent than acknowledging the simple facts that neither international law nor its adjudication mechanisms nor the countries it applies to are perfect.

Israel acquired territory it hadn't previously owned during a war; so they are occupied territories and settlement/annexation are contrary to the letter of the law. No question there. But that conflict was a flare-up initiated by the other parties, within the context of a decades-long determination to wipe Israel off the map and potentially exterminate its Jewish population, and the Palestinian territory Israel acquired - rounding out its borders and bolstering its security prospects - was neither legitimately owned by any other state nor outside Israel's own borders (as recognized/legitimized by its neighbours). It was simply territory on the other side of an armistice line in a state of war technically ongoing for decades, from which its enemies in 1967 operated canons and mortars striking deep into Israeli territory as far as the suburbs of Tel Aviv. There's no comparison there with incidents like Iraq invading Kuwait or Russia invading Ukraine or the US invading Iraq.

Of course in a less imperfect world, after 1967 Israel's neighbours would have (finally) in unison acknowledged its legitimacy, committed to peaceful coexistence and worked together with Israel and the Palestinians to form a stable and functioning second state along the still-relevant armistice lines. But this is far from a perfect world, and it's a pretty safe bet that international laws are not exactly perfect either. From a not overly cynical point of view these kinds of laws were created to safeguard the territorial integrity of drafting states which had done most of their conquering and annexation already. But even from the most optimistic and generous angle, using strictures 'intended' to protect the likes of Kuwait and Ukraine and Iraq as a blunt instrument to bludgeon Israel for the crime of not yet managing to satisfy the competing needs of Palestinian autonomy alongside its own security seems a little questionable.

As implied in my previous post, I'm approaching this first and foremost with the question "What is the most plausible route to Palestinian statehood?" as probably the most important step towards improving Palestinians' lives. Endless ineffectual UN resolutions and hammering on about international law are not a plausible route to any kind of solution whatsoever; saying that that Israel should sacrifice its security or compensate millions of descendants of possibly-voluntary refugees or grant a 'right of return' or (at this point) give up East Jerusalem are not plausible routes to Palestinian statehood. Your solution of the world's countries suddenly uniting to forcibly pressure both sides to agree on a 'fair' solution which failed even under much better circumstances seems little more than a pipe-dream, I'm sorry to say. As far as I have seen in discussing and researching this, the most plausible route is simply for the Palestinians to accept or be pressured to accept an 'unfair' deal, and if annexing Jerusalem and the 'creeping annexation' of settlements could be turned towards that end - alongside the waning of international and particularly Arab sympathy for the unrealistic demands and ongoing violence of the Palestinian factions - I think I'd consider that an end which justifies means which stray a little outside the letter of the law.
 
Last edited:
@Evilroddy
Of course this doesn't imply support for mass displacement, killings or the like; I couldn't cite specific examples off the top of my head (haven't fully read the links you posted yet, though some quoted highlights might be helpful) but given the nature of people and governments and not least the hostile/hawkish leanings which historical Arab aggression doubtless enhanced in Israeli politics and military, I have no doubt that Israel like other countries has numerous human rights and international law violations to its name which are both serious and contrary to any worthwhile ends. But I think there's room for nuance here, and sidelining the actual plausibility of potential solutions in the process of dogmatizing the 1949 armistice line vis a vis international law simply doesn't seem like a compelling approach to me.

Have a great day!
 
Last edited:
This seems a bit backwards; Israel is hardly important enough to set the script for behaviour of the world's countries. The question should be "Why would Israel or Palestine scrupulously obey every facet of international law when countries like Russia, the USA and for that matter many Arab states have flouted it with virtual impunity?"

You've provided one possible reason which is purely theoretical and IMO highly unlikely, but would at least be pragmatically compelling if implemented; the brute force which other countries could bring to bear against Israel and Palestine, which wouldn't really be practicable as a means of bringing the USA or Russia or even a unified Arab League into line. But it seems to me that holding weak or isolated countries to a higher standard, or imposing higher standards of enforcement/punishment against them, is a much more troubling precedent than acknowledging the simple facts that neither international law nor its adjudication mechanisms nor the countries it applies to are perfect.

Israel acquired territory it hadn't previously owned during a war; so they are occupied territories and settlement/annexation are contrary to the letter of the law. No question there. But that conflict was a flare-up initiated by the other parties, within the context of a decades-long determination to wipe Israel off the map and potentially exterminate its Jewish population, and the Palestinian territory Israel acquired - rounding out its borders and bolstering its security prospects - was neither legitimately owned by any other state nor outside Israel's own borders (as recognized/legitimized by its neighbours). It was simply territory on the other side of an armistice line in a state of war technically ongoing for decades, from which its enemies in 1967 operated canons and mortars striking deep into Israeli territory as far as the suburbs of Tel Aviv. There's no comparison there with incidents like Iraq invading Kuwait or Russia invading Ukraine or the US invading Iraq.
As implied in my previous post, I'm approaching this first and foremost with the question "What is the most plausible route to Palestinian statehood?" as probably the most important step towards improving Palestinians' lives. Endless ineffectual UN resolutions and hammering on about international law are not a plausible route to any kind of solution whatsoever; saying that that Israel should sacrifice its security or compensate millions of descendants of possibly-voluntary refugees or grant a 'right of return' or (at this point) give up East Jerusalem are not plausible routes to Palestinian statehood. Your solution of the world's countries suddenly uniting to forcibly pressure both sides to agree on a 'fair' solution which failed even under much better circumstances seems little more than a pipe-dream, I'm sorry to say. As far as I have seen in discussing and researching this, the most plausible route is simply for the Palestinians to accept or be pressured to accept an 'unfair' deal, and if annexing Jerusalem and the 'creeping annexation' of settlements could be turned towards that end - alongside the waning of international and particularly Arab sympathy for the unrealistic demands and ongoing violence of the Palestinian factions - I think I'd consider that an end which justifies means which stray a little outside the letter of the law.
Quote edited for word count.

Mithrae:

Iraq was militarily defeated by a coalition of countries to reverse its invasion of Kuwait. Russia is being sanctioned heavily for its seizure and annexation of Crimea and its destabilisation of Ukraine. You're right about the global superpower America being beyond the world's ability to discipline right now, but all the other examples you offered are being or have been dealt with. So why not also deal with Israel, then Egypt, them Myanmar, then ...., then China and finally the USA? Why does the State of Israel get a pass?

If we want what the West calls a "rules-based international system", then we better start following and enforcing those rules or we will eventually descend into the long night of protracted warfare and perhaps global thermonuclear war. The world has grown too small for wars of conquest anymore. We must stop the steal.

Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.
 



How exactly are Palestinians supposed to live like this? How can one reasonably expect that they won't become radicalized when they can't even sleep without the fear of getting bombed by Israel?

(This question is specific to Palestinians and their day-to-day lives.)
Maybe they should demand that Hamas and Hezbollah stop being terrorists that target Israel.
 
I like how it is called a reconnaissance missile... LOL
 
Russia is being sanctioned heavily for its seizure and annexation of Crimea and its destabilisation of Ukraine.
It's been six years. Has it worked?

You're right about the global superpower America being beyond the world's ability to discipline right now, but all the other examples you offered are being or have been dealt with. So why not also deal with Israel, then Egypt, them Myanmar, then ...., then China and finally the USA? Why does the State of Israel get a pass?
It was hardly an exhaustive list. Why not Israel? In real terms, because it's pretty much untouchable as long as it's got US support (and quite wisely has been cozying up with China too, just in case). In debate-forum/theorycrafting terms, because as I explained A) this isn't the same sort of "conquest" as most other examples in that it was a defensive conflict and occupation on Israel's part and the Palestinian territories had neither legitimately belonged to any other state nor lain outside of Israel's own recognized borders, and perhaps more importantly B) since the breakdown of the Camp David talks and the second intifada it seems that the most plausible path to Palestinian statehood now runs through a point at which they accept an 'unfair' deal as better than no deal at all.

If we want what the West calls a "rules-based international system", then we better start following and enforcing those rules or we will eventually descend into the long night of protracted warfare and perhaps global thermonuclear war. The world has grown too small for wars of conquest anymore. We must stop the steal.
These rules actively encourage 'manageable' conflicts, granting control over global war and peace to five countries which unsurprisingly also turn out to have become the world's biggest dealers in war machinery and equipment. It's better than nothing, but it's still obviously a pretty rotten system. Do you really think that dogmatic absolutism about the letter of the law in this system, selectively enforced against the weak or isolated, should trump the wishes and well-being of the Palestinian and Israeli people? And that the Israel-Palestine conflict is somehow going spell doom for the species? Come on. It's been fifty years; if this conflict were a slippery slope we would've gone off the edge by now, and if we do go off the edge there'll be far bigger and far more recent causes for it than the absence of a global coalition trying to ruin Palestinians' and Israelis' lives so bad that they somehow come to terms.
 
Last edited:
Sniping at spectators, emergency health workers, press and peaceful protesters behind The Great March of Return protests.
These "protests" were used by Palestinian militant to attack Israeli soldiers and try to cross the border, the IDF only attacked back at those militants. This is yet another example of Hamas attacking Israel while using its citizens as human shields.
All your examples for "killings" are just Israel defending itself.
All your examples for "displacements" are just evictions of illegal tenants or destruction of illegal buildings.

Read more.

There was no evidence for Israel support of settler violence in both links, only empty claims as yours.
 
It's been six years. Has it worked?
Changing the human condition takes time, effort and determination. It will take time to break Russia to the saddle of the rule of law and to wean off the motherland from conquest.
It was hardly an exhaustive list. Why not Israel? In real terms, because it's pretty much untouchable as long as it's got US support (and quite wisely has been cozying up with China too, just in case). In debate-forum/theorycrafting terms, because as I explained A) this isn't the same sort of "conquest" as most other examples in that it was a defensive conflict and occupation on Israel's part and the Palestinian territories had neither legitimately belonged to any other state nor lain outside of Israel's own recognized borders, and perhaps more importantly B) since the breakdown of the Camp David talks and the second intifada it seems that the most plausible path to Palestinian statehood now runs through a point at which they accept an 'unfair' deal as better than no deal at all.
The notion that the Arab-Israeli Wars and follow-on wars involving the State of Israel were defensive wars is partly an illusion. If one ignores the conflicts of 1947 and the first four months of 1948 then one can make the argument that the First Arab-Israeli war was purely a defensive war. But the Arab-Israeli wars of 1956 and and 1967 were both initiated by the State of Israel. There is no doubt that the fourth Arab-Israeli War was a defensive war on the part of Israel, so there your thesis holds unchallenged. But Israel's involvement in attacking other nations like Lebanon in 1969 and in 1982 were not defensive in nature at all. Nor were Israel's repeated attacks against Syria and Jordan in the 1950s and 1960s. Israel's many offensive actions in the late 20th and 21st Centuries have been predominantly offensive operations and the rate and scale of such operations has been steadily growing.
These rules actively encourage 'manageable' conflicts, granting control over global war and peace to five countries which unsurprisingly also turn out to have become the world's biggest dealers in war machinery and equipment. It's better than nothing, but it's still obviously a pretty rotten system. Do you really think that dogmatic absolutism about the letter of the law in this system, selectively enforced against the weak or isolated, should trump the wishes and well-being of the Palestinian and Israeli people? And that the Israel-Palestine conflict is somehow going spell doom for the species? Come on. It's been fifty years; if this conflict were a slippery slope we would've gone off the edge by now, and if we do go off the edge there'll be far bigger and far more recent causes for it than the absence of a global coalition trying to ruin Palestinians' and Israelis' lives so bad that they somehow come to terms.
Only by applying the rules of a rules-based international system will the most egregious rule breakers be finally disciplined. So you start lower on the food chain of international predation and then work your way up to the apex predators. The State of Israel is as good a focus as any number of other highly militaristic states with the bonus of sorting the Israeli-Palestinian crisis and the issue of Israeli non-compliance with nuclear non-proliferation protocols. In a sense it's a hat-trick choice, three problems potentially solved for one international intervention.

Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.
 
Last edited:
These "protests" were used by Palestinian militant to attack Israeli soldiers and try to cross the border, the IDF only attacked back at those militants. This is yet another example of Hamas attacking Israel while using its citizens as human shields.
All your examples for "killings" are just Israel defending itself.
All your examples for "displacements" are just evictions of illegal tenants or destruction of illegal buildings.


There was no evidence for Israel support of settler violence in both links, only empty claims as yours.
Valaisee:

So now we see full-blown denial. Very well. I expected nothing less since I have been reading your posts for a month. No amount of evidence or authority will impact your highly entrenched world view. But in debating with you, others will see you and the State of Israel in a more true and skeptical light.

Have a great day and be well.
Evilroddy.
 
So now we see full-blown denial. Very well. I expected nothing less since I have been reading your posts for a month. No amount of evidence or authority will impact your highly entrenched world view. But in debating with you, others will see you and the State of Israel in a more true and skeptical light.
Do you understand that a link to some organizations opinion article is not "evidence" or "authority" by its own?
You need to either quote the parts in the link that support your claim, or at least point out to the relevant sections in it.
Unless I missed something, I gave a response for each of your claims and links, while in many cases you didn't give any counter-argument.
 
Back
Top Bottom