IDF/Settler Joint Attacks on Palestinians - A Disturbing New Trend?

[Evilroddy]

Joint Attacks

Safadi’s death was one of 11 violent killings of Palestinians in the West Bank on May 14, according to the Palestinian Ministry of Health. While Israeli media reported that the killings occurred amid “clashes” — implying the widespread protests over Al Aqsa and the Gaza bombings — at least four of the deaths occurred during deliberate attacks by settlers and soldiers on Palestinian villages, an investigation by Local Call and The Intercept found.

The joint attacks by Israeli settlers and soldiers were not linked to protests in the targeted villages; no demonstrations preceded the violence in three of the four locations. The incursions all occurred at almost the same time, around 2 p.m., and all involved the settlers destroying agricultural land, including by setting fires, as well as stone throwing and the use of live ammunition.

Attacks on Palestinians by stone-throwing settlers, as Israeli soldiers stand idly by, are a common occurrence in the occupied Palestinian territories. But scenes like those from May 14 — settlers and soldiers attacking villages in apparent cooperation, with live ammunition — are unprecedented.

From:

On a Single Day in May, Israeli Settlers and Soldiers Cooperated in Attacks That Left Four Palestinians Dead

On a single day in May, Israeli soldiers and settlers cooperated in an unprecedented spate of unprovoked joint attacks that left four Palestinians dead.

theintercept.com

Israeli settler extremism is now being backed up not by IDF passive complicity but by active IDF participation in settler attacks on Palestinian property and the Palestinian Arabs themselves. This is an unprecedented escalation since last May and if it continues this could cause serious domestic, local, regional and international blowback for the State of Israel.

For some background information see:

How one hilltop became an incubator for Israeli settler violence - +972 Magazine

The Israeli government has done little to stop the religious settlers of Yitzhar, whose extremist doctrine is instigating waves of violence against Palestinians in the West Bank.

www.972mag.com

Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.

 

[nucky9]

From:

On a Single Day in May, Israeli Settlers and Soldiers Cooperated in Attacks That Left Four Palestinians Dead

On a single day in May, Israeli soldiers and settlers cooperated in an unprecedented spate of unprovoked joint attacks that left four Palestinians dead.

theintercept.com

Israeli settler extremism is now being backed up not by IDF passive complicity but by active IDF participation in settler attacks on Palestinian property and the Palestinian Arabs themselves. This is an unprecedented escalation since last May and if it continues this could cause serious domestic, local, regional and international blowback for the State of Israel. .

Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.

I have no idea how to approach the problem between Israel and the Palestinians, except to hope that one day, somehow, it gets resolved. It seems impossible to get an unbiased view of events.

One thing that struck me (that I feel guilty for admitting, given the context) from the article though:
"One of the villagers who arrived was Nidal Safadi. “Nidal arrived at the school terrified,” said his brother, who asked that his name not be used for fear of retribution."

I mean, that's some top-shelf journalism there.

 

[Allan]

I have no idea how to approach the problem between Israel and the Palestinians, except to hope that one day, somehow, it gets resolved. It seems impossible to get an unbiased view of events.

Two state solution is the best approach. Unfortunately leadership on both sides seems to have intractable positions.

 

[nucky9]

Two state solution is the best approach. Unfortunately leadership on both sides seems to have intractable positions.

It makes logical sense, but is it actually practical? Israel, being the dominant power, puts its needs first, often to the detriment of the Palestinians. And the only thing that seems to unite the Palestinians, politically, is their hatred of Israel.

Interesting read here, which seems balanced. The conclusion seems to be to keep pumping aid into the region and hope for the best, but expect the worst.

 

[Allan]

It makes logical sense, but is it actually practical? Israel, being the dominant power, puts its needs first, often to the detriment of the Palestinians. And the only thing that seems to unite the Palestinians, politically, is their hatred of Israel.

Interesting read here, which seems balanced. The conclusion seems to be to keep pumping aid into the region and hope for the best, but expect the worst.

From the article you linked:

The analysis shows that Israel has reacted by placing far more emphasis on security measures and the use of force than on the peace process and improving the living conditions and economic security of the Palestinians. It has emphasized the creation of a “Jewish state” over a peace settlement, and it has encouraged the expansion of settlements in the West Bank area, Jewish areas in Jerusalem, and the use of “facts on the ground” as a substitute for peace.

The Palestinians, however, have divided and done equally little to move towards a settlement and a stable peace. The Intifadas, lesser forms of violence, and the division of the Palestinian movement into a steadily weaker Palestinian Authority “government” in the West Bank, a Hamas “government,” as well as a major military build-up in Gaza have all been a matching cause of the collapse for any prospects for a real two-state solution, including Israel’s treatment of Gaza, creeping annexations and facts on the ground, and shifts towards making Israel a Jewish state.

I think that's a pretty astute summary of what's happening.

 

[NWRatCon]

It makes logical sense, but is it actually practical? Israel, being the dominant power, puts its needs first, often to the detriment of the Palestinians. And the only thing that seems to unite the Palestinians, politically, is their hatred of Israel.

Interesting read here, which seems balanced. The conclusion seems to be to keep pumping aid into the region and hope for the best, but expect the worst.

Very good reference. Thanks.

Often overlooked is the inherent asymmetry between a recognized state and a semi-recognized captive people of that state. Palestine has observer status at the UN, but not full recognition, and the fact that its land is geographically discontinuous makes it impossible to govern effectively, even if it had that opportunity.

The only quibble I have with your post is the use of the word "often" in the phrase "often to the detriment of the Palestinians." I simply can't think of any exception.

 

[NWRatCon]

From nucky9's linked article: "The end result is a situation where there now are at least three equivalents of “failed states” that divide the two sides in a practical sense, and to some extent five. Each represents a separate center of divisions and tensions both between Israel and the Palestinians – and within each side. Each is a center of actions and tensions that may well block any lasting functional settlement between Israeli Jews and the Palestinians indefinitely into the future." That encapsulates the present situation well. It is interesting that the citation includes Israel as a "failed State" based on "its failure to both give the Palestinians the equity and aid that could bring stability and compromise on some equivalent of a two-state solution. Israeli politics have declined from an effective democracy to something beginning to approach a “chaos-cracy,” focused more and more on opportunistic annexation, security forces, and the use of force over the peace process." Again, keen insights.

Finally, this:

It is all too clear from this analysis on the scale of the military, security, civil, and economic problems on all sides that even seemingly successful efforts to end the current fighting may not lead to more than a pause in further violence. It is also clear that no settlement is likely to last that ignores the fact that the two-state solution has so far failed because both sides can sometimes agree on a concept but can never agree on effective practical action.

 

[Antiwar]

Two state solution is the best approach. Unfortunately leadership on both sides seems to have intractable positions.

A very strong international court with very strong police powers is the best approach I can think up.

Waiting for the two-state solution to happen while Israel continues its bullshit hasn't worked for how many decades now?

And something needs to be said about colonialism sucking.

 

[NWRatCon]

A very strong international court with very strong police powers is the best approach I can think up.

Waiting for the two-state solution to happen while Israel continues its bullshit hasn't worked for how many decades now?

And something needs to be said about colonialism sucking.

Although I agree with point one, I have to point out that point 3 is its opposite counterpart. There seems to be an inherent disconnect there.

 

[nucky9]

The only quibble I have with your post is the use of the word "often" in the phrase "often to the detriment of the Palestinians." I simply can't think of any exception.

Well, I meant at a broader level (i..e. just Israel existing) - when it comes to Israel's policies regarding Palestinians, you could well be right, but as I said, I have found it very difficult to find any information that even pretends to be unbiased.

 

[Evilroddy]

It makes logical sense, but is it actually practical? Israel, being the dominant power, puts its needs first, often to the detriment of the Palestinians. And the only thing that seems to unite the Palestinians, politically, is their hatred of Israel.

Interesting read here, which seems balanced. The conclusion seems to be to keep pumping aid into the region and hope for the best, but expect the worst.

Nucky9:

Good article by Cordesman. Thanks for posting it.

Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.

 

[NWRatCon]

I don't want to jinx it, but this has been a thoughtful and civil discussion. I like that.

 

[Chagos]

It makes logical sense, but is it actually practical? Israel, being the dominant power, puts its needs first, often to the detriment of the Palestinians. And the only thing that seems to unite the Palestinians, politically, is their hatred of Israel.

Interesting read here, which seems balanced. The conclusion seems to be to keep pumping aid into the region and hope for the best, but expect the worst.

 

[Chagos]

One should not make the mistake of considering Israeli society as a homogenic body of one or even two (like moderate and extremist) ideologies with regard to any issue. IOW the average Israeli (Jewish) citizen is not gifted with the choice of choosing between a more conservative and a more progressive party.

Like the old joke of the two rabbis, after fighting each other for years over what should be preached in the synagogue, finally agreeing that each found their own synagogue and work on the premise of "you go to yours, I'll go to mine and we'll both boycott that heretic scumbag up on the hill".

Before being accused of using an anti-semitic trope here (no two Jews can ever agree on anything) I first heard this one from a bunch of Israelis that, while assessing it all as being a cliché, nevertheless found it both funny and apt.

In the light of which one need only regard the mental calisthenics necessary for any majority in the Knesset to form, that can actually govern the country.

While no friend of Likud (let alone Netanyahu) it behooves me to point out that constant claims of the party being quasi-fascist in any anti-Palestinian stance, is a somewhat simplistic interpretation of a far more complex issue. It cannot form a government without catering to "smaller" coalition candidates and, being very conservative, is by that very nature less inclined to choose those from the opposite side of the fence. Consequently going to bed with extremist factions and the fleas be damned, but in no way reflecting overall attitude of Israelis, possibly not even their majority.

The current new government is no different in this respect and most certainly does not reflect an overall unity of Israelis either.

Because, as we constantly see, such unity does not exist.

Which isn't really a surprise, considering the make-up resulting of immigrants constituting the society, while coming from all walks of life, disparate histories, often conflicting cultural heritages and even totally different languages. With the only common denominator of being Jewish hardly serving as the necessary glue, while all adopting modern Hebrew is only plastering over the cracks.

It is, where nowhere identical, something of a mirror of Palestinian disunity already addressed here, having culminated in a progressive head of state being murdered for conceding "too much" to a two-state solution, and that crime being viewed by many as an act of patriotism.

Abbas, corrupt as he is, has his life as much in danger on the opposite side of the coin.

Extremism foments extremism and when the extremists are happy with cementing that as an agreeable status quo, the question of who started what and who is more extreme becomes moot, at least to those that can satisfactorily arrange their lives within the resulting condition. But it reflects neither Israelis in general nor Palestinians.

Finally that personal analysis (of mine) cannot include any solution to the conundrum(s), only consequence being (my) capitulation in the face of it all.

 

[NWRatCon]

As friend Chagos points out, the government of Israel hardly represents the people of Israel, any more than the Congress of the United States (and often the President) is representative of the views of its people (as the discrepancy between polls and policy frequently reflects). In both cases, political realities emphasize extremist - and vocal - elements within the polity. For many of the same reasons, it is often difficult for any government to check the excesses of extremists within the population. We in the United States suffer the same disability.

It is often difficult to discuss Israeli government policies because many view any criticism as an attack on the people (even when that sentiment is clearly wrong and patiently delineated). This is exacerbated by emotional and historical sentiment on both sides. The Israel-Palestine conundrum is the most intractable issue in international diplomacy. The "Irish question" was the closest comparator, until it was shakily resolved, and the ongoing conflicts involving Russian and Chinese hegemony are modern analogs. They, too, are difficult to discuss because of cultural and historical overlays. It doesn't help, either, that international efforts in the last century were incompetently handled, or that conquest and colonialism played a part in that storied history.

Even when a discussion is centered on a discrete, identifiable activity or wrong, that history, and those cultural conflicts often intercede. Jerusalem, after all, is "holy" for at least three major religions and has been a source of conflict over its entire existence. Moreover, generalized terms - Arab, Jew - hardly substitute for the complex and variegated population.

All of that is just introduction to discussion of the particular issue that gave rise to this thread - settler violence and IDF participation. Another discussion on a related topic has been vigorously derailed by the sentiments detailed above. It is exceedingly difficult to carry on a discussion on it without all of the other being imported. Nonetheless, it cannot be discussed without admitting the underlying wrong of expropriation of land and dispossession of the current occupants. This thread is discussing just one aspect of that overall situation, and one that is particularly indefensible. So far, so good.

 

[Evilroddy]

@Chagos and @NWRatCon

Does the polis shape the politics of a nation or a state by its multifaceted will? Does the politics of a nation or state trap the polis inside a cage of political predestination? If the first question can be answered with a yes, then it is the polis' responsibility to sort out unethical and (what the international community has come to see as) illegal state activity regarding militarily occupied peoples and land theft. If the second question is answered yes, then democracy is a runaway train over which the polis has no effective control. In that case the democracy is a de facto failed state institution as per Anthony Cordesman's analysis and therefore it follows that Gaza and the West Bank under Hamas/Fatah/Palestinian Authority control, East Jerusalem under the State of Israel's control, Israel under a fragmented Knesset's control and Israeli Arabs living under Israeli control are all failed state situations.

Now if a failed state uses its military to aid in the ethnic cleansing of a region under that military's control as for example has been happening in China's Xinjiang province or in Myanmar's Rohingya dominated Northwest, then the world steps in and mobilises sanctions, embargoes and boycotts of the offending state to discipline it towards better behaviour. This happened in South Africa, this happened to Russia, this happened to Myanmar and this is in the process of happening to China. But it does not happen to the State of Israel, even after 74 years of consistently bad behaviour. Why is the State of Israel immune to international consequences for what it is doing to captive populations under its military control for between 74-54 years?

At some point I think the observation that Israeli politics are complicated and borderline dysfunctional ceases to be an excuse for the systemic injustices and violence it is inflicting on the occupied populations under its control. Ultimately the world must hold the State of Israel and its polis accountable for its actions, regardless of how verklempt and dysfunctional the politics of the State of Israel are. When IDF soldiers actively aid illegal Israeli settlers in attacking the property and lives of occupied Arsb Palestinians, then a tipping point has been reached and international consequences must follow. That is my point of view regarding this issue.

Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.

 

[Chagos]

While the following cannot serve to excuse (let alone justify) this incident and many others like it, l know of one Israeli family that moved to the West Bank simply because house construction and subsequent dwelling there came cheaper than anything they could possibly have found within Israel's core land.

I don't know the family personally but they are friends of someone I do know (yeah right, so sue me for anecdotes) and for what it cost them to have a three bedroom house with pool, they'd merely have been able to pay for a third story one bedroom apartment in Tel Aviv, if even that.

Considering that it's a short ride from their location to the workplace in Tel Aviv (albeit in part thru a fenced corridor), for them it has merely been a move "to the suburbs", while gaining (supposedly) better living conditions.

Their acquisition of land itself did not displace any Palestinian farmer and they do not farm anyway, they're not remotely interested in attacking anyone at all and, seeing how the whole thing is deemed legal by Israeli law, are not prone to share into any ideology of occupation, let alone religious claims of propertyship.

There are many like them and I point this out merely to illustrate that Israelis in the West Bank do not exclusively comprise extremist religious nuts.

The legality of it all is of course a totally different matter but, being Israelis, they concern themselves solely with Israeli laws rather that what any international bodies have to say on the matter.

Opportunism? Sure !
But extremism? Hardly.

 

[Chagos]

@Chagos and @NWRatCon

Does the polis shape the politics of a nation or a state by its multifaceted will? Does the politics of a nation or state trap the polis inside a cage of political predestination? If the first question can be answered with a yes, then it is the polis' responsibility to sort out unethical and (what the international community has come to see as) illegal state activity regarding militarily occupied peoples and land theft. If the second question is answered yes, then democracy is a runaway train over which the polis has no effective control. In that case the democracy is a de facto failed state institution as per Anthony Cordesman's analysis and therefore it follows that Gaza and the West Bank under Hamas/Fatah/Palestinian Authority control, East Jerusalem under the State of Israel's control, Israel under a fragmented Knesset's control and Israeli Arabs living under Israeli control are all failed state situations.

I'm not prone to oppose the failed state(s) verdict on all of them but then I'm neither Israeli nor Palestinian. Nevertheless, knowing Israel (and many Israelis) better than most of us that pass verdict from the comfort of the respective "outsides" that we dwell in, I'd answer the first question with yes. I'd even extend that yes to the second question. I might subsequently consider what the international community deems to perceive, even where I find the definition of any such body neither here nor there. But that (latter part) is beside the point, seeing how even many moderate Israelis point their ears within and not without. Exceptions to that "rule" not serving to demolish it.

Your conclusions over what Israel should be doing in both of the cases you've premised are all good and well. What is missing is the "how".

Now if a failed state uses its military to aid in the ethnic cleansing of a region under that military's control as for example has been happening in China's Xinjiang province or in Myanmar's Rohingya dominated Northwest, then the world steps in and mobilises sanctions, embargoes and boycotts of the offending state to discipline it towards better behaviour. This happened in South Africa, this happened to Russia, this happened to Myanmar and this is in the process of happening to China. But it does not happen to the State of Israel, even after 74 years of consistently bad behaviour. Why is the State of Israel immune to international consequences for what it is doing to captive populations under its military control for between 74-54 years?

Maybe your analogy to "ethnic cleansing" elsewhere walks with a heavy limp? Because you (and not you alone) tend to throw that out there, all the way to accusing Israel of being an apartheid state, while never providing proof of any such thing (let alone "cleansing") being state policy. Israel is not China, is not Myanmar, is not the Boer state of the past and to equate it with any of those is simply short-sighted in its pursuit of convenient (and thoughtless) sound bites.

Nor, to address the other side of that highly presumptive coin, are the Palestinians Uighurs, Blacks or Rohingya.

At some point I think the observation that Israeli politics are complicated and borderline dysfunctional ceases to be an excuse for the systemic injustices and violence it is inflicting on the occupied populations under its control. Ultimately the world must hold the State of Israel and its polis accountable for its actions, regardless of how verklempt and dysfunctional the politics of the State of Israel are. When IDF soldiers actively aid illegal Israeli settlers in attacking the property and lives of occupied Arsb Palestinians, then a tipping point has been reached and international consequences must follow. That is my point of view regarding this issue.

I'll repeat that I'm at a complete loss over how to address the complications that Israeli governance even over its own shows, but your proposed "solution" is as delusional as believing that Alexander ever cut that silly knot.

 

[NWRatCon]

@Chagos and @NWRatCon

Does the polis shape the politics of a nation or a state by its multifaceted will? Does the politics of a nation or state trap the polis inside a cage of political predestination?

It's complicated.... I agree, my friend, that these are valid questions, but I'm going to approach your post a little differently by starting at the end.

Ultimately the world must hold the State of Israel and its polis accountable for its actions, regardless of how verklempt and dysfunctional the politics of the State of Israel are. When IDF soldiers actively aid illegal Israeli settlers in attacking the property and lives of occupied Arab Palestinians, then a tipping point has been reached and international consequences must follow. That is my point of view regarding this issue.

I couldn't agree more. I think one of the things that imbues this situation with complexity is the international nature of the creation of the State of Israel. Israel, as it is now constructed, came into existence as a response to the changing world attitudes toward the Jewish diaspora and an interposition by the a UN on behalf of world leadership. Had the UN not given its imprimatur, I doubt Israel would have gained international recognition. It would just have been yet another civil war in the land of Palestine. In that sense, the "five failed states"description is apt.

 

[NWRatCon]

While the following cannot serve to excuse (let alone justify) this incident and many others like it, l know of one Israeli family that moved to the West Bank simply because house construction and subsequent dwelling there came cheaper than anything they could possibly have found within Israel's core land.

I don't know the family personally but they are friends of someone I do know (yeah right, so sue me for anecdotes) and for what it cost them to have a three bedroom house with pool, they'd merely have been able to pay for a third story one bedroom apartment in Tel Aviv, if even that.

Considering that it's a short ride from their location to the workplace in Tel Aviv (albeit in part thru a fenced corridor), for them it has merely been a move "to the suburbs", while gaining (supposedly) better living conditions.

Their acquisition of land itself did not displace any Palestinian farmer and they do not farm anyway, they're not remotely interested in attacking anyone at all and, seeing how the whole thing is deemed legal by Israeli law, are not prone to share into any ideology of occupation, let alone religious claims of propertyship.

There are many like them and I point this out merely to illustrate that Israelis in the West Bank do not exclusively comprise extremist religious nuts.

The legality of it all is of course a totally different matter but, being Israelis, they concern themselves solely with Israeli laws rather that what any international bodies have to say on the matter.

Opportunism? Sure !
But extremism? Hardly.

We all, to some extent or another, accommodate ourselves to an inhumane status quo. We tell ourselves our own bedtime stories that make us feel comfortable and somnolent, so we can absolve ourselves of our own participation. I don't support racism, although I'm in the advantaged class. I'm not displacing any Palestinians because there's no one currently living there (ignoring why that is so). I'm not doing anything illegal. (It's the legislators' fault for making it legal, even if I know it's immoral, whether it's not paying taxes or homesteading.) The policy may be wrong, but I'm not at fault for using it to my advantage.

That is, of course, how the greatest atrocities are perpetrated.

 

[Chagos]

We all, to some extent or another, accommodate ourselves to an inhumane status quo. We tell ourselves our own bedtime stories that make us feel comfortable and somnolent, so we can absolve ourselves of our own participation. I don't support racism, although I'm in the advantaged class. I'm not displacing any Palestinians because there's no one currently living there (ignoring why that is so). I'm not doing anything illegal. (It's the legislators' fault for making it legal, even if I know it's immoral, whether it's not paying taxes or homesteading.) The policy may be wrong, but I'm not at fault for using it to my advantage.

That is, of course, how the greatest atrocities are perpetrated.

True enough,

I didn't cite the story to excuse anything, simply to show that there are these and those in the West Bank.

 

[Valaisee]

Does the polis shape the politics of a nation or a state by its multifaceted will? Does the politics of a nation or state trap the polis inside a cage of political predestination? If the first question can be answered with a yes, then it is the polis' responsibility to sort out unethical and (what the international community has come to see as) illegal state activity regarding militarily occupied peoples and land theft. If the second question is answered yes, then democracy is a runaway train over which the polis has no effective control. In that case the democracy is a de facto failed state institution as per Anthony Cordesman's analysis and therefore it follows that Gaza and the West Bank under Hamas/Fatah/Palestinian Authority control, East Jerusalem under the State of Israel's control, Israel under a fragmented Knesset's control and Israeli Arabs living under Israeli control are all failed state situations.

Democracy isn't perfect so the answer to both is yes. The people should use whatever limited power they have to sort out any unethical state activity and it's ability to prevent individual crimes, but not necessarily based on what the international community thinks, especially when the international community view is unethical.

 

[Valaisee]

Now if a failed state uses its military to aid in the ethnic cleansing

I'm not displacing any Palestinians because there's no one currently living there

I just want to clear out that all Israeli recognized settlements are on empty unused land that was never used by Palestinians.

Had the UN not given its imprimatur, I doubt Israel would have gained international recognition.

The UN recognition was not possible if prior to that there was no international recognition of the majority of voting states thanks to Israels diplomacy. The UN only exposed an already existing recognition majority, and didn't change the nonrecognition of the minority states - mostly Arabs. These Arab states opened a war to destroy the Jews and Israel had to fight for it's life without any direct UN or international help.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

@Chagos and @NWRatCon

Does the polis shape the politics of a nation or a state by its multifaceted will? Does the politics of a nation or state trap the polis inside a cage of political predestination? If the first question can be answered with a yes, then it is the polis' responsibility to sort out unethical and (what the international community has come to see as) illegal state activity regarding militarily occupied peoples and land theft. If the second question is answered yes, then democracy is a runaway train over which the polis has no effective control. In that case the democracy is a de facto failed state institution as per Anthony Cordesman's analysis and therefore it follows that Gaza and the West Bank under Hamas/Fatah/Palestinian Authority control, East Jerusalem under the State of Israel's control, Israel under a fragmented Knesset's control and Israeli Arabs living under Israeli control are all failed state situations.

Now if a failed state uses its military to aid in the ethnic cleansing of a region under that military's control as for example has been happening in China's Xinjiang province or in Myanmar's Rohingya dominated Northwest, then the world steps in and mobilises sanctions, embargoes and boycotts of the offending state to discipline it towards better behaviour. This happened in South Africa, this happened to Russia, this happened to Myanmar and this is in the process of happening to China. But it does not happen to the State of Israel, even after 74 years of consistently bad behaviour. Why is the State of Israel immune to international consequences for what it is doing to captive populations under its military control for between 74-54 years?

At some point I think the observation that Israeli politics are complicated and borderline dysfunctional ceases to be an excuse for the systemic injustices and violence it is inflicting on the occupied populations under its control. Ultimately the world must hold the State of Israel and its polis accountable for its actions, regardless of how verklempt and dysfunctional the politics of the State of Israel are. When IDF soldiers actively aid illegal Israeli settlers in attacking the property and lives of occupied Arsb Palestinians, then a tipping point has been reached and international consequences must follow. That is my point of view regarding this issue.

Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.

What if Israel just pivots towards China and becomes a Chinese ally rather then a western one? At that point they can do whatever they want.

I mean when you say “international community” what you really mean is globohomo, (global homogenization) the compound being created by atheistic western leftists trying to implement a western dominated soft empire. This empire is financing Israel’s enemies while demanding Israel not defend herself. I’m of the opinion maybe Israel should use their technology and economic know how and offer it to Russia in exchange for Russian alliance

 

[Evilroddy]

Democracy isn't perfect so the answer to both is yes. The people should use whatever limited power they have to sort out any unethical state activity and it's ability to prevent individual crimes, but not necessarily based on what the international community thinks, especially when the international community view is unethical.

Valaisee:

A rather self-serving argument topped of with a comment that the international community's view is unethical. A democracy must be under the control of the polis, or it is not a democracy. That control may be direct or indirect but it must be there to qualify the state as a democracy. The fact that the State of Israel denies Palestinians the vote in territories it has illegally annexed is an indication that it is not a fully functional democracy. The fact that the State of Israel carefully limits the parties which Arab Israelis can form and vote for is another indication that the State of Israel is not a fully functional democracy. The fact that Israeli political elites are openly discussing the possible disenfranchising of Israeli Arabs is an indication that the State of Israel is prepared to move more towards a dysfunctional democratic model.

The "unethical view" of the international community is based on charters and conventions which the State of Israel itself signed onto in a bid to get faster recognition of statehood from the international community you now so completely disdain at its birth. That same international community which provided the pretext for the formation of the State of Israel between 1917 and 1948. I think you are interpreting what is unethical in a conventiently forgetful way and in a vacuum of historical context.

Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.