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

[Valaisee]

I never said that laws had been passed, yet. I said elites were discussing disenfranchising Arab-Israeli voters. The Netanyahu case is just one example. Avigdor Liebermann is another; and there are many more. Please stop trying to twist what I have said in my earlier post to fit your agenda.

I know, but your links don't show any discussing of preventing Arabs from voting.

Read the citations more carefully. Netanyahu claimed that he should form the Government instead of the larger Gantz Coallition (more Knesset seats) because the Arab Joint List was antithetical to the national goals of Israel (as defined by Likud) and therefore the Israeli President should discount and strip away those 15 JAL seats from the Gantz Coallition before summing up seat counts in both coalitions. This would make Netanyahu's coalition the larger one but would put 15 JAL seats into the wilderness of political impotence.This would effectively stop the JAL from playing a role in Israeli governance and thus depriving an estimated 582,000 Arab Israeli voters who voted for these 15 Knesset seat holders from having their votes counted when it came time to shape Israeli policy. Netanyahu painted these 15 seat holders and the whole JAL as enemies of the Israeli state, simply because they were non-Jewish Arabs. That's textbook prejudice and voter suppression advocated for by the then-sitting Prime Minister of the State of Israel.

Not sure you understand how the coalition process in Israel works, I can elaborate if you want, but in short - a coalition can only be formed by a majority in the Knesset were each votes count, including the Arab parties. The president only chooses an individual who will be the first (but not last) to try.

 

[Evilroddy]

I know, but your links don't show any discussing of preventing Arabs from voting.

I used the term disenfranchised in post #25, not preventing voting. Please don't mischaracterise what I post to serve your own purposes. Disenfranchisement is a group of measures which includes many more tactics than just blocking people from voting. If you need an example of actual blocked/denied voting, then look to the Bedouin/Arabs-Israelis in the Negev who cannot vote in their own villages and must therefore travel great distances to vote because the State of Israel does not recognise those villages as legally incorporated villages. This effects about 40,000 Arab-Israelis.

As another example, when the State of Israel illegally annexed East Jerusalem in 1980 it did not grant the right to vote to hundreds of thousands Palestinians living there. More one-sided and selective policy shaping by the State of Israel - annexing the land but not the people who have been traditionally living on it. The State of Israel wants its cake and to eat it all too. Today that means that over 300,000 Arabs living in East Jerusalem, a region which Israel now considers to be a part of Israel proper, whose lives are controlled by the State of Israel, have no capacity to vote and affect the policies which govern their lives.

For more tactics regarding disenfranchisement of Arab-Israelis please see the following:

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news...est-attempt-to-disenfranchise-arabs-1.5402404

Not sure you understand how the coalition process in Israel works, I can elaborate if you want, but in short - a coalition can only be formed by a majority in the Knesset were each votes count, including the Arab parties. The president only chooses an individual who will be the first (but not last) to try.

Yes, I understand it all too well. Since about 2000 the Israeli government has been altering the Basic Law regarding voting franchise in order to skew the electoral weight of the Jewish Israelis in preference to non-Jewish Israelis. These changes have made Arab-Israeli voters, politicians and political parties weaker. That these strategies of disenfranchisement have been discussed by Israeli elites is a matter of public record.

Now, can we get back to the topic of this thread please.

Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.

 

[Valaisee]

Now, can we get back to the topic of this thread please.

It's your thread, and you started this sub-topic. I will honor this request by giving the most minimal respond to your claims. I can elaborate if you will open this in another thread.

I used the term disenfranchised in post #25, not preventing voting. Please don't mischaracterise what I post to serve your own purposes. Disenfranchisement is a group of measures which includes many more tactics than just blocking people from voting. If you need an example of actual blocked/denied voting, then look to the Bedouin/Arabs-Israelis in the Negev who cannot vote in their own villages and must therefore travel great distances to vote because the State of Israel does not recognise those villages as legally incorporated villages. This effects about 40,000 Arab-Israelis.

This equally harms all Israeli citizens, not only Arabs.

As another example, when the State of Israel illegally annexed East Jerusalem in 1980 it did not grant the right to vote to hundreds of thousands Palestinians living there. More one-sided and selective policy shaping by the State of Israel - annexing the land but not the people who have been traditionally living on it. The State of Israel wants its cake and to eat it all too. Today that means that over 300,000 Arabs living in East Jerusalem, a region which Israel now considers to be a part of Israel proper, whose lives are controlled by the State of Israel, have no capacity to vote and affect the policies which govern their lives.

Not true.

For more tactics regarding disenfranchisement of Arab-Israelis please see the following:

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news...est-attempt-to-disenfranchise-arabs-1.5402404

No reason not to trust the court.

Yes, I understand it all too well. Since about 2000 the Israeli government has been altering the Basic Law regarding voting franchise in order to skew the electoral weight of the Jewish Israelis in preference to non-Jewish Israelis. These changes have made Arab-Israeli voters, politicians and political parties weaker. That these strategies of disenfranchisement have been discussed by Israeli elites is a matter of public record.

Is there more examples?

 

[bomberfox]

You mean leave the UN? and what do you mean by "both ways"? All UN resultions against Israel are non binding.

Sure if ya want to have that attitude. Having it both ways is expecting to be in an international treaty but never caring what said international organization says.

 

[Valaisee]

Sure if ya want to have that attitude. Having it both ways is expecting to be in an international treaty but never caring what said international organization says.

Which "international treaty" Israel expects to be in?
Israel do cares about what the international organization says, but doesn't always agree with it, and blindly obeys it.

 

[Evilroddy]

It's your thread, and you started this sub-topic. I will honor this request by giving the most minimal respond to your claims. I can elaborate if you will open this in another thread.

Valaisee:

You start the thread and I'll jump in.

This equally harms all Israeli citizens, not only Arabs.

No it doesn't because the inequality is targetted against Arab-Israelis. How many Russian-Israelis have been disenfranchised in Israel since 2000? I would wager very few, if any.

Not true.

Yes, true. Your source talks about city elections, not national elections and requiring oaths of allegience cannot legally be used by the State of Israel to deny voting rights according to court interpretations of the Basic Law.

No reason not to trust the court.

Clearly, you don't understand the viewpoint of Arab-Israelis who see Israeli state courts and military courts as heavily weighted against them and their fellow Arabs.

Is there more examples?

The Haartz article talks about many. If you want more, then google search "disenfranchisement Arab-Israeli".

Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.

 

[Antiwar]

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.

There's no disconnect between 1 and 3. I'll highlight the word 'international' more. The entire world needs to be involved in the entire world, as in there are human rights and environmental issues everywhere. The US government is one of the biggest talkers and one of the biggest hindrances to international cooperation. I'll leave it at that, for now. And I haven't read the rest of the thread.


My comment (for easy reference):

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

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

[3] And something needs to be said about colonialism sucking."



@JANFU @Evilroddy (since they liked that reply and are relatively serious commenters)

 

[NWRatCon]

There's no disconnect between 1 and 3. I'll highlight the word 'international' more.

Here's the point I was making: colonialism sucked, no question. I've said several times that the Mandate period was a nearly unmitigated disaster, but it's the only example we have of how the international community has managed such a situation. I'm open for counter examples.

On the other hand, I agree that a robust international intervention is the answer. Jerusalem was intended to be administered independently as an international city. I still think that's is the right solution, and that's particularly true for the Palestinian State, or States. I don't know if Gaza could ever really operate as a separate State, as it is very different from the West Bank, generally, and the separateness would be difficult to manage.

The entire world needs to be involved in the entire world, as in there are human rights and environmental issues everywhere. The US government is one of the biggest talkers and one of the biggest hindrances to international cooperation. I'll leave it at that, for now. And I haven't read the rest of the thread.

I'll let you catch up.

 

[Antiwar]

Here's the point I was making: colonialism sucked, no question. I've said several times that the Mandate period was a nearly unmitigated disaster, but it's the only example we have of how the international community has managed such a situation. I'm open for counter examples.

On the other hand, I agree that a robust international intervention is the answer. Jerusalem was intended to be administered independently as an international city. I still think that's is the right solution, and that's particularly true for the Palestinian State, or States. I don't know if Gaza could ever really operate as a separate State, as it is very different from the West Bank, generally, and the separateness would be difficult to manage.

My idea of a strong international police force and criminal court is not specifically about the problems with whatever we want to call I/P, but the I/P problem should be under the jurisdiction of this proposal. Again, the US government is one of the biggest hindrances to the weak and ineffective systems that are already in place that at least are/were supposed to deal with human rights and environmental issues.

I'll let you catch up.

I skimmed the rest of the thread and I didn't see anything related to what I'm talking about.

 

[weaver2]

Early on Jews knew Palestinians would have to leave Israel in order to establish a Jewish State. The UN could not stop Jewish aggression for the same reasons the League of Nations could not stop German aggression. Neither organization has/had been given the power to enforce the rules everybody agreed upon.

Whether we like globalism or not we are now the Interconnected States of the World . But without effective courts it is impossible to "establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity,". Without international courts there are no consequences for the killing and taking done in Rwanda, Israel, Ukraine, the Congo, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Myanmar and others.

Multinational corporations have filled the political vacuum . They act as judge and jury managing the world's business, its resources, commerce, finance and wealth and it is to their advantage to deflect scrutiny of their control by allowing aggression to run pretty much unchecked. It's happening in Israel and Myanmar today. It will happen in another country tomorrow and for many tomorrows until we recognize that in our small and interdependent world peace, justice and liberty can only be had with international courts and enforceable laws.

 

[weaver2]

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.
Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.

It is long past time for giving Israel a pass on it's behavior because it has immigrants, cultural differences, several languages, and other religions. So does Canada, the US, the UK, Russia, India and many others. The politics of every country are complicated and borderline dysfunctional.. With the exception of Israel, Myanmar and China no country is letting army personnel help one religious faction burn down the property of people that believe in a different religion.

 

[What if...?]

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.

Historically, the world lets Israel do as it pleases with little or no criticism from the test of the world.

If the world ignores your plight and you oppressor makes it harder and harder for you to live, you fight back or get pushed out.

No one who supports Israel blindly would tolerate a day as a Palestinian, most of whom are just people trying to live their lives.

Would you honestly be OK with soldiers breaking down your door and holding your family at gunpoint while they tear your home apart in a random search?

 

[Mithrae]

Historically, the world lets Israel do as it pleases with little or no criticism from the test of the world.

If the world ignores your plight and you oppressor makes it harder and harder for you to live, you fight back or get pushed out.

The impression I get is almost exactly the opposite: Wildly disproportionate international condemnation of Israel - even if mostly just words - encourages unrealistic expectations of how much 'should' or could be gained by Palestine in a final peace settlement (eg. an unqualified 'right of return'), which undermines the political will for a more pragmatic even if 'unfair' peace and statehood, and hence helps perpetuate the cycle of violence.

Historically, despite inevitable extremist elements during the Mandate period the mainstream/official Zionist positions were pretty consistently restrained, compromising and where possible peaceful, while violence and obstruction against Jewish political representation were initially and more commonly the domain of Palestinian groups. Palestinian leadership and the Arab League at large held openly genocidal intentions in their eradication efforts of 1947-49, whereas for all its faults the young state of Israel refrained from continuing its expansion and ethnic cleansing further into the West Bank to the Jordan as the "natural, defensible border," despite having the military capability to do so. In the armistice agreements of 1949 Israel's neighbours refused to endorse the armistice lines as a territorial border of Israel, nor establish a Palestinian state when they had all the power to do so. Jordan annexed the West Bank and granted citizenship to Palestinians in its territory (the next best solution), and Israel of course integrated the hundreds of thousands of Jews who'd fled from Arab countries during the war, but other Arab states refused to integrate Palestinian refugees... instead apparently keeping them and the Egyptian-occupied territory of Gaza on hand in a state of limbo for use as political ammunition against Israel.

The Arab League's intention to eradicate the Jewish state continued unabated, for example from a 1964 summit noting that "Arab states have to prepare the plans necessary for dealing with the political, economic and social aspects, so that if necessary results are not achieved, collective Arab military preparations, when they are not completed, will constitute the ultimate practical means for the final liquidation of Israel." When Israel reacted to Egypt's aggressive rhetoric, military build-up in the Sinai and especially blockading of Israeli shipping through the Straits of Tiran in 1967, they practically begged Jordan not to enter the war, but with Jordanian artillery fire from the West Bank reaching as far as the suburbs of Tel Aviv they of course responded by taking such proximate lands from hostile control. When Egypt finally recognized and made peace with Israel in 1979 it was literally suspended from the Arab League for a decade for daring to do so! Jordan made peace in 1994, but even as of 2017 they had been the only Arab states to do so.

None of that is to say that in this atmosphere of hostility Israel hasn't also had its share of warmongers and war crimes, but the ridiculously one-sided portrayal of Israel as "oppressor" in this context seems like a continuation of the "political, economic and social aspects" of the efforts to abolish the Jewish state. The basic problem for moderate Israeli politicians is how to negotiate a Palestinian state while it seems so likely to become an enemy at the gates. Far from receiving "little or no criticism from the rest of the world" for its treatment of that problem, the UN Human Rights Council has specifically condemned Israel more than that bastion of human rights and freedoms Saudi Arabia, more than China, more than Sudan... more than the rest of the world combined! Why? In part because the 'one nation, one vote' model of UN organizations is one which favours voting blocs like the Arab League or powerful countries like China, while disfavouring the weak or the isolated. Condemning Israel carries virtually no political downside while there's plenty of countries that wouldn't look too favourably on support for Israel. Building on this disparity, the BDS movement which has gained prominence lately aims to reduce the fraught history in Palestine down to a comparison with apartheid South Africa, with a goal of securing an overwhelming influx of Arab 'refugees' (the descendants of those encouraged by Arab leaders to depart, or who fled or were expelled in 1947-49) into Israel... in other words, abolishing the Jewish state by demographic rather than military means. Obviously better than warfare, but that's not fighting back against "oppression" by any reasonable measure, and to my mind it's unrealistic demands/expectations like those which are the biggest impediment to a real and lasting peace.

 

[TypicalRussian]

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.

evil

pure evil

 

[TypicalRussian]

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

but hold on- they ALREADY cooperate with china so it does make sense!

 

[Chagos]

Early on Jews knew Palestinians would have to leave Israel in order to establish a Jewish State. The UN could not stop Jewish aggression for the same reasons the League of Nations could not stop German aggression. Neither organization has/had been given the power to enforce the rules everybody agreed upon.

Whether we like globalism or not we are now the Interconnected States of the World . But without effective courts it is impossible to "establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity,". Without international courts there are no consequences for the killing and taking done in Rwanda, Israel, Ukraine, the Congo, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Myanmar and others.

Multinational corporations have filled the political vacuum . They act as judge and jury managing the world's business, its resources, commerce, finance and wealth and it is to their advantage to deflect scrutiny of their control by allowing aggression to run pretty much unchecked. It's happening in Israel and Myanmar today. It will happen in another country tomorrow and for many tomorrows until we recognize that in our small and interdependent world peace, justice and liberty can only be had with international courts and enforceable laws.

And while one can safely stop reading after your first paragraph (equating Israel with Nazi Germany), the second paragraph aptly serves to confirm how your whole post can indeed be seen as not worthy of further address.

Address, that is, beyond pointing out the insanity of equating Israel with the rest of the countries cited in the same breath and sentence.

In that sense you bring as little novelty to the table of debate here as so many others who prefer to substitute stupid soundbites for informed argument.

 

[weaver2]

And while one can safely stop reading after your first paragraph (equating Israel with Nazi Germany), the second paragraph aptly serves to confirm how your whole post can indeed be seen as not worthy of further address.

Address, that is, beyond pointing out the insanity of equating Israel with the rest of the countries cited in the same breath and sentence.

In that sense you bring as little novelty to the table of debate here as so many others who prefer to substitute stupid soundbites for informed argument.

This is fun. I get to post stuff that is "not worthy of further address" and "substitute stupid soundbites for informed argument" and you get to be disdainful and disparaging. Life doesn't get any better than that , eh?

 

[Chagos]

This is fun. I get to post stuff that is "not worthy of further address" and "substitute stupid soundbites for informed argument" and you get to be disdainful and disparaging. Life doesn't get any better than that , eh?

Well, not for your post, it doesn't.

The equations that you attempted deserve no better.

 

[weaver2]

Well, not for your post, it doesn't.

The equations that you attempted deserve no better.

So you don't think we need strong international courts with real teeth that can deal effectively with the Rwandas and Myamars and Congos that practice terrorism, ethnic cleansing, and concentration of populations in restricted areas.

 

[Chagos]

So you don't think we need strong international courts with real teeth that can deal effectively with the Rwandas and Myamars and Congos that practice terrorism, ethnic cleansing, and concentration of populations in restricted areas.

The issue here is your pathetic attempt to equate Israel with any of the countries listed, by now attempting to create a strawman as silly as the above.

Gish gallop away, I'm not playing.

 

[weaver2]

The issue here is your pathetic attempt to equate Israel with any of the countries listed, by now attempting to create a strawman as silly as the above.

Gish gallop away, I'm not playing.

OK Duane and I are galloping away. Sorry you thought the post was overwhelming. To be perfectly frank there wasn't any game and you weren't invited to play.

 

[Chagos]

OK Duane and I are galloping away. Sorry you thought the post was overwhelming. To be perfectly frank there wasn't any game and you weren't invited to play.

 

[oneworld2]

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.

I think the two state solution would be the best option BUT I feel the illegal settlements are what has rendered it pretty much dead in the water. Some Israeli movers and shakers in the aftermath of the Six day War thought the same and saw the time as a golden opportunity to try to settle the question of Palestine with the Palestinians, free as they were in territorial control for the first time. The greater Israel project trumped everything and the settlement programme was started more or less immediately, the rest is history with the massive increase in settlement building having taken place in the post Oslo period.

As one respectable commentator framed it........................................"There never has been a peace process, but rather an annexation process that used the “peace process” as a facade."