First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
UN Resolution 242
10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 5/20/09
Jimmy Carter’s recent book concerning the Middle Eastern conflict that we here at Crunchy Roll all know and love to blabber about has stirred a great deal of controversy. It revitalized the old accusations that Carter is an anti-Semite. After viewing a Norman F. lecture over the book, I went and snatched up a copy. Anti-Semantic my eye, the book wasn’t even controversial and I don’t think a reasonable person can find offence to its content; moreover, it’s not worth the hype. Everything Carter wrote has been said and expressed a hundred times over.

His basic argument is that Israel’s wall cannot be called a security fence because it is illegal. Instead he says that the wall is a prison barricade. A security fence is built on a nation’s borders to prevent attacks, smuggling, or illegal immigration. Egypt’s barrier separating it from Gaza is a security fence. Israel’s wall is not! But wait, isn’t the land upon which Israel has built its wall Israeli territory? Well, that’s where Carter’s argument takes off and the controversy ends.

The barricade of Israel’s borders spans not only along the length of Gaza but also cuts through Westbank and East Jerusalem. These territories were ceased at the end of the Six Day War in June 1967. UN Resolution 242 clearly states that it is illegal to attain land through means of war.

Carter calls this into play to argue that the territory upon which much of the wall spans is illegal; therefore, the wall does not stretch only across Israel’s territory and is not a security fence but a prison barricade because Israel has no legal claim to the territory. He further stresses that in accordance with international law Israel must: Tear down the wall, return the territory, evacuate its citizens from the territory, and compensate for any inconvenience.

This is the basis for his ‘attack,’ on Israel-but, it’s less of an attack and more an argument of why Israel should take the route that Jimmy Carter considers a road to peace. However, concerning his argument I would like to make a couple notes.

Resolution 242 does not state that Israel must compensate the Palestinians as Carter and Norman F. claim. No, you can go and read it yourself and you’ll see it simply says that attaining land by means of war is illegal. The territory was ceased by means of war but this was in June of 1967. Resolution 242 was not passed until November of that year and therefore does not apply.

Should we call the law backwards compatible then England must surrender much of its African territory, much of the English Isles, and Northern Ireland. America must relinquish Texas and parts of Oklahoma-but, nobody makes that Argument, least of all Carter.

In addition Carter insists that international law requires Israel to forcibly remove Israelites from the territory. But article 49 of the 4th Geneva Convention actually calls that illegal. Nations are not allowed to forcibly transfer denizens of a territory, occupied or not, to another territory, occupied or not. In other words, Carter is saying that because Israel supposedly violated international law they must violate international law to forcibly remove Israelites from their homes.

In conclusion I do not think Carter’s book expressed anti-Semantic opinions. I also think that his roadmap to peace is valid though a bit too idealistic and in need of augmentation if it is to be actually applied. However, I think his argument concerning the Israeli wall being a violation of international law requires us to invent articles with the resolution that make it backwards combatable; moreover, I do not think that territory is illegal though I would like to see it returned.

I support the Two State Plan. I do not think that Israel should be -required- to return the land but I think Israel should return the land as a concession to peace. I think Israel should be required thereafter to tear down the wall that splits West Bank and crosses onto territory that SHOULD be included in Gaza.
Posted 5/20/09
Why can't the two people just live together like they always used to before WWII? All these debates just imply that neither the Palestinians nor the Israelites are willing to share the same grounds and air - living next door. Why would one otherwise have to consider solutions of the kind where people would be forcibly moved out to another territory.
10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 5/31/09

ShroomInferno wrote:

Why can't the two people just live together like they always used to before WWII?


Because you have people like Norman Finkelstein who supports Hizbullah, and claims that the only solution is war and yet people are so close minded that they simply don't question his scholarly integrity.
Yei
9137 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
116
Offline
Posted 5/31/09
You don't think Carter is an anti-Semite? That's very surprising.

Anyways, his argument is almost right IMO. The law that you cannot keep occupied land was already made when Israel stole the land and even though they knew the law, settlements were encouraged, and that's why Israel's blatant disregard of any international laws have made the solution so much more difficult.

It's not obligatory, but it would be nice for Israel to compensate, that would really help the peace process, but Israel has already repeatedly shown it couldn't care less about the Palestinians. Forcibly taking the settlers out of the illegally occupied land is wrong, I think Israel knew this would be the case when they encouraged the illegal settlements. So I agree with everything except the removal of the settlers, they should just be encouraged to move, not forced.


Should we call the law backwards compatible then England must surrender much of its African territory, much of the English Isles, and Northern Ireland. America must relinquish Texas and parts of Oklahoma-but, nobody makes that Argument, least of all Carter.


Well those were way before that law was made.



ShroomInferno wrote:

Why can't the two people just live together like they always used to before WWII? All these debates just imply that neither the Palestinians nor the Israelites are willing to share the same grounds and air - living next door. Why would one otherwise have to consider solutions of the kind where people would be forcibly moved out to another territory.


It's because you got a government in Israel that, since 1948, has not cared about the Palestinians and consistently shown that they don't care about international law or the UN, and express the power given to them by the US to do whatever they want. The Palestinians and Israelis can share the same ground and air, they already do in Jerusalem and other areas. The 2-State solution can work, the whole world has been trying to make that solution happen, but Israel/US keeps refusing. And Israel's treatment of Palestinians as sub-human doesn't help the situation either, all that does is give Palestinians reason to hate and attack Israel.

Fixing this problem isn't so difficult, Israel just needs to start treating Palestinians fairly, helping them out, maybe rebuilding some of the homes they bulldozed. Maybe apologizing for what all the war crimes, denial of rights, stealing their land and homes, etc. The Palestinians don't like Israel because they treat them like crap. Treat them nicely, they'll stop being hostile. Treat them really fairly, and they'll even be on Israel's side. After that Israel just needs to be willing to try the 2-state solution, Palestinians have been wanting to for a while. Both sides negotiate what is fair, some will live side by side in the occupied areas, but I'm sure it could work.

But knowledgeable people like me, or Norman Finkelstein know that's not going to happen. Israel has never and will never begin to treat Palestinians fairly, much less compensate for all they've done to them. They're never going to approve of the 2-state solution. So with the continued cruel treatment of the Palestinians and the unwillingness of Israel to try the solution, there will never be peace until Israel is forced to change it's mentality. And Israel seems to be a huge part of the US elitist's agenda, for whatever reason, so that really complicates things and almost guarantees Israel will never suddenly decide to fix the problem.


And I have a question about this issue. Why do so many Christians/republicans love Israel so much and take such a huge interest in it? There are many countries with even bigger conflicts all over the world, but why do you keep focusing on this one? I always get the feeling it's something religious.
10513 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / In your room stea...
Offline
Posted 5/31/09 , edited 5/31/09

Yei wrote:

Fixing this problem isn't so difficult, Israel just needs to start treating Palestinians fairly, helping them out, maybe rebuilding some of the homes they bulldozed. Maybe apologizing for what all the war crimes, denial of rights, stealing their land and homes, etc. The Palestinians don't like Israel because they treat them like crap. Treat them nicely, they'll stop being hostile. Treat them really fairly, and they'll even be on Israel's side. After that Israel just needs to be willing to try the 2-state solution, Palestinians have been wanting to for a while. Both sides negotiate what is fair, some will live side by side in the occupied areas, but I'm sure it could work.


It's not that simple, the palestinians aren't simply going to turn a blind eye to all that israels done to em, if they simply start treating them nicely.
Besides that would never happen, they just need to fight it out, like they're doing, until someone wins, thats to solution. After one side suffers heavy casualties, and gets defeated, the problem solves itself until they get worked up over something stupid again and start fighting all over, war is the easy solution here.


4053 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / Yo Mommas House
Offline
Posted 5/31/09
^ I could be wrong but listening to some zionist Christians such as Pat Robertson who gets paid from AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) believe that Jesus is going to return to Israel and fight alongside with them. I question this because Israel already putting a good pummeling to Palestine while flattening their lands literally and Jesus returning to even further destroy the remains of Palestine is odd. Knowing the peaceful character of Jesus and his values he taught to the people I cant imagine him supporting organized terror.
4053 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / Yo Mommas House
Offline
Posted 5/31/09 , edited 5/31/09

SeraphAlford wrote:


ShroomInferno wrote:

Why can't the two people just live together like they always used to before WWII?


Because you have people like Norman Finkelstein who supports Hizbullah, and claims that the only solution is war and yet people are so close minded that they simply don't question his scholarly integrity.


Lol I believe thats the solution the USA and Israel endorses war along with many of our politicians, I know you heard to phrase attack them first before they attack us and you can see their actions truly shows it. In response to Allhailodin umm they been fighting and Israel won every fight but after every fight they return to occupation and starving the people. If you think Palestinians are just going to accept living in a jail cell for the rest of their lives your wrong. Like Yei said the war will keep going unless Israel is forced to change her ways but by seeing how our country veto's everything against Israel this will never happen.
10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 6/2/09 , edited 6/2/09

Yei wrote:

You don't think Carter is an anti-Semite? That's very surprising.


I don’t think there was anti-Semantic content to the book, anyway. I don’t see any reason to think he’s an anti-Semite other than the fact that he’s been criticized as one.


Anyways, his argument is almost right IMO. The law that you cannot keep occupied land was already made when Israel stole the land and even though they knew the law, settlements were encouraged, and that's why Israel's blatant disregard of any international laws have made the solution so much more difficult.



The resolution in question is 242. You can look it up for yourself, it was not in play until later that year.



It's not obligatory, but it would be nice for Israel to compensate, that would really help the peace process, but Israel has already repeatedly shown it couldn't care less about the Palestinians.


I’m not so sure about that. Israel has attempted to aid Palestinians many times before. As a matter of fact, Palestinians largely get their health care from Israel. At one point Israel sent masses of food into Palestine and instead of being treated with gratitude they were accused of chemical warfare and had onions hurtled back at them. Whenever Hamas was a fledgling company, Israel gave it weapons to defend itself and money to contribute to humanitarian causes. Hamas is now turning that money and those weapons against Israel.

My worry about the two-state plan is that once you hand over that territory: large cities that were previously safe in Israel will be within range of missiles. In this way I think that the two-state plan may actually exacerbate the peace process. I still think it should be tried, because we need to make every effort we possibly can, but don’t you think there’s some risk to it?

Do you believe that that Israel’s acceptances and encouragement and assistance in such a process will bring peace? Do you believe that the PLO and Hamas will stop attacking? I personally find that highly doubtful, but then I don’t think that peace can ever be attained with Hamas in power.



Forcibly taking the settlers out of the illegally occupied land is wrong, I think Israel knew this would be the case when they encouraged the illegal settlements. So I agree with everything except the removal of the settlers, they should just be encouraged to move, not forced.


Again, the land wasn’t illegally occupied until later. UN resolution 242 was created in response to the Six Day War, not after. However, as it stands you cannot have the Two State Plan as long as those Israelites are in Westbank. Remember when Israel handed over Gaza? They were also required to remove Israelites and bulldoze their homes. This sparked nation-wide riots in Israel that lead death, destruction, and mayhem.

But, it’s necessary. Why is it necessary? Well, for one thing the Palestinians don’t want the Israelites there and are demanding that the newer settlements be demolished. That means in order for them to accept the Two State Plan Israel must tear down homes, stores, business, everything. Again, this is necessary for peace. I just don’t see why it’s okay to do this to Israelites but not Palestinians-but, for whatever reason it IS okay.

Let’s consider what will happen if Israel hands over Westbank but doesn’t take the settlers back. First off, you’ll have an apartheid government system in the region. Second off, the Israelites in the area will be faced to the same discrimination Israelites all throughout Palestine are subjected too. The conditions will be similar to those suffered by Palestinian refugees in Lebanon.

Unlike the Palestinians the Jews will fight back. They have weapons, trained militias and police forces, and communal unity. Have you ever heard of the Stern Gang? It was a Jewish group that started as a measure of self defense. Like all such civilian organizations it evolved into a terrorist organization which walked around slaughtering Arabs.

Now, this doesn’t reflect the Jewish people as a whole. But you will still have a second stern gang in Westbank. You’ll have ethnic cleansing going on. You’ll have either apartheid or ethnic cleansing-most likely the later. Assuming the likely outcome, Israel will of course be blamed just like they’re blamed for everything else.

Naturally, it’ll have been a Jewish plan to execute the Arabs from the very start. Missile fire will pick up again and Israel will likely re-occupy Westbank.



Well those were way before that law was made.


So it should only be backwards compatible far enough to effect Israel? That’s absurd. Who cares when they were captured, the point is that they were captured isn’t it? That’s illegal by modern law.



And I have a question about this issue. Why do so many Christians/republicans love Israel so much and take such a huge interest in it? There are many countries with even bigger conflicts all over the world, but why do you keep focusing on this one? I always get the feeling it's something religious.


Actually, I’ve noticed plenty of disagreement on the issue amongst Christians and Republicans and I live in the Bible Belt of the United States. The only group I’ve noticed to have a monotonous opinion on the issue is the ummah. Christians are very diverse on the issue. Don’t forget that the KKK and the skinheads are both cult offshoots of Christianity and consider them self to be Christian. (Although you might want to note that the KKK was founded by the Democratic political party shortly after the Civil War.)

Yet, for all my searching I can't find ONE Muslim group that doesn't 100% condemn Israel and 100% support Hamas and the PLO and the Arab league. Not one. Should I start posting links to their websites? Having read the Qur'an I don't think this is for religious reasons. I KNOW.
Yei
9137 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
116
Offline
Posted 6/2/09

SeraphAlford wrote:
The resolution in question is 242. You can look it up for yourself, it was not in play until later that year.


Ok, I was talking about the law against Israel's actions.



I’m not so sure about that. Israel has attempted to aid Palestinians many times before. As a matter of fact, Palestinians largely get their health care from Israel. At one point Israel sent masses of food into Palestine and instead of being treated with gratitude they were accused of chemical warfare and had onions hurtled back at them. Whenever Hamas was a fledgling company, Israel gave it weapons to defend itself and money to contribute to humanitarian causes. Hamas is now turning that money and those weapons against Israel.

My worry about the two-state plan is that once you hand over that territory: large cities that were previously safe in Israel will be within range of missiles. In this way I think that the two-state plan may actually exacerbate the peace process. I still think it should be tried, because we need to make every effort we possibly can, but don’t you think there’s some risk to it?

Do you believe that that Israel’s acceptances and encouragement and assistance in such a process will bring peace? Do you believe that the PLO and Hamas will stop attacking? I personally find that highly doubtful, but then I don’t think that peace can ever be attained with Hamas in power.


If Israel starts treating Hamas and their people fairly then they will have no reason to attack. The only reason Hamas has attacked in the past is because Israel was being bad to them. If Hamas continues to attack Israel even after Israel stops the oppression and starts being nice, the Palestinians wouldn't support Hamas. Palestinians want peace and freedom more than anything now.





Again, the land wasn’t illegally occupied until later. UN resolution 242 was created in response to the Six Day War, not after. However, as it stands you cannot have the Two State Plan as long as those Israelites are in Westbank. Remember when Israel handed over Gaza? They were also required to remove Israelites and bulldoze their homes. This sparked nation-wide riots in Israel that lead death, destruction, and mayhem.


It is and always has been illegal. According to article 49 of the fourth Geneva convention, you cannot keep land you obtained in war. The Geneva Conventions were made after WW2, long before the 1967 war.


But, it’s necessary. Why is it necessary? Well, for one thing the Palestinians don’t want the Israelites there and are demanding that the newer settlements be demolished. That means in order for them to accept the Two State Plan Israel must tear down homes, stores, business, everything. Again, this is necessary for peace. I just don’t see why it’s okay to do this to Israelites but not Palestinians-but, for whatever reason it IS okay.

Let’s consider what will happen if Israel hands over Westbank but doesn’t take the settlers back. First off, you’ll have an apartheid government system in the region. Second off, the Israelites in the area will be faced to the same discrimination Israelites all throughout Palestine are subjected too. The conditions will be similar to those suffered by Palestinian refugees in Lebanon.

Unlike the Palestinians the Jews will fight back. They have weapons, trained militias and police forces, and communal unity. Have you ever heard of the Stern Gang? It was a Jewish group that started as a measure of self defense. Like all such civilian organizations it evolved into a terrorist organization which walked around slaughtering Arabs.

Now, this doesn’t reflect the Jewish people as a whole. But you will still have a second stern gang in Westbank. You’ll have ethnic cleansing going on. You’ll have either apartheid or ethnic cleansing-most likely the later. Assuming the likely outcome, Israel will of course be blamed just like they’re blamed for everything else.

Naturally, it’ll have been a Jewish plan to execute the Arabs from the very start. Missile fire will pick up again and Israel will likely re-occupy Westbank.


I think the 2-state plan should happen using the pre-1967 borders. The Israeli settlers shouldn't be forced to move, but they can if they don't like the idea of being under Palestinian rule. Now there is the big chance that those Israeli settlers would be oppressed, but at the same time I don't think we should just assume Palestinians would treat the Israelis like Israel treated them. Maybe as part of the agreement, those Israelis would get some sort of protection from Israel. Obviously many problems could arise because of Israel's law-breaking in 1967, but I don't see any other way to start an effective and fair peace process.




So it should only be backwards compatible far enough to effect Israel? That’s absurd. Who cares when they were captured, the point is that they were captured isn’t it? That’s illegal by modern law.


The Geneva Conventions were made after all your examples. 1967 was after the Geneva Conventions, so they were illegal in 1967 and they are illegal now.




Actually, I’ve noticed plenty of disagreement on the issue amongst Christians and Republicans and I live in the Bible Belt of the United States. The only group I’ve noticed to have a monotonous opinion on the issue is the ummah. Christians are very diverse on the issue. Don’t forget that the KKK and the skinheads are both cult offshoots of Christianity and consider them self to be Christian. (Although you might want to note that the KKK was founded by the Democratic political party shortly after the Civil War.)

Yet, for all my searching I can't find ONE Muslim group that doesn't 100% condemn Israel and 100% support Hamas and the PLO and the Arab league. Not one. Should I start posting links to their websites? Having read the Qur'an I don't think this is for religious reasons. I KNOW.


Really? From what I've seen, any politician, republican or democrat, has to be supporting Israel 100% to keep their job. Every extreme republican has alot of interest in Israel, and love it almost too much. When something happens involving Israel it's the top story everywhere, while worse things are happening in Somalia and Sudan everyday but no one cares. Why is Israel so special to people in the US? Maybe it has alot to do with the US governments involvement with Israel. Otherwise I'm sure it's something religious.

And of course most Muslims are 100% against Israel. Israel stole their fellow Muslims' holy land and treated them horribly for decades. That's the main reason, but religion and antisemitism are probably factors for some.
10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 6/3/09 , edited 6/3/09

Yei wrote:
If Israel starts treating Hamas and their people fairly then they will have no reason to attack. The only reason Hamas has attacked in the past is because Israel was being bad to them. If Hamas continues to attack Israel even after Israel stops the oppression and starts being nice, the Palestinians wouldn't support Hamas. Palestinians want peace and freedom more than anything now.


Didn’t you read what I just wrote? Israel was defending, supplying, and funding Hamas. Israel encouraged Hamas, gave them weapons to protect themselves and food to spread amongst the hungry. Hamas responded by launching a series of suicide bombers into Israel. This was before the wall even existed-so you can’t tell me that their aggression is only the result of an economic blockade.

Hamas’ charter cites out of context sura from the Qur’an to declare a genocidal campaign on Jews-not Israel, Jews. You can read the charter yourself. It describes this campaign as every Muslim’s divine obligation. The fact that the Palestinian people supported them in the 2006 election suggests that the Palestinians have no interest in peace.

This being said while those elections did give Hamas a majority seat in the parliament they did not give Hamas power over Gaza. That was taken by means of a military force. The Gazans were not able to resist Hamas. So, if Hamas remains in control what makes you think that the will of the Palestinian people will regulate their bellicose warmongering, dismissal of international law, insistence on total genocide, disrespect of Mosques, and disregard of human rights?

Remember that in 2007 Hamas publically executed all of its political opponents in Gaza. Anybody who so much as uttered a word in favor of Fatah-not to mention Jews, Israel, America, or secularism-was publically executed. They were shot down in the streets and thrown from rooftops. Does this sound like an institution that’s interested in what the people want?

With or without popular support Hamas is going to press towards war. The Gazans didn’t want to fight Israel, they knew they couldn’t win. They knew that Israel is an aggressive entity and that this war would only cause them pain. They certainly didn’t want Hamas to withdraw into their cities-but what did Hamas do?

What you must remember is that Hamas did win the majority seat in parliament, but at least forty three of those seats were also awarded to Fatah-yet, Hamas as declared war to force Fatah out of the government. So, they’re voiding the at least minutely bi-partisan will of their people.

There’s also a question as to rather or not their conduct during the elections was true to the election system. This being said, I’ve read all the accusations and I don’t think there’s any hard evidence that they did anything notably undemocratic. Naturally, you see your typical Islamo-Fascist crap going on but it’s nothing Fatah wasn’t also guilty of to some degree. Basically, people say that Hamas bribed voters with ‘humanitarian aid,’ but I think that’s silly. It’s like saying that America is bribing Palestine because it’s the number one contributor to charities to Palestine (and the world for that matter).

Yet, many Palestinians still support Hamas which tells me they don't want freedom and democracy. Many of them simply want to destroy Israel. They refuse to acknowledge it as a sovereign state, they refuse to acknowledge it has a right to exist (even in the two-state plan,) and they don’t want a Jewish presence in the Middle East. Don’t forget, Jews in Palestine are being slaughtered every day.

All this being said I believe Hamas can change however recalcitrant it is. I’m simply skeptical because they refuse to amend their charter which calls for liberation, yes, but also genocide and conquest. They proclaim their will to control all of Palestine and Israel and have also made public announcements along the same lines. Barrack Obama, the United Nations, all the Common Wealth nations, and the European Union have all urged Hamas to amend the charter and it refused. Why would they do that unless it is their intention to follow through with the claims?

Israel and Hamas have both offered and rejected the two-state plan under certain conditions. Israel’s conditions were, as they usually are in these circumstances (for political purposes, I assure you,) entirely liberal. Essentially their big demand was that Hamas publically and actively acknowledge them as a sovereign state, amend the charter, and cease missile fire. Hamas turned the plan-which the Palestinians support-down because they were not willing to make these simple concessions.

Fatah is…comparatively liberal. This being said they don’t have any more dedication to the will of their people than Hamas does, which is why I wish the Palestinians would stand up elect more independents. Now, honestly, do you seriously think Hamas is going to be nice? Even if Israel does? They don't want freedom, they want revenge and power.


It is and always has been illegal. According to article 49 of the fourth Geneva convention, you cannot keep land you obtained in war. The Geneva Conventions were made after WW2, long before the 1967 war.


Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention regulates the occupation of land; it does not forbid it, though I see you’ve been reading your Finkelstein. Well, forget what Finkelstein tells you to think. Here’s the text of Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention. You make your own interpretations.





I think the 2-state plan should happen using the pre-1967 borders.


I think the two-state plan should be enacted exactly as it was originally intended by the UN. They gave the areas where there was a Jewish majority to the Jews and the areas where there was an Arab majority to the Arabs. That’s fair, especially considering that the Arabs got most of the British Mandate all to themselves and simply weren’t “in a compromising mood.” This being said, regardless of fair, it was a decree supported by the world court and it was the Arabs who initially broke international law by refusing to acknowledge it.

Anyway, the UN had every right to distribute the land. It’d been given to them by its previous owner, the UK, which had every right to give it away as well. They’d attained it not from the Palestinians but rather from the Turks after the Ottoman Empire disperse in WWI. It had not belonged to the Arabs however much they wanted it.



The Israeli settlers shouldn't be forced to move, but they can if they don't like the idea of being under Palestinian rule. Now there is the big chance that those Israeli settlers would be oppressed, but at the same time I don't think we should just assume Palestinians would treat the Israelis like Israel treated them.


Again, you can’t have one without the other. Either you abandon the two-state plan or you force the Israelis out. The Palestinians will not accept the two-state plan without the evacuation-which would require Israel to break the Geneva Convention against its own people.

Also, the Israelites have been much nicer to the Palestinian refugees better than anyone else. Consider that in Lebanon the Palestinians aren’t even allowed to have homes. The homes they’d already built are now illegal and being demolished and they’re not allowed to rebuild. In Israel, on the other hand, Palestinians are allowed to have homes so long as they live up to that nation’s safety requirements. Yes, Palestinian homes have been demolished, but contrary to the claim that it was for bigoted purposes Israel has already shown that there were un-race related reasons for the demolition. What the Arab and anti-Israel media sources neglected to mention is that the many of the houses destroyed may have been in Palestinian/Arab neighborhoods, but they actually belonged to Jews.

This being said, it doesn’t require any assumption except that the Palestinians will continue doing what they currently are to say that the settlers would be discriminated against if we walked into the twilight zone and the two-state plan was accepted without the forced evacuation. Jews in Palestine are already being discriminated against, why should that change just because Israel accepts the two state plan?


Maybe as part of the agreement, those Israelis would get some sort of protection from Israel. Obviously many problems could arise because of Israel's law-breaking in 1967, but I don't see any other way to start an effective and fair peace process.


However much you’d like it to be true, I’ve already told you that their actions were not illegal by the international law of that time. Even if they were, how can you expect Israel to acknowledge international law when the Arabs refuse to reciprocate? The real reason there are problems in the peace process isn’t because of Israel, it goes further back than that. Straight down to Israel’s War for Independence in which the Arab League rejected the two-state in favor of genocide and war. Palestine would be celebrating sixty years of independence by now if they had simply taken the deal-but they didn’t want that, they didn’t want peace, they wanted conquest and war. They got the latter, but unfortunately (despite support from the UK and neutrality from the US,) they were not able to attain the former however hard they tried to ethnically cleanse the Middle East.



The Geneva Conventions were made after all your examples. 1967 was after the Geneva Conventions, so they were illegal in 1967 and they are illegal now.


The conventions did not forbid attaining land from war, hints the necessity of resolution 242. So it was not illegal then, even though it is now.



Really? From what I've seen, any politician, republican or democrat, has to be supporting Israel 100% to keep their job.


Then you’re closing your eyes to the facts that don’t support your warped perspective. Jimmy Carter has written more than two dozen articles condemning Israel and was elected president of the United States and later won the Nobel Peace Prize. Paul Findley, a former republican senator who remains an active political figure, was re-elected over, and over, and over again and yet actively and openly condemned Israel. His recent book, “Silent No More,” completely condemns Israel and calls in the support of multiple US politicians from all across the public offices.


Every extreme republican has alot of interest in Israel, and love it almost too much. When something happens involving Israel it's the top story everywhere, while worse things are happening in Somalia and Sudan everyday but no one cares. Why is Israel so special to people in the US? Maybe it has alot to do with the US governments involvement with Israel. Otherwise I'm sure it's something religious.


I like the every, good generalization. I also like how you state it as fact. This being said, there is only a very, very, very tiny percent of the American population identifying itself within the hyper conservative spectrum; therefore, even if your generalization is true it still doesn’t represent the American people as a whole, the republican party as a whole, or the Christians as a whole.




As far as religious purposes, there are some in play but I don't think it's really a major contributor.


And of course most Muslims are 100% against Israel. Israel stole their fellow Muslims' holy land


Dam those thieving Jews! Err, I mean Zionists/Israel of course, not the Jews! My bigoted view isn’t anti-Semantic because I replace the word Jew/Jews with Israel/Zionists when I make absurd accusations!

Come on, get real. Muslims and Arabs have only had control of Israel twice - from 634 until the Crusader invasion in June 1099, and from 1292 until the year 1517 when they were dispelled by the Turks in their conquest. The holy land was given to Israel by the United Nations.

Besides, Israel has much more spiritual significant than the Jews. Jerusalem isn’t mentioned once in the Qur’an. Jerusalem is mentioned over 700 times in Tanakh, not to mention the varying Talmuds.

The Hadith might make vague references that may be directed at Jerusalem, but the Hadith aren’t even respected as fully authenticated amongst the ummah much less the historical community. There is also a Hadith attesting that FGM is a wife’s obligation to her husband because it’ll feel better for the man. Never mind the fact that the woman can never experience sexual pleasure herself. Mutilating the human body, that doesn’t sound at all like the Islam I know! Why, because the Hadith are largely false and everyone knows it.

For over 3,300 years, Jerusalem has been the Jewish capital. Jerusalem has never been the capital of any Arab or Muslim entity. Even when the Jordanians occupied Jerusalem (desecrating Jewish holy sites while the UN turned a blind eye,) they never sought to make it their capital, and Arab leaders did not come to visit.

Muhammad’s (peace be upon him,) great Haji was not to Jerusalem or Israel, but Medina. He never visited Jerusalem, although King David did declare it the capital of Judaism. Jews pray facing Jerusalem, Muslims pray towards the Ka’bah. The Mosque Al Aqsa is only the third holiest site in Islam, but it’s built on the ruins of the holiest site in all Judaism, the Temple of Jerusalem. The platform upon which it stands was originally built for the Temple of Jerusalem, and the Mosque stands immediately adjacent to the Wailing Wall. So if that's their arguement then they really need to get their shit straight because the Jews did not steal anything, and have a greater ancestral and religious claim to it anyway.


and treated them horribly for decades.


Under Israeli rule the Muslim holy sites have been preserved, repaired, and made accessible to everyone. Whenever the Muslim forces of the Jordanians took over they systematically desecrated Jewish holy sites and denied the Jews access. The Muslims burned 58 synagogues in Jerusalem alone, they desecrated the ancient Jewish burial ground on the Mount of Olives, and instituted an apartheid system that wouldn’t even let the Jews rest their heads on the Wailing Wall.



That's the main reason, but religion and antisemitism are probably factors for some.


Religion an anti-Semitism are the main factors and I'm fairly certain we both know it.


1220 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / Canada
Offline
Posted 6/3/09
Sadly it would seem that in the world as it is at the moment the UN carries little weight with the international community. In my opinion it is because it has no standing forces of its own to take action on issues but rather relies on its member nations, who often simply ignore the UN when it suites them (Ex: US Invasion of Iraq).

On the wider issue of Israel though, it is a bad situation in almost every way. Arbitrarily drawing lines on a map and giving the Jewish people a country of their own to compensate for the holocaust seems like a great idea to an old world thinker who doesn't take into account that there was already a greater number of indigenous peoples. The framework on which the nation was founded was at best ill thought out.

On another issue, why must the nation state of Israel be one and the same with the Jewish religion, this is according to western democratic ideals a terrible mingling of religion and state. I find it strange that the self proclaimed bastion country of democracy can in good conscience support a nation based on religious oligarchy, then again US style democracy has in recent years become rather suspect with regards to its legitimacy (specifically in my eyes since the wrongful overthrowing of Al Gore). Making a nation and a religion one and the same is madness, to be unable to criticize a nation without being labeled as an anti-Semite makes constructive debate and change far more difficult than it has to be.

Rather than running a police state, Israel should understand that the way in which their nation was brought about was an affront to the freedom of the indigenous peoples and should take steps to form a new inclusive nation based on population representative democracy.

Would this mean that the current Jewish oligarchy would have a diminished influence? Yes it would, but that is a fair price to pay to end the hatred they have incited in their neighbors. It is easy to understand the animosity of other middle eastern nations when they see that their brothers and cousins are being treated as second class citizens in their own land, it is outrageous. The rights of a minority Jewish population could easily be protected by a section of the new democratic constitution, one that the UN could actually rally support behind.

I bear no ill will towards the people of the nation of Israel or the Jewish religion. I simply think that it is time to put pride aside and act in a manner that places all human beings on equal footing. Regardless of posturing of the extremists it is my belief that most people are moderates and just want to see a peaceful co-existence. Lets not look at this along lines of religion but rather from the un-biased gaze of secular humanism.
10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 6/3/09 , edited 6/3/09

Droodika wrote:On the wider issue of Israel though, it is a bad situation in almost every way. Arbitrarily drawing lines on a map and giving the Jewish people a country of their own to compensate for the holocaust seems like a great idea to an old world thinker who doesn't take into account that there was already a greater number of indigenous peoples. The framework on which the nation was founded was at best ill thought out.


I think the UN’s resolution was completely reasonable, and interestingly enough so did the Arab league. More than 80% of the British Mandate was given to the Arabs. Roughly half of Palestine was given to the Jews, and while it is claimed that the decision was biased there’s no real evidence of this. The UN literally gave areas where the Jews were a majority to the Jews and the areas where the Arabs were a majority to the Arabs.

Everything would’ve been fine, but the Arab League-in one breath-acknowledged that the UN’s plan was logical, reasonable, and fair but that they “weren’t in a compromising mood,” and attacked.


On another issue, why must the nation state of Israel be one and the same with the Jewish religion, this is according to western democratic ideals a terrible mingling of religion and state. I find it strange that the self proclaimed bastion country of democracy can in good conscience support a nation based on religious oligarchy,


Israel’s legal and political system is based not on Judaism but rather on the English system. They do have some elements of Judaism within their personal law but they also have some elements Islam in their personal law. They do this to reflect the culture and will of their constituents. This being said, if a nation of people want a religious government, isn’t the democratic thing to have a religious government?

That my friend is a part of why I dislike extreme democracy and prefer the republic system of America.



to be unable to criticize a nation without being labeled as an anti-Semite makes constructive debate and change far more difficult than it has to be.


True, but on the same note not being able to point out anti-Semitism without being accused of blindly accusing is also an obstacle to good debate. For example, Finkelstein expressed his solidarity of Hezbollah saying that he supports them and admires them completely and describing them as the honor of Lebanon. A reasonable person can see that’s obviously anti-Semantic since Hezbollah is anti-Semantic, but I can’t point that out because people pull the ever-irritating, “Just because he criticizes Israel doesn’t make him an anti-Semite,” when I’m not calling him anti-Semantic for criticizing Israel. I’m calling him anti-Semantic for declaring his support of anti-Semantic institutions, blurring the line between Zionism and Judaism, the line between religious Judaism and ethnic Judaism, and demonizing Zionism and thereby the entire Jewish people.
Posted 6/3/09
Dude, why do you always use anti-"semantic"...semantics have nothing to do with this...>_> Anti-Semitic is where it's at.
1220 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / Canada
Offline
Posted 6/3/09

ShroomInferno wrote:

Dude, why do you always use anti-"semantic"...semantics have nothing to do with this...>_> Anti-Semitic is where it's at.


Yes, that is a rather odd grammatical quirk. XD
1220 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / Canada
Offline
Posted 6/3/09
With regards to the Arab Leagues endorsement, unfortunately the leaders of the Arab league did not in retrospect seem to be listening to the popular opinion of the people. And as far as who gets what, segregation is never a positive option, just ask the Native Americans how they liked the reservations they were given.

With regards to the political system, what it is based upon is somewhat less important that who participates. In a government where the indigenous peoples don't have a say all that can be achieved is political theater. I would be interested in the actual population statistics for that era with regards to who lived where but this is largely a scholarly point as one of the chief problems is after all the segregation of groups rather than co existence.

The American system of democracy is poor and leads to the largest levels of manipulation possible in a democratic system. Looking at the Bush dynasty and the ease with which the popular candidate Al Gore was cast aside by the more influential Bush family candidate was a clear sign that dollars hold the real power in American government.

Suggesting that you would get a religious government based on true democracy is absurd and only true because of your support for the segregation policy that is currently in practice.Certainly the constitution of a government also decides the degree to which the religion has influence, but only when it is specifically designed to do so. Sure if you only count the territory in which the Palestinians are banned from then you would have a largely Jewish majority, this is not indicative of actual populations but rather artificially imposed restrictions.

In summary I find it humorous to put the American take on democracy on a pedestal when it is among the most flawed versions of the concept currently in practice. Hell with the electoral college able to trump the popular vote why not just use an applause o meter to pick your president. At least picking Obama shows there is hope, I would not have been shocked in the least if Bush tried to declare himself some kind of Caesar due to "The War on Terror"

If you are looking for a good model of democracy I would direct you to Sweden. A model of true representative democracy. The idea that two parties could encapsulate the view and goals of everyone is laughable and brings to mind the mindless mobs of Rome cheering on the blue or red team gladiators who held in fact little distinction from one another.
First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.