(Ed) General Israel/Palestine discussion thread - Part 3

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Michel H

Should Israel fulfill their international legal obligations.

Again, Israel doesn't have international legal obligations. UNSC resolutions are not binding in the sense that your arguments require. In fact, I'm still pretty sure they're not binding at all, even if the UN does insist on using the term.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Michel H

Should Israel fulfill their international legal obligations, if Hamas continues their attacks (or even step them up), then legitimate force might have to be used against them. That would make a big difference (no more inhumane blockade, very long illegal occupation and so on).

Legitimate force can and is already used against them. It slows them down, but it doesn't stop them. Why would you think that sticking a UN label on such a force would somehow work magic? That makes no sense. It's one of the stupidest propositions ever made on this message board.

[Michel H]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Legitimate force can and is already used against them. It slows them down, but it doesn't stop them. Why would you think that sticking a UN label on such a force would somehow work magic? That makes no sense. It's one of the stupidest propositions ever made on this message board.

U.N. is not just a label, it's careful thinking, based on historical, justice and rule of law considerations. Something U.S. imperialists don't like, it's a different vision of the world. It is civilisation, as opposed to U.S. barbary.

One of the great advantages of solving the Israel-Palestine conflict by using U.N. Security Council resolutions is that, in addition to bringing you peace instead of the endless America-sponsored conflict we are seeing every day, you can greatly reduce military spending, and use these financial resources to fight climate change for example (e.g. by building many nuclear power stations after prohibiting nuclear weapons - this would make it somewhat easier to build plutonium-based nuclear reactors).

The opposite of American madness - perhaps a rebirth of human intelligence.

[Michel H]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Again, Israel doesn't have international legal obligations.

This is a rather strange statement. Countries sign treaties, and must abide by them. Are you, with Zig, trying to promote some kind of neo-Nazi ideology, where only force matters?

For example (about an important treaty):

Quote:

The Charter of the United Nations (also known as the UN Charter) is the foundational treaty of the United Nations, an intergovernmental organization.[1]
...
As a charter and constituent treaty, its rules and obligations are binding on all members and supersede those of other treaties.[1][4]

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charte...United_Nations).

One of the consequences of this treaty is that you cannot just conquer land from other countries.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Michel H

U.N. is not just a label, it's careful thinking, based on historical, justice and rule of law considerations. Something U.S. imperialists don't like, it's a different vision of the world. It is civilisation, as opposed to U.S. barbary.

One of the great advantages of solving the Israel-Palestine conflict by using U.N. Security Council resolutions is that, in addition to bringing you peace instead of the endless America-sponsored conflict we are seeing every day, you can greatly reduce military spending, and use these financial resources to fight climate change for example (e.g. by building many nuclear power stations after prohibiting nuclear weapons - this would make it somewhat easier to build plutonium-based nuclear reactors).

The opposite of American madness - perhaps a rebirth of human intelligence.

The UN that gives Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Russia a vote?

The UNSC where the US is one of five members with veto power?

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Michel H

This is a rather strange statement. Countries sign treaties, and must abide by them. Are you, with Zig, trying to promote some kind of neo-Nazi ideology, where only force matters?

For example (about an important treaty):

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charte...United_Nations).

One of the consequences of this treaty is that you cannot just conquer land from other countries.

I'm pretty sure you're still allowed to claim as your own territories that you legitimately occupied in a defensive war.

Also, I'm more and more convinced that either you, or the UN, or both, have no idea what "binding" actually means. There is no sovereign government, higher than the Israeli government, with authority over the Israeli government. Not the UN, not the UNSC, not the ICC, not anything. Nothing the UN does or says can be binding on any of its members.

You keep saying "binding", but can you answer my questions?

What government besides the Israeli government has authority over Israel?

What court has jurisdiction and authority to put Israel on trial?

What agency or arm of the law has the authority to enforce UN resolutions on Israel?

[Michel H]

Originally Posted by theprestige

The UN that gives Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Russia a vote?

The UNSC where the US is one of five members with veto power?

Yes, of course, this is the democracy of the world, of humanity. Everybody gets a vote at the General Assembly, including the U.S..

In view of U.S. bad behavior in recent years, it might perhaps be useful, in my opinion, to suspend U.S. veto power for one year, following a vote at the General Assembly.

[Michel H]

Originally Posted by theprestige

I'm pretty sure you're still allowed to claim as your own territories that you legitimately occupied in a defensive war.

Also, I'm more and more convinced that either you, or the UN, or both, have no idea what "binding" actually means. There is no sovereign government, higher than the Israeli government, with authority over the Israeli government. Not the UN, not the UNSC, not the ICC, not anything. Nothing the UN does or says can be binding on any of its members.

You keep saying "binding", but can you answer my questions?

What government besides the Israeli government has authority over Israel?

What court has jurisdiction and authority to put Israel on trial?

What agency or arm of the law has the authority to enforce UN resolutions on Israel?

A rule is binding when you have to obey it. Once again:

Quote:

The Charter of the United Nations (also known as the UN Charter) is the foundational treaty of the United Nations, an intergovernmental organization.[1]
...
As a charter and constituent treaty, its rules and obligations are binding on all members and supersede those of other treaties.[1][4]

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charte...United_Nations).

And:

Quote:

The UN's role in international collective security is defined by the UN Charter, which authorizes the Security Council to investigate any situation threatening international peace; recommend procedures for peaceful resolution of a dispute; call upon other member nations to completely or partially interrupt economic relations as well as sea, air, postal, and radio communications, or to sever diplomatic relations; and enforce its decisions militarily, or by any means necessary.

In 1967, Israel used a relatively minor pretext to attack several other countries, and conquer vast territories by force. This was deemed unacceptable by the international community, represented by the U.N. Security Council.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Michel H

A rule is binding when you have to obey it. Once again:

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charte...United_Nations).

And:


In 1967, Israel used a relatively minor pretext to attack several other countries, and conquer vast territories by force. This was deemed unacceptable by the international community, represented by the U.N. Security Council.

Deemed unacceptable, execpt of course they've gone on to de facto accept it. So I guess it's acceptable after all.

[Michel H]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Deemed unacceptable, execpt of course they've gone on to de facto accept it. So I guess it's acceptable after all.

No, I don't think so, see this post: http://www.internationalskeptics.com...6#post13561596.
(about resolution 2334, adopted in December 2016, after Trump had been elected, but when Obama was still president).

In this post, "heap fo weapons" should be replaced by "heap of weapons".

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Michel H

U.N. is not just a label, it's careful thinking, based on historical, justice and rule of law considerations.

It is nothing of the sort.

Quote:

One of the great advantages of solving the Israel-Palestine conflict by using U.N. Security Council resolutions is that, in addition to bringing you peace instead of the endless America-sponsored conflict we are seeing every day, you can greatly reduce military spending

This is so delusional I don't even know where to start. What part of the UN's history, hell, HUMAN history, makes you think that the UN is even remotely capable of "solving" the conflict? It is not.

Hell, even the idea that there is a "solution" is delusional.

Quote:

The opposite of American madness - perhaps a rebirth of human intelligence.

Despite what you seem to believe, the United States actually has very little to do with the conflict.

[webfusion]

Syria didn't attack Israel in 1967

Israel was under incessant Syrian rocket and artillery attack (exactly of the type we witnesed yesterday from Lebanon) http://www.sixdaywar.org/content/northernfront.asp
"In response to a false Soviet warning on May 13, 1967 that Israel was preparing for an imminent attack on Syria, Egypt and Syria activated a mutual defense pact, and Syria massed troops on its border with Israel (with the Syrians occupying the high ground)."

"During the first day of the war, on June 5, Syrian planes attacked communities in the north of Israel, including Tiberias, and attempted to destroy the Haifa oil refineries (bombs they dropped missed their intended targets). The Israeli air force responded later that day with an attack on Syria’s airbases, eliminating 59 Syrian aircraft, mostly on the ground."

"On June 8, the fourth day of the war, Syria accepted a UN cease-fire, and for five hours there was a lull in the shelling. But then the barrages resumed, and their state radio announced that Syria did not consider itself bound by any cease-fire."

I am fine with Israeli dominance of the military equation.
I will be fine with it to my dying day, and hope my son is also fine with it, and his son, and so on and so forth.

Jewish lives will be shown to have a high price, instead of the 'cheap and worthless' attitude that many still have. (See: Belgium -- Breendonk)

[webfusion]

Originally Posted by Michel H

No, I don't think so, see this post: http://www.internationalskeptics.com...6#post13561596.
(about resolution 2334, adopted in December 2016, after Trump had been elected, but when Obama was still president).

In this post, "heap fo weapons" should be replaced by "heap of weapons".

2334?

(insert laughing dog here, rolling on the floor spasmatically).

[webfusion]

Originally Posted by Michel H

Yes, of course, this (UN) is the democracy of the world, of humanity. Everybody gets a vote at the General Assembly, including the U.S..

In view of U.S. bad behavior in recent years, it might perhaps be useful, in my opinion, to suspend U.S. veto power for one year, following a vote at the General Assembly.

It is not 'democracy' in action at all.
Actually, many of the nations participating in the circle-jerk within the glass tower at Turtle Bay are so far from democratic norms and fail so miserably at humanity.

Even Jordan, our peaceful neighbor the East, is now just proclaiming that democracy in their country can come about (maybe) in another decade or so.
https://www.jpost.com/middle-east/jo...-decade-675960

I never received an answer to my question about Palestinian Lands, earlier in this conversation.
(Gaza was Egyptian -- now Palestine claims it, Golan was Syrian -- how come Palestine doesn't claim it, using the same UN 242 wording to do so?)

As for the suggestion to suspend the USA from the Security Council, what about suspending China (that 'shining beacon' of human rights) or Russia (the champion of human rights worldwide) or India ( https://www.amnesty.org/en/countries...a/report-india )

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Michel H

No, I don't think so, see this post: http://www.internationalskeptics.com...6#post13561596.
(about resolution 2334, adopted in December 2016, after Trump had been elected, but when Obama was still president).

In this post, "heap fo weapons" should be replaced by "heap of weapons".

It's obvious they've accepted it. They say they don't like it but they're not actually doing anything to stop it.

And there's nothing illegal about Israel ignoring the UNSC and deciding for itself what its borders are. Because the UNSC is not sovereign over Israel.

[Michel H]

Originally Posted by theprestige

It's obvious they've accepted it. They say they don't like it but they're not actually doing anything to stop it.

And there's nothing illegal about Israel ignoring the UNSC and deciding for itself what its borders are. Because the UNSC is not sovereign over Israel.

I don't think you would like it if your neighbor (who is physically very strong, the bodybuilder) could freely decide whether your living room actually belongs to you, or to him.

Don't you see the problem with that?

Don't you understand the need for an impartial and objective judge or referee?

If Israel is a peace-loving state, it should always try to comply with the Security Council decisions or opinions (the Security Council is the highest, or one of the highest international institutions devoted to peace and security).

[webfusion]

Originally Posted by Michel H

I don't think you would like it if your neighbor (who is physically very strong, the bodybuilder) could freely decide whether your living room actually belongs to you, or to him.

All across the USA, people break into homes that are not owned by them, and squat.

Police get called by the owners, they arrive, and more often than not, tell the owner to go to court for an eviction decree. THEN, after a judge issues an order, the authorities (generally, Sheriff's Departments) are permitted to intervene.

If you decide to perform a thing called a "Self-Eviction" then YOU will be arrested or face charges.

Is Belgium different? Can I walk into your vacant building and take it over (squat) and you are allowed to force me out with whatever means you have at your disposal?

What you are failing to realize here, MichelH, is Jewish properties and Jewish RIGHTS to them, have been usurped by Arabs over hundreds of years.
For example, in Sheikh Jarrah (Shimon Ha'Tzadik in Jerusalem).
For example, the JEWISH Temple Mount.
For example, in Hebron (Jews were forced OUT in 1920's and have now returned to Jewish-owned and deeded homes there, using the Courts to reclaim their properties after the Arabs have stopped paying rental to the legal owners and now just claim it as theirs).

Originally Posted by Michel H

Don't you understand the need for an impartial and objective judge or referee?

Did you mean the UN? Are you claiming the UN is 'impartial' ? (with a solid Arab-led majority that could pass any anti-Israel Resolution they wish to, and have done so frequently) ----- in fact, it's quite well-known there is a firm and solid attitude at the UN to focus on Israel, to the exclusion of other Nations.
Israel is the only country listed on the Human Rights Council’s permanent agenda (Item 7).

Originally Posted by Michel H

If Israel is a peace-loving state, it should always try to comply with the Security Council decisions or opinions (the Security Council is the highest, or one of the highest international institutions devoted to peace and security).

Why do you use the word "if" ???

Let me ask you another question (which you'll also ignore, probably) ---
Have you ever read the 1949 Rhodes Armistice Agreements?
https://peacemaker.un.org/sites/peac...0Agreement.pdf
Are you aware that in those documents, the following phrase appears (regarding the demarcations that you are trying to foist upon Israel as "Palestinian Lands")

Article II
"...no provision of this Agreement shall in any way prejudice
the rights, claims and positions of either Party hereto in the ultimate peaceful
settlement of the Palestine question, the provisions of this Agreement being dictated
exclusively by military considerations"

What does that actually mean to you? That one party (Israel) has to be FORCED to relinquish any of those captured areas? Is that your opinion? I read it as saying the opposite.

[webfusion]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Legitimate force can and is already used against them. It slows them down, but it doesn't stop them. Why would you think that sticking a UN label on such a force would somehow work magic? That makes no sense...

All we have to do is take a peek at what has been happening over the past 96 hours across the Lebanese Border.
That's an international border which is recognized by the United Nations, and has International Peacekeeping Troops (UNIFIL) positions along there to ostensibly prevent attacks against Israel.

Hmmmmmm, I haven't been following this too closely, it's appearing to be just a minor cross-border flare-up, but has the United Nations Security Council convened in Emergency Session to discuss this incredibly blatant violation of UN 1701? https://peacemaker.un.org/israellebanon-resolution1701

I predict we'll hear the usual response in Turtle Bay --- crickets chirping.
https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/am...attacks-676066

[trustbutverify]

Originally Posted by Michel H

If Israel is a peace-loving state, it should always try to comply with the Security Council decisions or opinions (the Security Council is the highest, or one of the highest international institutions devoted to peace and security).

Israel is a state committed to remaining Zionist and sovereign. Her love for peace is constrained by these vital commitments... just as her neighbor's peace-loving is similarly constrained. The hard right, unfortunately, dominates in Israel because they've spent decades making the case that elimination, rather than international law and so forth, is the actual goal of their "critics". This campaign has been spectacularly effective because, for the most part, it's accurate.

[Michel H]

Originally Posted by webfusion

Is Belgium different? Can I walk into your vacant building and take it over (squat) and you are allowed to force me out with whatever means you have at your disposal?

I wasn't talking about a vacant building.

If (in Belgium) a physically strong neighbor comes into my living room after breaking my apartment door open, and tells me to either go to my bedroom or go outside while he watches TV using my (old) TV set, what I would do is call the police who would probably quickly come to evict the intruder.

I suppose this is what should happen in Israel too, and this should work both ways, to protect both the Jews and the Arabs.

There seems no be no questions that the Jews and Israel were victims of persecutions and threats around 1967, before the Six-Day War.

Many Arabs felt they had been evicted or expelled by Jews who immigrated from Europe or Arab countries in Palestine (and protected by the UK), so there was deep resentment towards the Jews both in Palestine and in Arab countries.

About this, I found some information which is actually (in my opinion) good for Israel (and this is somewhat different from what I said previously):

Quote:

Though Israel had struck first, Israel initially claimed that it was attacked first. Later it claimed that its attack was a preemptive strike in the face of a planned invasion.[6] Israel justifies its preemptive action with a review of the context of its position: Economic strangulation through the shipping blockade in the Straits of Tiran (90% of Israeli oil passed through the Straits of Tiran),[7] the imminence of war on three fronts (hundreds of thousands of enemy troops and hundreds of tanks massed on its borders), and possible social and economic difficulty of maintaining a civilian army draft indefinitely.[8] According to Israeli historian and former Israeli ambassador to the United States, Michael Oren, the Arabs, "had planned the conquest of Israel and the expulsion or murder of much of its Jewish inhabitants in 1967". Some historians[who?] state that the neighboring Arab countries had nevertheless not begun any military actions against Israel so as to warrant an attack.

It seems to me that economic strangulation is not acceptable, it's an act of economic war (and, of course, this wouldn't be more acceptable now than it was more fifty years ago). In 1967, Israel solved the problem by conquering the Sinai Peninsula. Now, the Sinai has been given back to Egypt, which is no longer talking about closing the Straits of Tiran, this is an important step towards peace.

It seems to be the civilised way to deal with this long conflict is through international intervention (like when you call the police), and a first step towards this would be for Israel to implement Security Council resolutions, which seem balanced, and which obviously do not seek to destroy Israel, in order to show respect for these institutions designed to protect peace in a negotiated, fair and objective way, and also in order to try to ensure a better economic equality, without having the Palestinians constantly humiliated and suffering in poverty. I believe this would be a better idea than providing Israel with a lot of expensive weapons (absurd U.S. policy), which obviously do not invite concessions and generate permanent Israeli arrogance.

[trustbutverify]

Originally Posted by webfusion

All we have to do is take a peek at what has been happening over the past 96 hours across the Lebanese Border.
That's an international border which is recognized by the United Nations, and has International Peacekeeping Troops (UNIFIL) positions along there to ostensibly prevent attacks against Israel.

Apparently, some Lebanese Druze are becoming fed up with being used as human shields for Hezbollah missile crews.

[Michel H]

Originally Posted by webfusion

I never received an answer to my question about Palestinian Lands, earlier in this conversation.
(Gaza was Egyptian -- now Palestine claims it, Golan was Syrian -- how come Palestine doesn't claim it, using the same UN 242 wording to do so?)

Gaza was part of British mandate Palestine, but not the Golan Heights:

Quote:

Britain obtained a mandate over the areas which now comprise Israel, the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and Jordan.
In 1921, the British divided this region in two: east of the Jordan River became the Emirate of Transjordan, to be ruled by Faysal’s brother ‘Abdullah, and west of the Jordan River became the Palestine Mandate. This was the first time in modern history that Palestine became a unified political entity.

(https://lsa.umich.edu/content/dam/cm...nPalestine.pdf).

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Michel H

I don't think you would like it if your neighbor (who is physically very strong, the bodybuilder) could freely decide whether your living room actually belongs to you, or to him.

Don't you see the problem with that?

Don't you understand the need for an impartial and objective judge or referee?

If Israel is a peace-loving state, it should always try to comply with the Security Council decisions or opinions (the Security Council is the highest, or one of the highest international institutions devoted to peace and security).

Nation states are not remotely analogous to neighborhoods. Your scenario is not remotely analogous to the circumstances under which Israel found it necessary to occupy the west bank and the Golan heights.

But I'll tell you what: If I was throwing rocks at my neighbor from my back yard, in hopes of driving him off so I could invade his home and take it for my own? I'd be super pissed off if he invaded my backyard, claimed it as his own, and promised to burn my house down the next time I tried that rock throwing stuff. Of course, I'd also be a colossal douchebag who had it coming, but at least it would be a better analogy.

Also, literally no nation in the world has signed up for the kind of "impartial judge or referee" that you imagine.

Also, the UNSC is a self serving association of nuclear powers. Their main objective is to arrange their global conflicts in a way that doesn't escalate to nuclear war between them. They are not a disinterested arbiter of peace. Their whole goal is to gain as much advantage over each other as they can, without causing a major war. Like every other nation on the planet, Israel is not a beneficiary of the UNSC. They're a pawn.

[webfusion]

Originally Posted by Michel H

I wasn't talking about a vacant building.

Most of the land of Palestine WAS vacant.
Jews bought up what they could, and managed to develop the workings of a JewishState from the late-1890's onwards.

There seems no be no questions that the Jews and Israel were victims of persecutions and threats around 1967, before the Six-Day War.

DUH.

Many Arabs felt they had been evicted or expelled by Jews who immigrated from Europe or Arab countries into Palestine (and protected by the UK), so there was deep resentment towards the Jews both in Palestine and in Arab countries.

Many tens of thousands of Arabs also immigrated into Palestine, over the years between WW1 and WW2. Many of THESE recent arrivals went back to their countries of origins in 1947-49 and became "Palestinian Refugees" despite being Egyptians, Syrians, Turks, Lebanese, Jordanians, Iraqis, etc etc.
The British, however, turned a blind eye to those Arabs coming in, and maintained a strict quota for Jews.

It seems to me that economic strangulation is not acceptable, it's an act of economic war (and, of course, this wouldn't be more acceptable now than it was more fifty years ago).

I take that to mean you are in opposition to the entire BDS movement!


In 1967, Israel solved the problem by conquering the Sinai Peninsula.

Uh, are you purposely warping history here?
Israel 1st conquered the Sinai Peninsula in 1956, to prevent the Suez being shut off to their shipping.
International GUARANTEES were offered at that juncture, and Israeli shipping was not be interfered with again, so Israel withdrew from Sinai (and Gaza).

Those promises were worthless, as the incidents of two cargo ships with Israel cargo proved (Inge Toft and Astypalea.

When you come in here to discuss this subject of Israel & Palestine with me, keep in mind that I know history.
Although, apparently, you do not.
No biggie, it's a common thing among those who bash Israel.

Now, the Sinai has been given back to Egypt, which is no longer talking about closing the Straits of Tiran, this is an important step towards peace.

Israel and Egypt have a Peace Treaty. Losing three wars eventually convinced the Egyptian leadership to stop repeating the same mistake of attacking Israel.
That was one 'important step' towards peace, as was the Peace Treaty with Jordan.

Originally Posted by Michel H

It seems to be the civilised way to deal with this long conflict is through international intervention (like when you call the police), and a first step towards this would be for Israel to implement Security Council resolutions, which seem balanced, and which obviously do not seek to destroy Israel, in order to show respect for these institutions designed to protect peace in a negotiated, fair and objective way, and also in order to try to ensure a better economic equality, without having the Palestinians constantly humiliated and suffering in poverty. I believe this would be a better idea than providing Israel with a lot of expensive weapons (absurd U.S. policy), which obviously do not invite concessions and generate permanent Israeli arrogance.

Which nations do you propose will volunteer to storm the beaches of Tel Aviv to face-off against the IDF and help the Palestinians in their prime "armed struggle" goals ?
You know any Belgians who will take up arms for this?

I have my own idea regarding International Intervention ---

Let's send United States Marines to swarm the beaches of Gaza, to disarm and eviscerate the Islamic Jihadist terrorists, and leave the regular Gazans to a life of development, peace, prosperity, tourism, and cooperation with Israel.
(and while they're at it, overwhelm the terrorists in Northern Sinai, who are giving Egypt a lot of aggravation, too, and costing American taxpayers a lot of money while supporting the regime of General Sisi with BILLIONS of $$$).

Here's a potential resolution of the Palestinian quest for a State ---
https://www.miryaminstitute.org/comm...state-solution

[webfusion]

Originally Posted by Michel H

Gaza was part of British mandate Palestine, but not the Golan Heights

(southern) Lebanon was part of the French Mandate (ya know, Sykes-Pico and all that), as was the Golan. The Golan that Israel now holds has been a natural part of Palestine for millenia. Why? Because -- water sources.

[Michel H]

Originally Posted by webfusion

Here's a potential resolution of the Palestinian quest for a State ---
https://www.miryaminstitute.org/comm...state-solution

I think you have already made this (rather horrible) suggestion before.

Putting the Palestinians in a desert (the Sinai) ... . Who's going to buy that?

This somewhat reminds me of the Nazi suggestion of sending all Jews to Madagascar (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madagascar_Plan).

I really don't think this would be a good and proper way for Israel to implement U.N. Security Council resolution 242, webfusion.

Please show some respect (after you have shown how severe the persecutions and threats toward the Jews were in 1967).

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Michel H

This somewhat reminds me of the Nazi suggestion of sending all Jews to Madagascar (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madagascar_Plan).

In your opinion, where should the Nazis have sent all their German Jews?

[Michel H]

Originally Posted by theprestige

In your opinion, where should the Nazis have sent all their German Jews?

They shouldn't have sent them anywhere, they should have respected them.

Persecution of Jews is unacceptable.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Michel H

They shouldn't have sent them anywhere, they should have respected them.

Persecution of Jews is unacceptable.

And yet here we are, with you justifying Hamas rocket attacks on Jewish civilians.

[Allen773]

Originally Posted by theprestige

And yet here we are, with you justifying Hamas rocket attacks on Jewish civilians.

Which pale in comparison to the murder of Palestinian children by the IDF.

[Allen773]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Despite what you seem to believe, the United States actually has very little to do with the conflict.

ahahahahahahahahaha

Israel’s impunity, in spite of much of the world being unified against its crimes, is entirely a product of the special relationship with the US.

[Allen773]

Originally Posted by theprestige

I'm pretty sure you're still allowed to claim as your own territories that you legitimately occupied in a defensive war.

Nonsense. It was a power grab. The rest of your post can be summed up as “states have rights, people don’t.” Good thing then, that the Palestinians have their own sta…oh right.

Look, I know a lot of the uninformed think that the Palestinian people are a bunch of fanatical anti-Semitic terrorists by definition, but I expect better of posters on this forum.

[Allen773]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Again, Israel doesn't have international legal obligations.

Does Iran? Does North Korea?

[webfusion]

Originally Posted by Allen773

Nonsense. It was a power grab. The rest of your post can be summed up as “states have rights, people don’t.” Good thing then, that the Palestinians have their own sta…oh right.

Look, I know a lot of the uninformed think that the Palestinian people are a bunch of fanatical anti-Semitic terrorists by definition, but I expect better of posters on this forum.

Who says that? Or is that a strawman?

When the leaders of several surrounding nations build up their military forces on our borders, while making public pronouncements declaring the purpose is to invade and end many of our lives in their pursuit of "Liberation of Palestine" (using force to take it from the Jews) -- well, you blame us for taking that seriously?

Jordan was warned not to get involved.
The King decided to do so, knowing it was a terrible idea.
Israel initially did not seek to move against Jordan, which controlled East Jerusalem and the West Bank, but when King Hussein's troops began shelling Israeli positions, the battle plans changed. Israeli paratroopers captured East Jerusalem on June 7, and the Israeli army stormed across the West Bank, driving opposing troops (including Iraqi Expeditionary Forces) back to the Jordan River.
https://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/aboutisra...r-%201967.aspx

and
https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org...67-six-day-war
Prime Minister Levi Eshkol sent a message to King Hussein saying Israel would not attack Jordan unless he initiated hostilities. When Jordanian radar picked up a cluster of planes flying from Egypt to Israel, and the Egyptians convinced Hussein the planes were theirs, he then ordered the shelling of West Jerusalem. It turned out the planes were Israel's, and were returning from destroying the Egyptian air force on the ground. Meanwhile, Syrian and Iraqi troops attacked Israel's northern frontier.

"Had Jordan not attacked first, the status of Jerusalem would not have changed during the course of the war. Once the western part of the city came under fire, however, Israel needed to defend it, and, in doing so, took the opportunity to unify its capital once and for all."

This article makes a case study that the June '67 War was not so much a 'power grab' as it was a way for Israel to deal directly with a possible Egyptian raid on Dimona.
https://www.wilsoncenter.org/publica...67-six-day-war

[webfusion]

Originally Posted by Allen773

Does Iran? Does North Korea?

Iran is currently making additional bellicose statements --- Reports tonight from Tehran have indicated that IRGC head Hossein Salami has met the Hezbollah deputy and said that they should prepare for the “collapse” of Israel.

N.Korea is providing missile technology and nuclear-warhead capabilities to Iran.

It's one thing to defend our Jewish homeland, and ignore international pressure to 'stand down' from doing so, and quite another to create regional instability by threatening (and attacking) another UN member nation, as Iran is doing.

[webfusion]

Originally Posted by Allen773

Which pale in comparison to the murder of Palestinian children by the IDF.

Uh-Oh, that sounds bad.
Is this a reference to Mohammed al-Dura?

[webfusion]

Originally Posted by Michel H

I think you have already made this (rather horrible) suggestion before.

Putting the Palestinians in a desert (the Sinai) ... . Who's going to buy that?

This somewhat reminds me of the Nazi suggestion of sending all Jews to Madagascar (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madagascar_Plan).

I really don't think this would be a good and proper way for Israel to implement U.N. Security Council resolution 242, webfusion.

Please show some respect (after you have shown how severe the persecutions and threats toward the Jews were in 1967).

Who is going to buy it?
The UAE. The Saudis. The Qataris. The USA. The Chinese.

The desert is where Israelis live.
The desert is where the Gazans live.
The desert is where the Bedouins live.
The desert is where Palestine exists.

I don't even understand your problem with the proposal.
'Palestine' is not a specific place with known and defined land area.
Golan Heights is Palestine.
S. Lebanon is Palestine (well, it was for many hundreds of years prior to Sykes-Picot)

Are you aware that Rafiah, Gaza, is split in half, literally, by fencing and barbed wire and walls, as a result of Egypt fortifying their half of the city in 1982.
This situation should be reversed, with Palestine regaining their land! Do you not agree?

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Allen773

ahahahahahahahahaha

Israel’s impunity, in spite of much of the world being unified against its crimes, is entirely a product of the special relationship with the US.

The conflict isn’t coming from the UN. All the US is doing is keeping the OIC from using the UN against Israel. And the only reason so much of the world hates Israel is because of antisemitism. There is no similar global reaction against China, despite an ACTUAL genocide against Muslims there.

[Michel H]

Originally Posted by webfusion

The desert is where Israelis live.

No, I don't think so. Israel isn't entirely a desert:

Quote:

Due to the diversity of the land and climate across the country, Israel is able to grow a wide range of crops. Field crops grown in the country include wheat, sorghum and corn. On 215,000 hectares of land, these sorts of crops are grown, 156,000 hectares of which are winter crops.[8]

Fruit and vegetables grown include citrus, avocados, kiwifruit, guavas and mangoes, grapes from orchards located on the Mediterranean coastal plain.[2] Tomatoes, cucumbers, peppers and zucchini are grown commonly throughout the country; melons are grown during winter months in the valleys.[2] Subtropical areas in the country produce bananas and dates, while in the northern hills apples, pears and cherries are grown.[2] Furthermore, grape vineyards are found across the country, as the country's wine industry has developed to become a world-player.[2]

In 1997, $107 million worth of cotton was grown in Israel with most of this sold in advance on the futures market. The crop is grown on 28,570 hectares of land, all of which is drip irrigated. 5.5 tons per hectare of raw cotton is averaged for the Acala crop; the Pima crop averages 5 tons per hectare, which are yields among the highest in the world.[8]

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agriculture_in_Israel).

Quote:

Are you aware that Rafiah, Gaza, is split in half, literally, by fencing and barbed wire and walls, as a result of Egypt fortifying their half of the city in 1982.

Yes, I think I've read some about that before:

Quote:

When Israel withdrew from the Sinai in 1982, Rafah was split into a Gazan part and an Egyptian part, dividing families, separated by barbed-wire barriers.[3][4] The core of the city was destroyed by Israel[5][6][7] and Egypt[8][9] to create a large buffer zone.

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rafah).

Quote:

This situation should be reversed, with Palestine regaining their land! Do you not agree?

This sounds reasonable to me, in view of the fact that the Gaza Strip is small and densely populated.

Now, for the good information of people reading this thread:

Quote:

Expel and Exploit: The Israeli Practice of Taking over Rural Palestinian Land
Summary, Dec. 2016

This report tells the history of the process of fragmentation imposed on Palestinian rural land in the West Bank through a case study of three villages in the Nablus District – ‘Azmut, Deir al-Hatab and Salem. What these communities have experienced since 1980, when Israel established the Elon Moreh nearby, is but one illustration of broader developments taking place throughout the West Bank. Their story is similar to that of hundreds of Palestinian communities on whose lands Israeli settlements were established.
...
Since the 1967 occupation, Israel has employed various measures – official and otherwise – to cut off the villagers from their land and hand it over to settlers.
...
The next phase in the process of dispossession took place in late September 1995, after Israel and the Palestinians signed the Oslo II Accord.
...
In practice, each and every restriction Israel has imposed on the residents of ‘Azmut, Deir al-Hatab and Salem has enabled settlers to encroach on these lands and increase the land under settler control. The separation Israel has created between the Palestinian residents and their farmland and pastureland allows settlers to build houses, establish outposts, dig pathways, plant crops and groves, graze flocks, and take over natural water sources on that land. Meanwhile, villagers are also regularly subjected to physical attacks.

Israel has always tried to give a guise of legality to its actions in the West Bank, arguing that these actions are lawful (under international law or the laws applicable to the West Bank) or else that they are private initiatives undertaken by settlers. Yet all these actions are in breach of international law and are based on a skewed and manipulative interpretation of the laws that Israel itself applies in the West Bank.

The forced separation of the Palestinian villagers from their farmland, pastureland and natural water resources severely infringed upon their rights, devastated the local economy, and propelled them into poverty and dependence on external bodies. Villagers were left in a state of insecurity on multiple levels: financial, food and social insecurity.

This is a story of three villages, a single rural area. Yet it is an oft-repeated story. This report illustrates a sweeping, long-standing policy that Israel has been implementing in the West Bank for nigh on fifty years. Under the guise of “temporary military occupation”, Israel treats the occupied territories as its own: grabbing land, exploiting natural resources, and establishing permanent settlements. Palestinian residents are being increasingly dispossessed of their lands, roots and livelihood, to be replaced by Israeli control either by direct official action or by the settlers acting as its envoys.

Over the years Israel has dispossessed Palestinians of roughly two hundred thousand hectares of land, including farmland and pastureland, which it then generously allocated to settlements. Some areas were declared “closed military zones” and Palestinians were barred from entering them without a permit; other tracts were taken by creating facts on the ground and use of force. Approximately 580,000 Israelis currently live throughout the West Bank (including East Jerusalem) in over 200 settlements, enjoying nearly all the rights and privileges accorded to Israeli citizens living in Israel proper, inside the Green Line.

(The Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories,
https://www.btselem.org/publications...el_and_exploit).

[webfusion]

Losing three four wars eventually convinced the Egyptian leadership to stop repeating the same mistake of attacking Israel. (had to fix that, I lost count of the wars Egypt lost to Israel, oops)

By the way, the Green Line was erased in 1967.
It does not exist today.