IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Non-USA & General Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags general discussion , Israel issues , Israel-Palestine conflict , Palestine issues , US-Israel relations

Reply
Old 2nd August 2021, 08:34 AM   #1881
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 50,041
Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey View Post
Gee I wonder what external conditions might exist to make Palestinian territory plagued by crime.
I'm not even talking about crime. The worst thing Israel ever did to the Palestinians was give them their own government.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd August 2021, 08:52 AM   #1882
SuburbanTurkey
Penultimate Amazing
 
SuburbanTurkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Massachusetts, USA
Posts: 12,143
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
I'm not even talking about crime. The worst thing Israel ever did to the Palestinians was give them their own government.
Israel took part in creating Hamas as a counterweight to the PLO. Not sure I agree with Israel's assessment that a jihadist government is preferable to a secular, left-wing government.

https://theintercept.com/2018/02/19/...tine-conflict/

A textbook example of the dangers of blowback.
__________________
Gobble gobble

Last edited by SuburbanTurkey; 2nd August 2021 at 08:57 AM.
SuburbanTurkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd August 2021, 09:07 AM   #1883
trustbutverify
Philosopher
 
trustbutverify's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 9,222
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
Perhaps because it is good to have a few thoughts for the suffering victims of a long occupation when you are a famous person (fame may lead to social responsibility).
You're confusing the act of mentioning Palestine every time Israel is addressed with "social responsibility". It isn't.

Quote:
Besides, Israel has no concentration or extermination camp, of course.
You think that actually matters to Israel's online community of blood enemies? It doesn't.
__________________
"To me, Hitler is the greatest man who ever lived. He truly is without fault, so simple and at the same time possessed of masculine strength"
-Leni Riefenstahl
Wollen owns the stage

Last edited by trustbutverify; 2nd August 2021 at 09:18 AM.
trustbutverify is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd August 2021, 12:32 PM   #1884
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 53,223
Problem is so many people...including , BTW many who don't have religious beliefs...see this in such simplistic black and white terms.
It's a very complex situation with a very complex history.

CNN's current series on the History of Jerusalem points that out. Next week we jump from the Crusades to World War One and Allenby's Palestinian Campaign.
It has flaws (the shoehorning of Cleopatra into the episode of Herod the Great because she is such a big historical name and Lawrence of Arabia is the first guy mentioned in their ads for next week's epidose when he played a minor role in the campaign) but overal an interesting..and fair minded..show.
__________________
Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty.

Robert Heinlein.
dudalb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd August 2021, 08:32 PM   #1885
CaptainHowdy
Graduate Poster
 
CaptainHowdy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,810
Originally Posted by webfusion View Post
That's splitting hairs.

Where is the similar outrage against Danny Valencia? Or Ian Kinsler?
Whataboutism doesn't get you much traction around here.
CaptainHowdy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd August 2021, 05:37 AM   #1886
webfusion
Philosopher
 
webfusion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 6,918
CaptainHowdy, you are right, my question was tu quoque and adds nothing to the discussion.
Both Olympic baseball players mentioned are Jewish, they have every right to support Israel by playing on that nation's team! Famous Jews aren't being called out (yet) for their consanguity, but that could change in an instant (See: Hillel on campuses, as they are now attempting to counter the anti-Jewish mood that is becoming pervasive among some student bodies).
https://www.jpost.com/diaspora/antis...ampuses-675688
webfusion is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th August 2021, 07:53 PM   #1887
Mycroft
High Priest of Ed
 
Mycroft's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 19,822
Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey View Post
The poverty conditions in Gaza are fairly uncomplicated to understand. It's a blockaded ghetto, anything but intense poverty is impossible there.
It's only uncomplicated if you purposefully omit the complicating information, but that's disingenuous and dishonest.

Israel has good reasons for blockading Gaza, and it's not just because they want to be meanies to Muslim Arabs. To change the relationship between Hamas and Israel will require efforts from both Hamas and Israel, Israel can't do it alone.

There is wealth and wealthy people in Gaza. Hamas makes the final decisions on how foreign aid is distributed, and it's Hamas that is responsible for keeping hostilities active.

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey View Post
Agricultural pursuits are frequently hampered by land confiscation by the state or by illegal settlers. Apartheid policies that make Palestinians de-facto second class citizens make many forms of ordinary economic activity extremely unprofitable, if impossible.
Israel withdrew from Gaza back in 2005. There are no Israeli land confiscations in Gaza.

Israel is responsible for the rights of Israeli citizens, which includes Israeli Arabs.

The Palestinian governments are responsible for the rights of Palestinians. If you think it's unfair that Palestinian citizens have different rights than Israeli citizens, then encourage them to finalize peace and their government can decide what their citizens rights are just like any other government does.
Mycroft is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th August 2021, 03:15 AM   #1888
SuburbanTurkey
Penultimate Amazing
 
SuburbanTurkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Massachusetts, USA
Posts: 12,143
Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
The Palestinian governments are responsible for the rights of Palestinians. If you think it's unfair that Palestinian citizens have different rights than Israeli citizens, then encourage them to finalize peace and their government can decide what their citizens rights are just like any other government does.
Yes, the Israeli position does seem to be that they will continue their campaign of human rights abuses until the Palestinian population totally capitulates.

Seems more likely to me that Israel prefers the status quo. Illegal settlement is gobbling up Palestinian lands. Conditions in Gaza will remain poor and force more and more of the Palestinian population to seek refuge status abroad.
__________________
Gobble gobble
SuburbanTurkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th August 2021, 09:02 AM   #1889
SuburbanTurkey
Penultimate Amazing
 
SuburbanTurkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Massachusetts, USA
Posts: 12,143
Quote:
Israel’s second-ever Olympic gold medalist, Artem Dolgopyat, cannot legally get married in his home country, as he is not Jewish by the standards of the Chief Rabbinate, his mother lamented on Sunday, while the country celebrated its new national hero.

In an interview with 103FM Radio, Dolgopyat’s mother Angela Bilan said: “The state does not let him get married. He has a girlfriend and they have lived together for three years, but he cannot get married.”
https://www.timesofisrael.com/israel...other-laments/

Israel's gold medalist isn't Jewish enough to deserve basic civil rights in his home country.
__________________
Gobble gobble

Last edited by SuburbanTurkey; 5th August 2021 at 09:03 AM.
SuburbanTurkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th August 2021, 12:19 PM   #1890
webfusion
Philosopher
 
webfusion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 6,918
Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey View Post
https://www.timesofisrael.com/israel...other-laments/

Israel's gold medalist isn't Jewish enough to deserve basic civil rights in his home country.
There are no "basic civil rights" to a non-religious marriage in Israel, period. For anyone.
Not Muslims, Not Christians, Not Jews. If clergy refuses (and they have their own criteria for refusing, with several considerations involved) then a marriage license is not provided.

Beyond that, I find it quite disconcerting that you brought forward this particular issue, without pointing out that there are efforts underway by leading Israeli politicians (including vice-Premier Lapid) to alter the status-quo.
https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/la...o-marry-675623

Did you post that just to bash Israel?
What was your reason for offering this story?
webfusion is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th August 2021, 12:56 PM   #1891
SuburbanTurkey
Penultimate Amazing
 
SuburbanTurkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Massachusetts, USA
Posts: 12,143
Originally Posted by webfusion View Post
There are no "basic civil rights" to a non-religious marriage in Israel, period. For anyone.
Not Muslims, Not Christians, Not Jews. If clergy refuses (and they have their own criteria for refusing, with several considerations involved) then a marriage license is not provided.

Beyond that, I find it quite disconcerting that you brought forward this particular issue, without pointing out that there are efforts underway by leading Israeli politicians (including vice-Premier Lapid) to alter the status-quo.
https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/la...o-marry-675623

Did you post that just to bash Israel?
What was your reason for offering this story?
Yes, my post was meant as a naked criticism of Israel and their regressive policies, like their anti-miscegenation marriage policy. The fact that this regressive nonsense is cloaked in theocratic bureaucracy is not an excuse.

All this talk about how our ally is the only democracy in the middle east, perhaps there should be more acknowledgement how backwards this apartheid, theocratic state really is.
__________________
Gobble gobble

Last edited by SuburbanTurkey; 5th August 2021 at 12:58 PM.
SuburbanTurkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th August 2021, 02:01 PM   #1892
webfusion
Philosopher
 
webfusion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 6,918
Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey View Post
Yes, my post was meant as a naked criticism of Israel and their regressive policies, like their anti-miscegenation marriage policy. The fact that this regressive nonsense is cloaked in theocratic bureaucracy is not an excuse.

All this talk about how our ally is the only democracy in the middle east, perhaps there should be more acknowledgement how backwards this apartheid, theocratic state really is.
It's fine to criticize, but do so fairly.
Israel is not a theocratic state. Yes, there's theocratic bureaucracy (not just Jewish, but Moslem and Christian as well, with a few other religions thrown in for good measure, and they ALL protect and defend their customs, traditions and practices).
As for "apartheid" -- that's just YOU repeating a lie.

Israel's GOVERNMENT allows civil marriages to be recorded in the Population Registry, but that union would have to be performed elsewhere (Cyprus is the go-to location for Israelis who want to avoid the Clergy).

The subject is a sore spot in Israeli society (along with drafting Haredim).
Stay out of it, Turkey. Your ongoing Israel-bashing would be better-served by taking other routes, OK?
webfusion is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th August 2021, 02:27 PM   #1893
webfusion
Philosopher
 
webfusion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 6,918
Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey View Post
Yes, the Israeli position does seem to be that they will continue their campaign of human rights abuses until the Palestinian population totally capitulates.

----- Capitulates to what?
Can you point to specific demands Israel has of the Palestinians? What are the 'terms of surrender' that you believe Israel is seeking?


Seems more likely to me that Israel prefers the status quo. Illegal settlement is gobbling up Palestinian lands. Conditions in Gaza will remain poor and force more and more of the Palestinian population to seek refuge status abroad.
In Israel, there are many things that are 'staus quo' -- including the policies on our Temple Mount, now a public park, which falls directly into your categorization of "Palestinian Lands" right?

Conditions in Gaza will remain poor until they free themselves from men whose interests oppose freedom. I have yet to see such a movement emerge at the grassroots level.
As for leaving Gaza, Israel will attempt to alleviate the pressure on the Egyptian exit point (Rafiah crossing) and start allowing Palestinians to use the Allenby Bridge (Jordan).
https://www.jpost.com/middle-east/pa...or-gaza-675996

Last edited by webfusion; 5th August 2021 at 02:29 PM.
webfusion is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th August 2021, 02:38 PM   #1894
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 50,041
Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey View Post
Yes, my post was meant as a naked criticism of Israel and their regressive policies
That is the what, not the why. Why do you care about Israeli marriage policies? Do you care about Palestinian, or Egyptian, or Jordanian marriage policies? I doubt it. I doubt you even know what such policies are.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th August 2021, 02:58 PM   #1895
Michel H
Master Poster
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Belgium
Posts: 2,521
Originally Posted by webfusion View Post
----- Capitulates to what?
Can you point to specific demands Israel has of the Palestinians? What are the 'terms of surrender' that you believe Israel is seeking?
In my opinion, the basic issue is Israel's territorial expansion in the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

It is likely Israel's government would like to see the Palestinian Authority and Hamas accept a Trump style peace plan (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_peace_plan) with a small Palestinian state in the long run, and East Jerusalem belonging permanently to Israel. This is probably the kind of "surrender" that Israel would like to see.
Michel H is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th August 2021, 06:39 PM   #1896
SuburbanTurkey
Penultimate Amazing
 
SuburbanTurkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Massachusetts, USA
Posts: 12,143
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
That is the what, not the why. Why do you care about Israeli marriage policies? Do you care about Palestinian, or Egyptian, or Jordanian marriage policies? I doubt it. I doubt you even know what such policies are.
Considering the huge amounts of foreign aid and diplomatic support the US lavishes on Israel, it seems fair to question the human rights record in detail. If we reduce our support of Israel to similar levels of Egypt or Jordan I would find their lack of respect for human rights less objectionable.

US support of Israel is the only reason there hasn't been action from the UN concerning illegal Israeli settlements, for example. US sponsorship plays a huge role in enabling the worst elements of Israeli policy.
__________________
Gobble gobble

Last edited by SuburbanTurkey; 5th August 2021 at 06:42 PM.
SuburbanTurkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th August 2021, 07:24 PM   #1897
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 50,041
Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey View Post
Considering the huge amounts of foreign aid and diplomatic support the US lavishes on Israel, it seems fair to question the human rights record in detail. If we reduce our support of Israel to similar levels of Egypt or Jordan I would find their lack of respect for human rights less objectionable.
No you wouldn’t. You would just find a new excuse. Even this excuse doesn’t actually make any sense. Why is a human rights violation less morally wrong if there is less foreign aid? It makes no sense. But then, it doesn’t actually need to. Because everything you have said is a pretense.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th August 2021, 08:24 PM   #1898
webfusion
Philosopher
 
webfusion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 6,918
Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey View Post
Considering the huge amounts of foreign aid and diplomatic support the US lavishes on Israel, it seems fair to question the human rights record in detail. If we reduce our support of Israel to similar levels of Egypt or Jordan I would find their lack of respect for human rights less objectionable.

US support of Israel is the only reason there hasn't been action from the UN concerning illegal Israeli settlements, for example. US sponsorship plays a huge role in enabling the worst elements of Israeli policy.
The United States disagrees that the Temple Mount/Western Wall & the Jewish Quarter, or any other enclave of Jewish life in and around Jerusalem is "illegal" --- The Hebrew University sits on lands captured from Jordanian Legions in '67 (next to Hadassah Hospital on Mt.Scopus)
These are within the scope of the "illegal" areas you are talking about.
Gilo? Illegal town?
Ma'ale Adumim? Illegal?
Hebron? Illegal housing?
Alfe Menashe? Illegal community?
Ariel? An illegal abomination?

Are these the worst elements of Israeli policy you are referring to?
What actions do you envision from the UN regarding Jews living in Jerusalem's suburbs?
What would happen if the USA stood back and allowed China, Russia (those paragons of human rights on the UNSC) to support evisceration of Jewish life in our holy land and capitulation to the Arabs? The world would be a BETTER place in your opinion?

By the way, the USA provides Egypt with billions of $$$ and supports the military dictatorship there. Your tax dollars at work.
But nevermind, there aren't Jewish communities in Egypt (or in Lebanon, or Syria, or Jordan, where even selling a property to a Jew is a terrible, terrible thing, with very harsh penalties, and let's not even mention Saudi Arabia, 70 miles to our south).

You may be right -- let's focus our humanitarian concerns on the totally anti-miscegenation Israeli marriage laws (that, inter alia, apply equally across the entire spectrum of religions, from the Ba'hai to the Druze to the Circassians, to the Copts, to the Eastern Orthodox, etc etc) and stop providing defensive Sikorsky CH53K helicopters.
Makes sense to me.

Not.
webfusion is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th August 2021, 08:43 PM   #1899
webfusion
Philosopher
 
webfusion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 6,918
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
In my opinion, the basic issue is Israel's territorial expansion in the West Bank and East Jerusalem.
OK, let's take it to the logical extension of this claim.
What was the nature of the three wars that Israel fought from May 1948, through Suez/Gaza War 1956, and up to the morning of June 5, 1967? Israel held not one centimeter of what you refer to as "east Jerusalem" or "West Bank" --- in fact, up until the conclusion of the Six Day War, Jews were disallowed from access to our shrine of Abraham, Isaac & Jacob as well as 100% restricted from approaching the Temple Mount/Western Wall.
If the "basic issue" is indeed territorial, arising ONLY from the June 1967 breaches of the 1949 Armistice (Cease-Fire-in-Place) Demarcation, then why did Israel have to fight those wars? From your perspective, the "basic issue" of Israel is expansion.

From many Palestinians' perspective, the 'basic issue' is Israel itself, in MY opinion.


Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
It is likely Israel's government would like to see the Palestinian Authority and Hamas accept a Trump style peace plan (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_peace_plan) with a small Palestinian state in the long run, and East Jerusalem belonging permanently to Israel. This is probably the kind of "surrender" that Israel would like to see.
Honestly, Israel's current government is just getting their feet under themselves, trying to deal with COVID19, Iranian intrigues, Islamic Jihadists with tens of thousands of missiles & drones, a weak American President, and just plain old strange-bedfellows of our coalition politics.

And you think a Peace Plan is on anyone's agenda?

Oh, and for the record, the amount of land of a small PalestineState is 6205 sq.km. (~2500 sq.miles) -- would you like to know how I arrived at this figure?
webfusion is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th August 2021, 06:16 AM   #1900
Michel H
Master Poster
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Belgium
Posts: 2,521
Originally Posted by webfusion View Post
OK, let's take it to the logical extension of this claim.
What was the nature of the three wars that Israel fought from May 1948, through Suez/Gaza War 1956, and up to the morning of June 5, 1967? Israel held not one centimeter of what you refer to as "east Jerusalem" or "West Bank" --- in fact, up until the conclusion of the Six Day War, Jews were disallowed from access to our shrine of Abraham, Isaac & Jacob as well as 100% restricted from approaching the Temple Mount/Western Wall.
If the "basic issue" is indeed territorial, arising ONLY from the June 1967 breaches of the 1949 Armistice (Cease-Fire-in-Place) Demarcation, then why did Israel have to fight those wars? From your perspective, the "basic issue" of Israel is expansion.
Israel fought the 1967 war (and took so much land) because they chose to, it was an overreaction to the closure of the Straits of Tiran by Egypt. Arabs and the Iranians have made (and are still making) mistakes too but this does not exonerate Israel from their legal obligations.
Quote:
From many Palestinians' perspective, the 'basic issue' is Israel itself, in MY opinion.
Perhaps some Palestinians who work either in Israel or in Israeli settlements might disagree. Anyway, I agree with you that Hamas (and their Iranian friends) should stop saying they want to destroy the State of Israel.
Quote:
Honestly, Israel's current government is just getting their feet under themselves, trying to deal with COVID19, Iranian intrigues, Islamic Jihadists with tens of thousands of missiles & drones, a weak American President, and just plain old strange-bedfellows of our coalition politics.

And you think a Peace Plan is on anyone's agenda?
I believe that much of Israel troubles are actually related to their illegal colonization policies in Palestine (but not the coronavirus, of course). For example, two days ago, Palestinian groups in Lebanon fired rockets at northern Israel, which sparked fires (see https://www.timesofisrael.com/lebane...ry-intentions/), and this is now leading to yet another crisis. I believe we all suspect why Palestinians aren't very happy.
Quote:
Oh, and for the record, the amount of land of a small PalestineState is 6205 sq.km. (~2500 sq.miles) -- would you like to know how I arrived at this figure?
This seems very large (the West Bank area is 5,655 km2). Perhaps you took this number from the 1947 U.N. partition plan for Palestine.
Michel H is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th August 2021, 07:19 AM   #1901
webfusion
Philosopher
 
webfusion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 6,918
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
Israel fought the 1967 war (and took so much land) because they chose to, it was an overreaction to the closure of the Straits of Tiran by Egypt. Arabs and the Iranians have made (and are still making) mistakes too but this does not exonerate Israel from their legal obligations.
"so much land?" -- You mean, the Golan Heights? Gaza? Sinai? And Evicting the Jordanian Legion from their occupation of the hills?

Casus belli is casus belli. Who are YOU to say the Jews 'overreacted' to the open threats and calls for genocide by Nasser?

When Israel (inevitably) attacks Iran, will you say it's an overreaction? I'm sure many people will, it's gonna be a ****-show. Buckle up, buttercup.
https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/is...n-gantz-675897
and
https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/is...attacks-675793



Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
Perhaps some Palestinians who work either in Israel or in Israeli settlements might disagree. Anyway, I agree with you that Hamas (and their Iranian friends) should stop saying they want to destroy the State of Israel.
My concerns are not about "some" Palestinians.
Under what set of parameters can you imagine whereby HAMAS (it's an acronym, properly capitalized) stands down and alters their entire rationale?
Or Hezbollah? Or Islamic Jihad?
Or even the PLO.
Have you read the 1974 Phased Plan (12th Session of the Palestine National Council, Cairo)? It's still valid AFAIK.
https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org...-plo-june-1974


Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
I believe that much of Israel troubles are actually related to their illegal colonization policies in Palestine (but not the coronavirus, of course). For example, two days ago, Palestinian groups in Lebanon fired rockets at northern Israel, which sparked fires (see https://www.timesofisrael.com/lebane...ry-intentions/), and this is now leading to yet another crisis. I believe we all suspect why Palestinians aren't very happy.
Again, I want to know why you insist on deriving "Israel's troubles" from only 1967 onwards, and ignore 1917 onwards....
From the perspective of the Arab side, I keep seeing the position that Israel itself is an abomination that needs to be erased. (the Arabic word for "catastrophe" -- naqba -- describes the Jewish State in total).
They (generally) feel that Israel has been established on "Palestinian Lands" and as such, is an illegal colonizer & occupier, from Rosh Haniqra to Eilat; from Tel Aviv to Bet She'an.

By the way, over a dozen rockets have been fired at us across the north this morning, by Hezbollah. I don't agree that "Palestinian unhappiness" requires the killing of Jews as a proper course of action. Not at the Munich Olympics, not on ElAl planes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Al#..._and_incidents), not at Sbarro Pizza, not at the Plaza Hotel, not on Bus #5 Dizengoff St. etc. etc. etc.

Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
This seems very large (the West Bank area is 5,655 km2). Perhaps you took this number from the 1947 U.N. partition plan for Palestine.
Nope.
It's the amount of area defined (with maps and specific demarcations outlined) by the 1949 Rhodes Armistice Agreements (with Egypt & Jordan, specifically), including Gaza.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/oct/11/israel

Quick side-question: what, exactly, are Israel's "Legal Obligations" that you refer to?
International Law is a tricky thing ---- having F35's (and in-air refueling tankers) may end up being a better solution than trying to quietly cajole our enemies into stopping their threats and attacks.
webfusion is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th August 2021, 07:27 AM   #1902
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 50,041
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
Anyway, I agree with you that Hamas (and their Iranian friends) should stop saying they want to destroy the State of Israel.
This is revealing in ways you probably didn't intend. The problem isn't what Hamas and Iran are saying. What they are saying is merely an indicator. They don't just say they want to destroy Israel. They actually want to destroy Israel. You seem to think that the only unacceptable part in that is the saying, and not the actual desire, let alone the efforts to do so.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th August 2021, 10:47 AM   #1903
Michel H
Master Poster
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Belgium
Posts: 2,521
Originally Posted by webfusion View Post
"so much land?" -- You mean, the Golan Heights? Gaza? Sinai? And Evicting the Jordanian Legion from their occupation of the hills?
I don't know why you didn't mention the West Bank.
Quote:
Quick side-question: what, exactly, are Israel's "Legal Obligations" that you refer to?
International Law is a tricky thing ---- having F35's (and in-air refueling tankers) may end up being a better solution than trying to quietly cajole our enemies into stopping their threats and attacks.
Wikipedia explains:
Quote:
United Nations Security Council Resolution 2334 was adopted on 23 December 2016. It concerns the Israeli settlements in "Palestinian territories occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem". The resolution passed in a 14–0 vote by members of the U.N. Security Council (UNSC). Four members with United Nations Security Council veto power, China, France, Russia, and the United Kingdom, voted for the resolution, but the United States abstained.[1]

The resolution states that Israel's settlement activity constitutes a "flagrant violation" of international law and has "no legal validity". It demands that Israel stop such activity and fulfill its obligations as an occupying power under the Fourth Geneva Convention.[2][3]

It was the first UNSC resolution to pass regarding Israel and the Palestine territories since Resolution 1860 in 2009,[4] and the first to address the issue of Israeli settlements with such specificity since Resolution 465 in 1980.[5][6] While the resolution did not include any sanction or coercive measure and was adopted under the non-binding Chapter VI of the United Nations Charter, Israeli newspaper Haaretz stated it "may have serious ramifications for Israel in general and specifically for the settlement enterprise" in the medium-to-long term.[6]

The text was welcomed by much of the international community in the following days. According to Murray McCully, former Minister of Foreign Affairs for New Zealand, Resolution 2334 reinforces the international community's commitment to a negotiated outcome [7] while former Canadian ambassador Paul Heinbecker noted that, Israeli and Palestinian narratives notwithstanding, resolution 2334 "reflects what the world thinks. It does not constitute a minority view or even a very divided view. If this resolution of the 15-member UN Security Council were put to a vote in the 193-member General Assembly, the outcome would scarcely be different."[8] In response, the government of Israel retaliated with a series of diplomatic actions against some members of the Security Council[9][10] and accused the administration of U.S. President Barack Obama of having secretly orchestrated the passage of the resolution. Palestine's representatives stated this was an opportunity to end the occupation and establish a Palestinian state to live side by side with the state of Israel on the 1967 line.
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United...esolution_2334).

The text of the resolution may be found here: https://undocs.org/S/RES/2334(2016).

An excerpt:
Quote:
Resolution 2334 (2016)
Adopted by the Security Council at its 7853rd meeting, on
23 December 2016
The Security Council, ...
1. Reaffirms that the establishment by Israel of settlements in the
Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, has no legal
validity and constitutes a flagrant violation under international law and a major
obstacle to the achievement of the two-State solution and a just, lasting and
comprehensive peace;
2. Reiterates its demand that Israel immediately and completely cease all
settlement activities in the occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem,
and that it fully respect all of its legal obligations in this regard;
3. Underlines that it will not recognize any changes to the 4 June 1967 lines, including with regard to Jerusalem, other than those agreed by the parties through negotiations;
So Israel, sitting on a large heap fo weapons kindly provided by the United States free of charge, has decided to pursue its own illegal policies, regardless of what U.N. Security Council resolutions state, and of what most of the international community thinks, even though its owes its existence to the United Nations.

Last edited by Michel H; 6th August 2021 at 10:49 AM.
Michel H is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th August 2021, 10:58 AM   #1904
Michel H
Master Poster
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Belgium
Posts: 2,521
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
This is revealing in ways you probably didn't intend. The problem isn't what Hamas and Iran are saying. What they are saying is merely an indicator. They don't just say they want to destroy Israel. They actually want to destroy Israel. You seem to think that the only unacceptable part in that is the saying, and not the actual desire, let alone the efforts to do so.
The current behavior of Hamas and Iran is based on current Israeli policies.

Suppose, for example, that Israel decides to evacuate all police and military forces from the West Bank and East Jerusalem and cedes control of these territories to the Palestinian Authority (with which Israel cooperates sometimes on security issues, and which is more moderate than Hamas). Suppose also that all blockades and restrictions imposed on Gaza are also lifted, the same being true of sanctions imposed on Iran.

I believe it is reasonable to assume that, under such conditions, most Palestinians and Iran would be much less hostile to Israel.
Michel H is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th August 2021, 10:59 AM   #1905
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 54,990
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
I don't know why you didn't mention the West Bank.

Wikipedia explains:

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United...esolution_2334).

The text of the resolution may be found here: https://undocs.org/S/RES/2334(2016).

An excerpt:

So Israel, sitting on a large heap fo weapons kindly provided by the United States free of charge, has decided to pursue its own illegal policies, regardless of what U.N. Security Council resolutions state, and of what most of the international community thinks, even though its owes its existence to the United Nations.
UNSC resolutions aren't laws. They have no legal force, and are not legally binding on anyone. Not even UNSC members are legally bound by their own resolutions. The UNSC has no authority over Israeli settlement policy. Israel has no obligation to consider their resolutions or make them happy.
__________________
There is no Antimemetics Division.
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th August 2021, 11:12 AM   #1906
Michel H
Master Poster
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Belgium
Posts: 2,521
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
UNSC resolutions aren't laws. They have no legal force, and are not legally binding on anyone. Not even UNSC members are legally bound by their own resolutions. The UNSC has no authority over Israeli settlement policy. Israel has no obligation to consider their resolutions or make them happy.
Wikipedia explains:
Quote:
The UNSC is the only UN body with the authority to issue binding resolutions on member states.
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United...curity_Council).

I can perhaps also quote:
Quote:
Resolution 242: A Legal Reappraisal of the Right-Wing Israeli Interpretation of the Withdrawal Phrase with Reference to the Conflict Between Israel and the Palestinians
In the Six Day War in June 1967, East Jerusalem, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip came under Israeli military occupation, as well as the Sinai Peninsula and the Golan Heights. On 22 November that year, the UN Security Council unanimously passed Resolution 242, which it was hoped would provide a route to a permanent peace. It seems clear that Resolution 242 now has binding force1 and that it is accepted by all parties today that Resolution 242 sets out the principles which must be applied in order to reach a settlement. The Resolution is recited in the preambles to the Oslo Accords.2 This means that, in addition, it is binding on Israel and the PLO by agreement.3
(https://www.cambridge.org/core/journ...A9CE2C706B52A0).
Michel H is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th August 2021, 12:04 PM   #1907
webfusion
Philosopher
 
webfusion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 6,918
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
The current behavior of Hamas and Iran is based on current Israeli policies.
Nonsense.

HAMAS specifically refers to that in their Charter with the phrase -- "Israel will exist until Islam obliterates it."

The PLO isn't looking at the Jewish State through the lens of 1967, nor 2021 for that matter.

"From the river to the sea...Palestine will be Free" is not just a slogan to chant in the streets of New York, LA, London, Paris.

It's their entire doctrine, going back to the end of WW1 (1920's) and reflects the Islamists' extreme antagonism towards Jews.


Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
Suppose, for example, that Israel decides to evacuate all police and military forces from the West Bank and East Jerusalem and cedes control of these territories to the Palestinian Authority (with which Israel cooperates sometimes on security issues, and which is more moderate than Hamas). Suppose also that all blockades and restrictions imposed on Gaza are also lifted, the same being true of sanctions imposed on Iran.

I believe it is reasonable to assume that, under such conditions, most Palestinians and Iran would be much less hostile to Israel.
Or, you could suppose another thing.
Namely, with the Arabs realizing that the State of Israel is now isolated, without diplomatic support of even the USA, and the Arabs across Europe marching and demanding the Jews of Israel GTFO (to be sent back where they came from, namely Germany, France, Canada, Mexico, etc.) and the military prowess of Iran brought to bear in Heroic Liberation Actions of rockets, including ballistic firepower with (potentially) nuclear warheads.

Using the extrapolation of the days leading up to the 1967 Six Day War, this scenario is much more likely than the Arabs saying "OK, we're satisifed with being good neighbors with Israel now..."

Pollyanna thinking won't get you anywhere in the MidEast, MichelH.
It will just get you killed.

Last edited by webfusion; 6th August 2021 at 12:26 PM.
webfusion is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th August 2021, 12:18 PM   #1908
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 50,041
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
The current behavior of Hamas and Iran is based on current Israeli policies.

Suppose, for example, that Israel decides to evacuate all police and military forces from the West Bank and East Jerusalem and cedes control of these territories to the Palestinian Authority (with which Israel cooperates sometimes on security issues, and which is more moderate than Hamas). Suppose also that all blockades and restrictions imposed on Gaza are also lifted, the same being true of sanctions imposed on Iran.

I believe it is reasonable to assume that, under such conditions, most Palestinians and Iran would be much less hostile to Israel.
Are you seriously this clueless?

What happened when Israel withdrew from Gaza? Was that treated by Hamas as a positive step which they should meet with a reduction in hostility?
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th August 2021, 12:24 PM   #1909
webfusion
Philosopher
 
webfusion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 6,918
Quickly, a few other points from MichelH:

1. The hills are the "West Bank" and that land area was occupied by Jordan, until the Israeli Army sent them packing in June 1967.
Including from 'east Jerusalem' which is now offically part of Israel, by our laws.
And let's be real, it's OUR laws that matter, not some Arab-inspired Resolutions in Turtle Bay.

2. Is the Golan Heights "Palestinian Lands" that should be part of their PalestineState?
If not, why not? The status of that salient is equal to all other 'territories' that Israel is being demanded to withdraw from. If Egyptian Gaza, Jordanian WestBank and Syrian Golan are now Palestine, let's say so and go from there...

3. "Israel owes its existence to the United Nations..."

Uh, no. Israel owes its existence to the Jewish people worldwide who have been contributing people, money, support and prayers for over 120 years.

I wouldn't give a plugged nickel for anything the UN says or does these days.
(The UN was a much different animal in the late-1940's before the Arab bloc, vis-a-vis their oil power, became dominant).

3. Speaking of the 1967 Cease-Fire Lines, you must realize that they are not "Borders" in any sense of the word. What do you propose Israel do with this little salient (in east Jerusalem)?
webfusion is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th August 2021, 12:45 PM   #1910
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 54,990
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post

That seems to be "UN-binding". What's the enforcement mechanism? What court has jurisdiction over questions of Israeli compliance? What national or international entity has legal authority to compel Israeli compliance by force?
__________________
There is no Antimemetics Division.
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th August 2021, 01:25 PM   #1911
Michel H
Master Poster
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Belgium
Posts: 2,521
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
That seems to be "UN-binding". What's the enforcement mechanism? What court has jurisdiction over questions of Israeli compliance? What national or international entity has legal authority to compel Israeli compliance by force?
The wikipedia article also explains:
Quote:
Under Chapter VII, the council has broader power to decide what measures are to be taken in situations involving "threats to the peace, breaches of the peace, or acts of aggression."[28] In such situations, the council is not limited to recommendations but may take action, including the use of armed force "to maintain or restore international peace and security."[28] This was the legal basis for UN armed action in Korea in 1950 during the Korean War and the use of coalition forces in Iraq and Kuwait in 1991 and Libya in 2011.
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United...y_Council#Role).

So, theoretically, the Security Council could send coalition forces to free Palestine from the long occupier. I believe this could actually be a good idea (to make the Security Council more balanced, after the Gulf War in 1991), though a peaceful solution is usually much, much better, of course.
Michel H is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th August 2021, 01:39 PM   #1912
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 50,041
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
The wikipedia article also explains:
The security council can use force.

The general assembly cannot.

Guess where all these anti-Israel resolutions come from?

Quote:
So, theoretically, the Security Council could send coalition forces to free Palestine from the long occupier. I believe this could actually be a good idea
This is such a bad idea, I don't think you can be trusted to use adult scissors without risking injuring yourself. Do you not know anything about the sordid history of UN peacekeeping operations?
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th August 2021, 01:52 PM   #1913
Michel H
Master Poster
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Belgium
Posts: 2,521
Originally Posted by webfusion View Post
...
2. Is the Golan Heights "Palestinian Lands" that should be part of their PalestineState?
If not, why not? The status of that salient is equal to all other 'territories' that Israel is being demanded to withdraw from. If Egyptian Gaza, Jordanian WestBank and Syrian Golan are now Palestine, let's say so and go from there...
Wikipedia explains:
Quote:
Since the Six-Day War of 1967, the western two-thirds of the Golan Heights has been occupied and administered by Israel,[1][2] whereas the eastern third remains under the control of Syria. Following the war, Syria dismissed any negotiations with Israel as part of the Khartoum Resolution at the 1967 Arab League summit.[20] Construction of Israeli settlements began in the remainder of the territory held by Israel, which was under a military administration until the Knesset passed the Golan Heights Law in 1981, which applied Israeli law to the territory;[21] the move has been described as an annexation. The Golan Heights Law was condemned by the United Nations Security Council in Resolution 497,[2][22] which stated that "the Israeli decision to impose its laws, jurisdiction, and administration in the occupied Syrian Golan Heights is null and void and without international legal effect", and Resolution 242, which emphasizes the "inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war". Israel maintains it has a right to retain the Golan, also citing the text of Resolution 242, which calls for "safe and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force".[23]
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golan_Heights).

I personally believe that Israel should be allowed to buy (from Syria) the western part of the Golan Heights it currently occupies because Syria needs money for its reconstruction after its civil war, while Israel's legal territory is admittedly not very large.
Quote:
3. Speaking of the 1967 Cease-Fire Lines, you must realize that they are not "Borders" in any sense of the word. What do you propose Israel do with this little salient (in east Jerusalem)?
https://worldwidetravel.tips/wp-cont...20-256x256.jpg
The Dome of the Rock is located in East Jerusalem, so, in my opinion, it should be logically administered by the Palestinian Authority (or the Palestinian State). The Jews should, however be given access to the Temple Mount, given its religious importance in Judaism.

A good peace treaty should always be balanced, and not generate unjustified frustrations.

Last edited by Michel H; 6th August 2021 at 02:03 PM.
Michel H is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th August 2021, 02:01 PM   #1914
Michel H
Master Poster
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Belgium
Posts: 2,521
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Are you seriously this clueless?

What happened when Israel withdrew from Gaza? Was that treated by Hamas as a positive step which they should meet with a reduction in hostility?
There were indeed some positive Palestinian reactions:
Quote:
Public opinion
Palestinian
The PA, in the absence of a final peace settlement, has welcomed any military withdrawal from the territories, but many[who?] Palestinian Arabs have objected to the plan, stating that it aims to "bypass"[This quote needs a citation] past international agreements, and instead call for a complete withdrawal from the West Bank and Gaza Strip.[citation needed] Their suspicions were further aroused[according to whom?] when top Sharon aide Dov Weisglass was quoted in an interview with Israeli newspaper Haaretz on October 6, 2004, as saying that the disengagement would prevent a Palestinian state for years to come (see above). This incident has bolstered the position of critics of the plan that Sharon is intentionally trying to scuttle the peace process.[98] Israeli officials, including Weisglass, denied this accusation, and media critics have asserted that the Weisglass interview was widely distorted and taken out of context.[citation needed]

On August 8, 2005, Haaretz quoted a top Palestinian Authority religious cleric, Sheikh Jamal al-Bawatna, the mufti of the Ramallah district, in a fatwa (a religious edict) banning shooting attacks against Israeli security forces and settlements, out of concern they might lead to a postponement of the pullout. According to Haaretz, this is the first time that a Muslim cleric has forbidden shooting at Israeli forces.[99]

On August 15, 2005, scenes of delight took place across the Arab world, following the long-ingrained suspicion that the disengagement would not take place.[100][101]
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel...za#Palestinian).

I assume Palestinian reactions would be very positive, should Israel decide to withdraw from all (Palestinian ) occupied territories.

Last edited by Michel H; 6th August 2021 at 02:06 PM.
Michel H is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th August 2021, 02:31 PM   #1915
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 50,041
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
There were indeed some positive Palestinian reactions:
I asked what Hamas did, because you said that their behavior was based on Israeli policy. You're trying to move the goalposts. You can't use the behavior of other people to validate your false claim about Hamas.

Quote:
I assume Palestinian reactions would be very positive, should Israel decide to withdraw from all (Palestinian ) occupied territories.
And what do you assume the reaction of Hamas would be?

Also, do you know what territory Hamas considers "occupied"?
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th August 2021, 02:58 PM   #1916
webfusion
Philosopher
 
webfusion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 6,918
I am seriously confused by these suggestions we're seeing here.

Buy the Golan Heights?
Israel has formally annexed the Golan Heights, it is now ours.
Nobody in Syria is getting even so much as a thin dime for those mountains.
You attacked us, you lost, get over it.
That is the guiding principle of relations between all nations on this planet.
I see no logic in offering to make the attacking nation come out a winner territorially, after being whupped (not once, but twice) when they used said territory to try and annihilate us.

And THIS gem --- "Temple Mount should be logically administered by the Palestinian Authority..."
Islamic dogma would prohibit Jews from access, just as they are prohibited from access to Mecca. The WAQF at the site is adamant about that. The WAQF is a (primarily) Jordanian-administered body. Now, if you want to propose that the neutral third-party Jordanian Hashemites can take that role as ceremonial guards in uniform and unarmed (think the Vatican in Rome), I would listen, so long as the IDF maintains freedom of action for the surrounding area. (It's a cramped area, to be sure, with the holy sites of three major religions within meters of each other, and the entire walled Old City being a maze of intermingled populations, including Armenians, Copts, Eastern Orthodox Christians, Jews, Muslims).

Israel already has a very well-developed system of checks and balances for security & all vistations to this public Israeli park are under the watchful eyes of our troops & Police.
I expect that situation to remain as it is for generations to come.


At some point, maybe we figure a way to replace the rotting wooden foot-bridge!
https://www.timesofisrael.com/politi...o-temple-mount
webfusion is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th August 2021, 03:03 PM   #1917
Michel H
Master Poster
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Belgium
Posts: 2,521
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
I asked what Hamas did, because you said that their behavior was based on Israeli policy. You're trying to move the goalposts. You can't use the behavior of other people to validate your false claim about Hamas.



And what do you assume the reaction of Hamas would be?

Also, do you know what territory Hamas considers "occupied"?
Hamas is a Palestinian organization, so Palestinians are not necessarily "other people".

I couldn't find Hamas' reactions after the Gaza withdrawal, but I think more general Palestinian reactions are of greater interest.

Regarding specifically Hamas,
Quote:
Co-founder Sheik Ahmed Yassin said in 1987, and the Hamas Charter affirmed in 1988, that Hamas was founded to liberate Palestine, including modern-day Israel, from Israeli occupation and to establish an Islamic state in the area that is now Israel, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.[27] Since 1994,[28] the group has frequently stated that it would accept a truce[i] if Israel withdraws to the 1967 borders, paid reparations, allowed free elections in the territories[30] and gave Palestinian refugees the right to return.[j]
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas).

Wikipedia has also a footnote, which explains:
Quote:
"Hamas remains frank about its ultimate goal—the establishment of Islamic rule across historic Palestine. However, in recent years it has modified this to offer Israel a long-term hudra (truce), in return for the establishment of an independent state in the West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem, which Israel has occupied since the 1967 war. This offer was first made by Sheikh Yassin in the mid-1990s, and is regularly repeated by Hamas leaders in an effort to demonstrate that the movement can adapt to circumstances. 'We are with a state on the 1967 borders, based on a long-term truce,' said Khaled Meshaal, the head of Hamas's Political Bureau, in Damascus in May 2009. Meshaal assumed leadership of the movement after Israel assassinated Sheikh Yassin, but steadfastly refused to recognize Israel and loaded his offer with conditions. Defining 'long-term' as ten years, he said the proposed state must include 'East Jerusalem, the dismantling of settlements and the right of return of the Palestinian refugees'."[31]

What Hamas thinks is, of course, of interest but they are not the dictators of (British mandate) Palestine. Once Palestinians have recovered their land and their rights (if that happens one day), based on U.N. resolutions, Hamas should show respect for Israel, otherwise existing laws may have to be used against them.
Michel H is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th August 2021, 03:12 PM   #1918
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 50,041
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
Hamas is a Palestinian organization, so Palestinians are not necessarily "other people".
They are in the cases you cited.

Quote:
I couldn't find Hamas' reactions after the Gaza withdrawal
Wow. You really are clueless.

Hamas stepped up their attacks against Israel. That was their reaction.

Quote:
but I think more general Palestinian reactions are of greater interest.
To you, perhaps. But the Israelis care quite a lot about what Hamas does. And with very good reason.

Quote:
Regarding specifically Hamas,

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

Wikipedia has also a footnote, which explains:
In other words, they are willing to pause their efforts to destroy Israel in exchange for major and irreversible concessions.

Do you seriously wonder why Israel isn't interested in taking them up on this offer?

Quote:
What Hamas thinks is, of course, of interest but they are not the dictators of (British mandate) Palestine.
Hamas is very much the dictators of Gaza.

Quote:
Once Palestinians have recovered their land and their rights (if that happens one day), based on U.N. resolutions, Hamas should show respect for Israel, otherwise existing laws may have to be used against them.
Wow, that's bad even for you. Hamas doesn't give a **** what you think they should do. And they aren't afraid of laws being used against them.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th August 2021, 03:48 PM   #1919
Michel H
Master Poster
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Belgium
Posts: 2,521
Originally Posted by webfusion View Post
I am seriously confused by these suggestions we're seeing here.

Buy the Golan Heights?
Israel has formally annexed the Golan Heights, it is now ours.
Nobody in Syria is getting even so much as a thin dime for those mountains.
You attacked us, you lost, get over it.
That is the guiding principle of relations between all nations on this planet.
I see no logic in offering to make the attacking nation come out a winner territorially, after being whupped (not once, but twice) when they used said territory to try and annihilate us.
Syria didn't attack Israel in 1967, when (most of) the Golan Heights were conquered by Israel. This was an Israeli attack, not an Arab one.
Quote:
And THIS gem --- "Temple Mount should be logically administered by the Palestinian Authority..."
Islamic dogma would prohibit Jews from access, just as they are prohibited from access to Mecca. The WAQF at the site is adamant about that. The WAQF is a (primarily) Jordanian-administered body. Now, if you want to propose that the neutral third-party Jordanian Hashemites can take that role as ceremonial guards in uniform and unarmed (think the Vatican in Rome), I would listen, so long as the IDF maintains freedom of action for the surrounding area. (It's a cramped area, to be sure, with the holy sites of three major religions within meters of each other, and the entire walled Old City being a maze of intermingled populations, including Armenians, Copts, Eastern Orthodox Christians, Jews, Muslims).
The Times of Israel explains:
Quote:
Israel quietly letting Jews pray on Temple Mount, in break with status quo — TV
... But pray they do, with the cops turning a blind eye. The Islamic Waqf, which administers the compound, is aware of the situation and monitors them from a distance, but has so far not taken action, according to the report.
...
The Temple Mount is the holiest place in Judaism, as the site of the biblical Temples. It is the site of the third-holiest shrine in Islam, the Al-Aqsa Mosque.

Israel captured the Temple Mount and Jerusalem’s Old City in the Six Day War and extended sovereignty throughout Jerusalem. Anxious to reduce friction with the Muslim world, however, and given that Orthodox sages generally counsel against ascending the Temple Mount for fear of treading on the sacred ground where the Temple’s Holy of Holies stood, Israel since 1967 allowed the Jordanian Waqf to continue to maintain religious authority atop the mount. Jews are allowed to visit under numerous restrictions, but not to pray.
(https://www.timesofisrael.com/israel...status-quo-tv/).
Michel H is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th August 2021, 03:56 PM   #1920
Michel H
Master Poster
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Belgium
Posts: 2,521
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
They are in the cases you cited.



Wow. You really are clueless.

Hamas stepped up their attacks against Israel. That was their reaction.



To you, perhaps. But the Israelis care quite a lot about what Hamas does. And with very good reason.



In other words, they are willing to pause their efforts to destroy Israel in exchange for major and irreversible concessions.

Do you seriously wonder why Israel isn't interested in taking them up on this offer?



Hamas is very much the dictators of Gaza.



Wow, that's bad even for you. Hamas doesn't give a **** what you think they should do. And they aren't afraid of laws being used against them.
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).
Michel H is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Non-USA & General Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:25 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.