There was plenty of antisemitism in the Middle East before Israel became an issue, though. Muslims don’t think that Jews killed their God the way Christians do, but they do think that Judaism is an inferior religion, and that Jews would be Muslims if they weren’t so stubborn. You’re trying to sugarcoat the antisemitism that did exist in the Middle East to make it seem that the current situation in the Middle East in regards to antisemitism is all Israel’s fault.
Essentially, yes. See the post of Hypnagogic Jerk where he explains it in more detail than I did.
I’m not going to derail this thread but I don’t think facts that you think were established were actually established. I’ll try to dig up the old thread and reply there.
And you don’t think the Israeli laws discrimiante? You don’t think Israeli institutions discriminate?
How about land rights? How about immigration and naturalization rights?
Nope, no sugarcoating here, I never said it was a paradise, its kind of a straw man argument that also is besides the point. The level of antisemitism in the middle east before zionism and the aliyahs and the level of anti-semitism after zionism and the aliyahs is undisputable. You want to propose some other explanation for the sudden spike in anti-semitism in the area?
What Israeli laws discriminate?
I dunno. Cite some examples of discriminatory laws.
Institutional discrimination - probably does exist, but again, that’s hardly a problem unique to Israel.
Land rights - I’ve already said, the Bedouin are an example of that. Other cases probably exist, on case-by-case basis.
The issue is not whether Israel is free of problems and issues, but whether Arab Israelis are objectively “second class citizens”.
The Right of Return I’ve debated elsewhere. Suffice it to say that, whatever its merits or lack thereof, it cannot make those already citizens “second class”.
What we need to be clear about here is that there are no legal settlements outside Israel. Anything built in the occupied territories is illegal in the eyes of international law. Obviously the hope (for the Israelis) is that these settlements will be incorporated into Israel propper at some point in the future…Incidently I found this article that some people may find interesting.
But, first, East Jerusalem isn’t part of the occupied territories, it’s part of Jerusalem. Second, if Jerusalem is violating “international law” with the settlements, are the “international police” going to come arrest them and take them to “international jail”?
I totally agree that the system only works when there is a actual downside to being in breach of International law. Of course for some countries there are.
E>J is still occupied according to BTselem.
http://www.btselem.org/english/jerusalem/legal_status.asp
Sounds like annexation to me,
The responsibility is not to jail the looters, but to kill them. This duty falls firstly to the occupying power, i.e the Israeli Defense Forces. However I see nothing to suggest the duty rests exclusively with the occupying power. It may extend to any responsible adult.
and they wouldn’t be the first invading power to use that phrase either. But seeing as we’re on the subject what exactly does annexation mean… Oh here we go. I don’t usually quote Wiki as it’s usually unreliable but in this case…
This is the second time you’ve said that looters are to be shot, and the other time you said “shot on sight”. Speaking of sight, can we have a cite for that?
Not that I’m agreeing they are looters, but I’d still like to see the cite.
Why do you hesitate to conclude that we are discussing looters? Seems obvious.
The duty arises from the occupier’s obligation to preserve property. I will recover the cites posted in an earlier thread.
So Looting
I think you agree this link is sufficient. Although not exhaustive, it is enough to give an opening to further research.
Edit: see for example this article which is linked from the page: Looting Law and Lawlessness
No, that is not sufficient. You said that an occupying power is required to shoot looters on sight. The wikipedia article only says that in many countries, looters “may” be shot by the police during times of crises. That’s Katrina, not the West Bank. And “may” is not “must”.
On the contrary, the West Bank is a stark example of where the looters are to be shot on sight. Looting is ongoing which is a sufficient test of a crisis. More to the point, the looters are entirely predatory and taking advantage of vulnerable people and property. There are no pressures of hunger or shelter acting on the looters, nor any other necessity, which might excuse looting.
Granted, the point is made that there are cases where it is not appropriate to shoot the looters on sight, but this is not one. Take the time to review the links and satisfy yourself with further research on the issue.
I note that you have not responded to my question regarding the looters.
Why don’t you quote the relevant section(s) of your cite that shows “looters are to be shot on sight.”
I’m not interested in debating whether or not the settlers are looters. We can assume, for the sake of argument, that they are. Lay out your argument, back it up with quotes from your cites. Don’t just tell us to go read something. That’s not how debates work.
This does read as “I am not going to answer your question. Now I would like to you partake further and detailed research to answer mine.”
The argument is laid out in a summary form in the previous post. I will take some time to show the supporting cites a little later.
No, I’m asking you to support your own assertion. I made no assertion about whether or not they were looters. That term is a legal term, and we’d have to get into a discussion about what Israeli law is. Since we’ve seen under what condition the Israelis consider certain settlements to be illegal, it’s quite clear they see most of them as legal.
Thanks.