I have to admit, it might solve things if the Palestinians were to engage in full-scale firefights with the “looters”, in the sense that the all-out war that would follow would drove all or nearly-all of the West Bank Palestinian population into refugee camps in Jordan.
If Sevastapol thinks another outcome is more likely, I look forward to being enlightened.
Silly. As the occupying force, it is firstly the role of the IDF to shoot the looters. Any shooting obligation of the police and the true owners of is subordinate to that. The incapacity to appreciate this is understandable and makes the duty all the more urgent.
You do not imagine the IDF doing its duty and shooting the looters, because they are Jews. Ie: The IDF cannot observe their duty in a principled and disciplined manner because, they are only Jews. And similarly you cannot imagine the looters held to any standard of responsibility, because they too have the same affliction.
What you’ve done is allowed Judaism to be defined by its worst. In that, you have permitted the growing putrefaction of Judaism that originates in affection for Israel. It has to be stopped. Now I apologise for my harsh words in calling you ‘silly’. There is a lot of pressure, with a long history persuading you to those views.
“…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.”
Law
NB relevantly; taking real property during an occupation.
To elaborate: A previous link gives an historical view of the looting issue:
I understand you accept that looters may be shot on sight in some cases. It seems clear that the West Bank looters are in the extreme and heinous end of the continuum described. Hence those West Bank looters are not excused by necessity and call the appropriately harsh response upon themselves.
You had some concern with the concept of a ‘crisis’ and whether it was found in the West Bank. To elaborate, that brief phrase summarized what the article has described as:
The concept here is that a crisis includes where "normal security of property is not present’. Such as the current West Bank where the ongoing appropriation of property by looters is found.
That is sufficient to meet your questions. You may seek further elaboration?
Edit: Proper to add the link to quoted paper : http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=917440
The nationalization laws for one.
I didn’t say Israel was unique in having institutional discrimination (why is the Israeli defense so frequently “well, we’re not as bad as some people so don’t criticize us”), I said they had it and that institutional racism is carete second class citizenship among arab israelis.
I didn’t say that Israeli institutions that practice institutionalized racism can’t be criticized. Far from it. In fact, Israel itself has a healthy dose of self-criticism concerning racism - a hardly surprising problem, when its population is so diverse. An example is the difficulties encountered by the Etheopian Jews, from racists in the school system.
What I do say, is that these troubles do not amount to a ‘second class citizen’ status.
Your problem is that, applying the same criteria to other nations and you get “second class citizen” status popping up everywhere, like mushrooms.
To my mind, something more is necessary to create “second class citizen” status than accusations of individual and institutional racism - and that “something more” is a system of laws designed to impose such status on the disfavoured group, like the “Jim Crow” laws of the US South, supported by a compliant judiciary.
So far, you have been unable to point to such a system of laws; in point of fact, Israeli courts are reasonable in striking down attempts at racism. The natural conclusion is that the “second class citizen” status moniker, while believed by some subjectively, has little objective and verifiable meaning.
But that’s not what’s happening. The settlements, in the main, aren’t built on Palestinian owned land, but on state owned land. Settlers aren’t coming in and seizing Palestinian land and property. They’re building settlements on vacant land.
We already discussed nationalization law earlier, and as was pointed out, a lot of states have right of return. It’s not generally considered particularly heinous.
The land isn’t being seized by settlers now but it was previously taken form those who lived and farmed it. It was made vacant by war…
Here is an example
This land (in this area) does not belong to Israel… it never belonged to Israel (unless you count what it says in the Bible in which case when * comes along and clears it up I’ll stop arguing) it belonged to Arab families who were evicted.
…decades ago. And, in many cases, the previous inhabitants didn’t ‘own’ the land in any case (where there WERE previous inhabitants, which isn’t always or even often the case from what I can tell).
No? Even though they have occupied it for decades, and even though in most cases I know of there isn’t any clear proof or documentation of ownership, it still doesn’t belong to them? Who does it belong too? Take the example you cited…who ‘owns’ that area? By what means or instruments do they ‘own’ it?
This has nothing to do with the Bible, and everything to do with reality. Unless you can demonstrate that Israel is evicting ‘Arabs’ from those regions despite them having instruments or proofs of ownership of the land then you are doing the same sort of appeal to emotion that those who invoke the right of Israel to that land due to Biblical passages.
Feel free to do so…the cite you gave does not, however, give any such details, and in fact pretty much demonstrates that Israel has occupied that particular patch of land since at least the '80’s, which gives them a lot of weight on the question of who ‘owns’ said land…
-XT
And by such means is ethnic cleansing rationalized.
I’ll take that as an ‘I gots nuffin, but will appeal to emotion to hopefully win the day’. Let me know how that works out for you…
-XT
To my mind, the relevant issue is not the legal ownership of land by individual Palestinians on which the settlements were built, but rather the national jurisdiction over territory by a nacient Palestinian state. That would indeed be impeded by enclaves of Israeli settlers, even assuming as a fact that the land was not owned by individual Palestinians.
For this reason, settlers in the WB are an impediment to a peace deal. The more are built, the harder a deal is to achieve.
Which is why it is helpful to have a clear understanding that looting real property is illegitimate, without qualification.
For the last time, it’s not looting according to any definition of looting other than your idiosyncratic definition.
What does :
mean to you?
Let me know when you can explain how Israel’s policy of supporting the settlements in Palestine differs from ethnic cleansing.
You would first have to demonstrate that there has been a “mass expulsion and killing” following the efforts of Israel (or Israeli’s) to settle these areas. Thus far you have attempted to simply appeal to emotion, and play silly word games.
Agree completely.
-XT
The UN definition: “The planned deliberate removal from a specific territory, persons of a particular ethnic group, by force or intimidation, in order to render that area ethnically homogenous.” Your turn. How is what Israel doing not described by that?
It’s not “appealing to emotion” either , but to conscience. Maybe you’d better look at the OP again. Or the thread title. Or even its first word.
The actual provision in the Hague Convention, regarding to the conduct of war (not occupation), is:
The provision in the Geneva Convention regarding conduct in occupation is:
but what it means to me is that, assuming real or personal property is being destroyed by Israel in violation of the convention (and I’m not sure that it is…the settlements are not being built on privately owned land), then the party in violation of the convention is Israel, not the settlers. The Geneva Convention only deals with the responsibility of state actors. You can’t use it to define the settlers as “looters”.