I just have one thing to say… one day Israel sits around a table negotiating with Arafat… a few months later, ummm this is not working lets kill him 
boy oh boy, its great to be in power. the words zoo / jungle come to mind. looks i am not with nor against, i just dont like being thought of as an idiot by those making the decisions and believe people will buy in !! It is not as if there is no U.N resolution that says Isreal should return the land they took by force to Palistanians… oh but who cares, those guys dont look good, they are poor, they dont speak good english and dont get enough air time… lets just umm kill them and tell the world we are killing the terrorists… nice … really nice …
Zaida2000 - So you think that the Palestinian organizations such as “Tanzim”, “El-Aqtza brigades” and “Hamas” are not terrorist organizations?
Dan Abarbanel
FairDink,
Sorry I have not been back on line since my posting and your response of 24 Sept. Not through lack of interest I assure you, I have been moving house (and country, in fact!).
As far as I can see you have done EXACTLY what I asked you not to waste my time by doing. Namely to justify the actions of the terrorism of Israeli government and security services on an occupied people by the actions, behaviour, suitability or otherwise of Arafat.
Quite simply, the Israelis should leave all occupied territories and remove all settlements thereon immediately without let or hinderance. It is none of their business what the Palestinians do next. They can govern badly or govern well, it is no business of Israel to vet who may or may not be appropriate.
On my main point, that the Israeli oppression and occupation is the route cause of resistance all you seen to argue with is whether there are more trees now than before the Israeli occupation!!! Good grief!
Not who owns them and who gets the economic benefit from them but just that the Palestinians should be grateful somehow to be able to look over the ruins of their bulldozed olive groves towards a newly planted orange grove within an illegal Zionist settlement, and say “Well, hey, at least there are more tree overall”.
From that followed by another rant at Arafat you conclude,
(Quote)
“Come on, you are going to have to convince better than that if you want me to believe it is really Isreal doing all this ‘terror’ you can sense.”
(Unquote)
Again, please do not try to justify Israeli terror on the behaviour of any occupied people. I do not pretend that Israel has a monopoly on oppression, although I would differentiate between legitimate resistance to occupation and terrorism. I equate the occupied territories more with the position of East Timor under Indonesian oppresssion.
Now, try again if you wish. Concentrate on Israeli actions this time please not tit for tat arguements that the Palestinians somehow deserve continued illegal occupation because they have lousy leader(s).
How is the occupation illegal?
There was a war. In this war Israel captured some territory.
Typically, you give back the territory, or annex it, according to whatever the two parties agree on when the peace treaty is signed.
Israel’s case is the only one I know of where an occupation is deemed “illegal” after a mutual war between nations. In the case of all the other wars in recent history where a piece of another country’s territory was taken, it was considered something that had to be worked out between the two sides. The UN generally stays neutral on these disputes.
But in Israel’s case, they are expected to go back to their old borders unconditionally. That makes no sense.
notquitekarpov - regardless of our disagreement (obviously!) on the morality of Israel, can you honestly endorse or even condone Palestinian terrorism against Israeli civilians? Because that seems to be what you are saying (IMO).
Now if you are saying something like, “Look, the Israelis as as bad as / worse than the Palestinians” - OK, that’s an arguable point. We may even :gasp!: have to agree to disagree on it. But if you are saying, “The Palestinians are fully entitled to the tactics they are using” - I, for one, cannot accept this as even a starting point for any meaningful debate.
Dan Abarbanel
Israel has done neither.
Can you name any? How does this stack up against, for example, East Timor?
Israel has done neither.
Er, peace negotiations are a two-way street. Israel has already completed successful negotations with two enemies, so you can’t say they just don’t want to try.
Can you name any? How does this stack up against, for example, East Timor?
Aizerbaijan-Armenia comes to mind as the best example.
In cases like East Timor and Tibet, we have one nation totally absorbing another. A slightly different case. There is no basis for negotiation because the conquering side didn’t even recognize the right of the other nation to exist. In Israel’s case, they have acknowledged that first, Jordan and Egypt would get some land back that was conquered, and later, that the Palestinians should have their own state.
Israel’s occupation of Palestine is Illegal
Security Council Resolution 242, Nov. 22, 1967:
"Calls for the withdrawal of Israeli forces from territories occupied in the war that year and “the acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every state in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force.”
Israel’s settlements in Palestine are Illegal.
Security Council Resolution 446 of March 22, 1979:
“Determines that the policy and practices of Israel in establishing settlements in the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967 have no legal validity and constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East.”
More UN Resolutions on Israel, 1955-1992
Resolution 106: condemns Israel for Gaza raid.
Resolution 111: condemns Israel for raid on Syria that killed fifty-six people.
Resolution 127: recommends Israel suspend its no-man’s zone’ in Jerusalem.
Resolution 162: urges Israel to comply with UN decisions.
Resolution 171: determines flagrant violations by Israel in its attack on Syria.
Resolution 228: censures Israel for its attack on Samu in the West Bank, then under Jordanian control.
Resolution 237: urges Israel to allow return of new 1967 Palestinian refugees.
Resolution 248: condemns Israel for its massive attack on Karameh in Jordan.
Resolution 250: calls on Israel to refrain from holding military parade in Jerusalem.
Resolution 251: deeply deplores Israeli military parade in Jerusalem in defiance of Resolution 250.
Resolution 252: declares invalid Israel’s acts to unify Jerusalem as Jewish capital.
Resolution 256: condemns Israeli raids on Jordan as flagrant violation.
Resolution 259: deplores Israel’s refusal to accept UN mission to probe occupation.
Resolution 262: condemns Israel for attack on Beirut airport.
Resolution 265: condemns Israel for air attacks for Salt in Jordan.
Resolution 267: censures Israel for administrative acts to change the status of Jerusalem.
Resolution 270: condemns Israel for air attacks on villages in southern Lebanon.
Resolution 271: condemns Israel’s failure to obey UN resolutions on Jerusalem.
Resolution 279: demands withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanon.
Resolution 280: condemns Israeli’s attacks against Lebanon.
Resolution 285: demands immediate Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon.
Resolution 298: deplores Israel’s changing of the status of Jerusalem.
Resolution 313: demands that Israel stop attacks against Lebanon.
Resolution 316: condemns Israel for repeated attacks on Lebanon.
Resolution 317: deplores Israel’s refusal to release.
Resolution 332: condemns Israel’s repeated attacks against Lebanon.
Resolution 337: condemns Israel for violating Lebanon’s sovereignty.
Resolution 347: condemns Israeli attacks on Lebanon.
Resolution 425: calls on Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon.
Resolution 427: calls on Israel to complete its withdrawal from Lebanon.
Resolution 444: deplores Israel’s lack of cooperation with UN peacekeeping forces.
Resolution 446: determines that Israeli settlements are a serious obstruction to peace and calls on Israel to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention
Resolution 450: calls on Israel to stop attacking Lebanon.
Resolution 452: calls on Israel to cease building settlements in occupied territories.
Resolution 465: deplores Israel’s settlements and asks all member states not to assist its settlements program.
Resolution 467: strongly deplores Israel’s military intervention in Lebanon.
Resolution 468: calls on Israel to rescind illegal expulsions of two Palestinian mayors and a judge and to facilitate their return.
Resolution 469: strongly deplores Israel’s failure to observe the council’s order not to deport Palestinians.
Resolution 471: expresses deep concern at Israel’s failure to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention.
Resolution 476: reiterates that Israel’s claim to Jerusalem are null and void.
Resolution 478: censures (Israel) in the strongest terms for its claim to Jerusalem in its Basic Law.
Resolution 484: declares it imperative that Israel re-admit two deported Palestinian mayors.
Resolution 487: strongly condemns Israel for its attack on Iraq’s nuclear facility.
Resolution 497: decides that Israel’s annexation of Syria’s Golan Heights
is null and void and demands that Israel rescinds its decision forthwith.
Resolution 498: calls on Israel to withdraw from Lebanon.
Resolution 501: calls on Israel to stop attacks against Lebanon and withdraw its troops.
Resolution 509: demands that Israel withdraw its forces forthwith and unconditionally from Lebanon.
Resolution 515: demands that Israel lift its siege of Beirut and allow food supplies to be brought in.
Resolution 517: censures Israel for failing to obey UN resolutions and demands that Israel withdraw its forces from Lebanon.
Resolution 518: demands that Israel cooperate fully with UN forces in Lebanon.
Resolution 520: condemns Israel’s attack into West Beirut.
Resolution 573: condemns Israel vigorously for bombing Tunisia in attack on PLO headquarters.
Resolution 587: takes note of previous calls on Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon and urges all parties to withdraw.
Resolution 592: strongly deplores the killing of Palestinian students at Bir Zeit University by Israeli troops.
Resolution 605: strongly deplores Israel’s policies and practices denying the human rights of Palestinians.
Resolution 607: calls on Israel not to deport Palestinians and strongly requests it to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention.
Resolution 608: deeply regrets that Israel has defied the United Nations and deported Palestinian civilians.
Resolution 636: deeply regrets Israeli deportation of Palestinian civilians.
Resolution 641: deplores Israel’s continuing deportation of Palestinians.
Resolution 672: condemns Israel for violence against Palestinians at the Haram Al-Sharif/Temple Mount.
Resolution 673: deplores Israel’s refusal to cooperate with the United Nations.
Resolution 681: deplores Israel’s resumption of the deportation of Palestinians.
Resolution 694: deplores Israel’s deportation of Palestinians and calls on it to ensure their safe and immediate return.
Resolution 726: strongly condemns Israel’s deportation of Palestinians.
Resolution 799: strongly condemns Israel’s deportation of 413 Palestinians and calls for their immediate return.
I think it is safe to say that for decades, Israel has flagrantly disregarded International Law and given the finger to any condemnation of its criminal behaviour…
They’ve been “trying” for decades, and have systematically been building more and more illegal settlements in an effort to create “facts on the ground”, and in consistent and continuous violation of International Law.
Similarly, Israel has committed serious and numerous human rights abuses well before the beginning of the second intifada and the current wave of suicide bombings, so don’t try to tell me that the occupation isn’t illegal, and don’t try to tell me that it hasn’t been brutal.
Hmmm, Adaher, I disagree with you so profoundly that it is hard to know where to begin. I suspect I will not convince you without reference to hard facts and I am hampered by having moved her six weeks before my seafreight, including all my books. I don’t wish to provide ammunition to SD pedants through inadvertant error…
I do not want to totally hijack this thread to enter a history debate on the state’s foundation and various wars since. All I will say is that recognition by the world community is lacking, and Israel have denied the civil rights of the “conquered” peoples such that they cannot see themselves as anything other than occupied. Israel has no treaty rights, other than with states with no right to enter treaty (Jordan), to the occupied lands, and have not annexed the lands either.
You cannot compare it to a war between nations when here the zionist state declared UDI from a pre-existing state, and later occupied the rump of the state they declared independence from.
The UN are NOT neutral on this dispute as you must be very much aware. They regard it very much in the same light as East Timor and Northern Cyprus - which gives you two more examples to add to this one of territories which are or have until recently been in this state of limbo.
The former is, as previous proposed, an good comparison bar the fact that the Indonesians did declare annexation (internationally unrecognised naturally). Pro-Indonesian SD’ers, if there are any on line, could argue rights to the lands prior to formation of their state or the Portuaguese colonial occupation if they fancied. What the world (eventually) decided to be concerned about the treatment of the people concerned and their need for a state.
If Isreal is entitled to any borders then it can only be the 1948 partition, everything after that is questionable IMHO, but I would not describe the deputed lands occupied before the 1967 war in quite the same light. One needs to find room for a settlement somewhere.
Putting history to one side, surely we should concern ourselves with the plight of an oppressed and occuped people first, rather than start from the viewpoint of those who suffer the effects of legitimate resistance to their occupation (the Israeli military and illegal settlers I mean - not the civilian population of Israel “proper”). Again we can equate with East Timor.
It’s illegal because the UN says it is?
Wow, imagine if we worked that way. Whenever someone broke a law, Congress would have to vote on it. If the guy who broke a law happens to be a friend of a Congressman,he walks. If he’s innocent, yet not liked by Congress, he’s guilty no matter what.
I don’t consider the UN to be an authority on legal and illegal, and since they never actually enforce their rulings, it’s irrelevant anyway.
The only authority I know of is the actual law. Now, I know of no law saying that occupations are illegal. If I’m wrong, please correct me. But I do know that the Geneva Conventions cover occupations and what the authorities can and can’t do.
Since you compare the situation in Palestine with conventional wars, let’s do it correctly: in conventional wars, the territories become an integral part of the occupying-annexing country.
E.g. South Tyrol, which was annexed from Austria in 1918, is now part of Italy. The people there still speak German but they are italians and have the same rights as italians.
Elsass-Lothringen is now part of France, called Alsace and Lorraine, and people there are French. They still speak they traditional mixture of German and French, but the point is, they are French, feel French, and have the same rights as people from Paris.
Now to Palestine. Palestineans don’t even have a passport, neither Israelean nor palestinean (since palestine does not exist). And they have hardly the same rights. So there are IMO two options for Israel (whether both of them are morally justified is worth another discussion):
- Annexe the territory, give the palestineans passports and equal rights.
or - Get the fuck out of there.
Adaher, what the hell has the US Congress got to do with the UN?
So you don’t recognise the UN as an authority on anything worthwhile. Presumably then the only international authority you consistently recognise is the rule of force and that might is right. Well, at least your views are consistent with current US foreign policy :rolleyes:.
Given that then reference to The Law is irrelevant, whose law? That of the occupying power? Whenever “international law” is mentioned the SD pedants deny the concept exists so lets talk instead about international legitimacy instead.
Hey though if you want to debate how Israel’s actions stand up to the Geneva Conventions I am sure you will have some takers. Pretty much breached everyone I would say, although no doubt I’ll be asked for a cite for that :rolleyes:.
** adaher** - You feel that the UN is irrelevant in matters of International Law? Seems like Israel agrees with you, but if you state that you’d be prepared to accept the Geneva convention, then fine…
The Fourth Geneva Convention, which was signed in 1949, bans any measures that aim at changing the demographic or geographic nature of the areas falling under occupation by the occupying power. It also bans the mistreatment, torture and collective punishment measures against people under occupation.
In part intended to protect civilians living under occupation, it has been systematically violated by Israel since its 1967 occupation of the West Bank, Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip. If you like, I can provide you with a whole bunch of cites and links which document these persistent and on-going violations…
** adaher** - On reflection, it sounds you believe the UN is somehow being unfair and biased in passing these resolutions against Israel. Or have I misunderstood you?
Anyone else notice how when the kitchen gets too hot on a thread the apologists for Israel go to ground.
Not picking on any individual but I was enjoying this one and would welcome Adaher, or indeed anyone, coming back on the challenges presented.
Yes, this is an undisguised bump.
You haven’t answered me, either… Should I take it that you refuse to?
Dan Abarbanel
**Since you compare the situation in Palestine with conventional wars, let’s do it correctly: in conventional wars, the territories become an integral part of the occupying-annexing country.
E.g. South Tyrol, which was annexed from Austria in 1918, is now part of Italy. The people there still speak German but they are italians and have the same rights as italians.
**
Good point, and this goes to the large issue of how the international community has helped the conflict fester by trying to prevent solutions. Israel has in fact annexed the Golan Heights and East Jerusalem. Israel doesn’t want to annex the West Bank or Gaza Strip. But they can’t let it go either because Palestinians keep on coming into Israel to kill people. They did it before Israel occupied those lands, they will almost certainly do it afterwards.
**Adaher, what the hell has the US Congress got to do with the UN?
**
Just demonstrating the absurdity of UN resolutions. In the US, we have rule of law. If someone commits a crime, he is not tried by the legislature, but by the judiciary. In the UN, guilt and innocence is decided by essentially a popularity vote.
**So you don’t recognise the UN as an authority on anything worthwhile. Presumably then the only international authority you consistently recognise is the rule of force and that might is right. Well, at least your views are consistent with current US foreign policy .
**
It’s also how every other nation views it. Name one nation that has gone to the UN to ask permission to wage war. There is only one: the United States.
**The Fourth Geneva Convention, which was signed in 1949, bans any measures that aim at changing the demographic or geographic nature of the areas falling under occupation by the occupying power. **
Israel isn’t doing that. So far, they haven’t even restored the Jewish population of the West Bank prior to 1948, much less reduced the Palestinian population. Jews after 1967 were simply moving back to their homes that they were booted out of in 1948.
It also bans the mistreatment, torture and collective punishment measures against people under occupation.
Not exactly easy to apply when the Palestinians are violating the Geneva Convention themselves in their attacks on civilians. The writers assume a passive population.
**adaher - On reflection, it sounds you believe the UN is somehow being unfair and biased in passing these resolutions against Israel. Or have I misunderstood you?
**
Well, first off, almost all resolutions are directed at all sides in the conflict, but somehow some of you like to twist them to mean they only apply to Israel. So it’s not the UN that’s being unfair so much as some of the Dopers.
But then again, how many times has Syria been condemned for human rights violations or the occupation of Lebanon?
Interesting side note: No country has ever applied the Geneva Conventions to an occupation. Ever. In Israels’ case, they don’t consider the territories occupied. They are disputed, not occupied.
In order for a territory to be occupied, it has to belong to another nation. Jordan and Egypt have renounced their claims to those territories.
That is very comfortable for Israel: “homeland security” allows them to treat another people as they want, removing their liberty and treating them as things.
Furthermore I don’t even get the argument: how does the fact that Israel ends the occupation change anything? The frontier patrols and control will stay in place anyway.
You did hear of settlements in the occupied territories, did you? Search a map, they are all over the place.
Appearantly I am not alone with my opinion (cites are from a NY TImes editorial):
So, adaher, how is this not “changing the demographic or geographic nature of the areas falling under occupation by the occupying power.”?