Which is exactly why I wrote “When other countries show an utter disregard for innocent lives it is referred to as terrorism. The King David Hotel bombing is no different in the regard.”
A phrase that neither FinnAgain nor Captain Amazing, our local “Israel can do no wrong” cheerleaders, decided to comment upon.
People were killed both outside the hotel and in adjacent buildings.
In a country that had had the fuck bombed out of it, do you spend ages building new areas to house people or do you use what is there at the time?
On behalf of all British people, I apologise for not managing to build a small town’s worth of two up-two downs for the Jewish refugees in a matter of weeks (if not days) in the middle of a war zone. I admit, that is a complete and utter disgrace.
You do realize that you just sidestepped the argument, do you not? That you’re deliberately ignoring all the salient points? That you are, in fact, twisting actual history in order to prop up this absurd strawman defense?
The facts are:
-The British didn’t just ‘use’ Bergen Belsen to ‘house’ Jews, they imprisoned them there behind barbed wire.
-The British didn’t have some sort of lack of remedy, they were actively prohibiting Jews from escaping to the proto-Israeli state because they were allied with the Arabs, arming the Arabs, and would eventually stand by as the Arabs launched a war of annihilation (those who didn’t resign their commissions and lead that war). Your argument is for the most obvious and shameful sort of rationalized brutality. Rather than simply allowing the Jews to leave and find homes with those who would welcome them in the Mandate, they imprisoned them in former concentration camps. And you’re defending this because, gosh darn, there was just so little usable terrain in bombed-out Germany.
-Your absurd whitewashing of British brutality doesn’t cut it. Case in point, for example, the British treatment of the refugee ship Exodus. Most of its passengers were Holocaust survivors who aimed to immigrate to the Jewish territory in the Mandate. While it was still in international waters, the British used force to capture it and subdue the refugees. Several members of the passengers/crew were murdered by the British by being bludgeoned to death in the course of them seizing the ship. The refugees were later imprisoned in a camp back in Germany.
And you act as if the only issue was that the British simply couldn’t find suitable lodgings for the Jews they captured and imprisoned. :rolleyes:
First, I find it elucidative that although I’ve just repeated, again, some criticisms of Israel just a few posts above, you feel the need to claim that I say Israel can do no wrong. I resent that you feel that you are entitled to voice fictions about my beliefs or my statements, fictions that have been debunked just a few posts up.
As for this non sequitor about the blast radius, the fact that the British didn’t heed the warnings or clear the area around the hotel does not show that there was somehow some form of extreme disregard for life. Nor, it should be noted, is attacking a valid military targeted and causing collateral damage “terrorism.” The 4th Geneva Convention is very, very explicit on that point and silly claims to the contrary should be avoided, not repeated over and over.
Yes. The PA could continue to negotiate on all the other issues that are at the table rather than refusing to negotiate on anything until they get what they want on one point. Most people posting in this thread, for instance, were not claiming that we were busily negotiating with Iran when we were saying that Iran must do X, Y and Z before we’d sit down at the negotiating table with them. Do you find that odd? Most of them, in fact, were busy berating the US for not negotiating and for holding out preconditions for negotiation. But now that it’s the PA that’s holding out for preconditions, Israel must give in or it’s at fault for stopping the PA from choosing to negotiate.
You’re making no sense. There has not been an agreed upon negotiated point that Israel will give up East Jerusalem. Thus there is no non-compliance. Thus you have no point in this regard. It prevents nothing. The actuality is that the PA wants EJ. Israel has taken actions that make it either more difficult to negotiate for it, or possibly impossible to do so if Israel refuses to budge. That does not mean that the PA cannot still negotiate for a state of its own with viable economic, agricultural, etc… prospects. EJ is not a dealbreaker in any sense other than that the PA is choosing to make it one.
But it’s an issue of choice, not logical necessity and not even non-compliance.
Not in this case no, they do not. What would prevent the PA from saying “Ah well, we’ll put our capital in Ramallah” or what have you? That’s the very point at issue here. Many people are privileging the PA’s negotiating position as some sort of divine absolute. The PA wants EJ? Why then, by gum, if the Israelis don’t show that they’re totally willing to give up however much of it the PA wants, Israel has totally torpedoed peace talks, even if it’s the PA that refuses to resume peace talks.
It’s jabberwockian.
In other words being willing to negotiate for peace just shows how very unwilling they are to negotiate for peace.
So you got a cite for those vile mind-control-rays that housing blueprints put out? Otherwise your argument is the same debunked nonsense where you privilege the PA’s deliberate, willful refusal to negotiate and claim that the Israelis somehow made them do it. The people who have “torpedoed” negotiations are those who are currently refusing to negotiate. That’s not the Israelis.
And you totally dodged the question of what would be an actual commitment to negotiating for peace. I don’t think you can provide any such metric. Please prove me wrong, what actual actions does a side have to take to negotiate for peace and prove to you that they’re negotiating for peace.
I notice no one wants to answer my questions as to the legality if these settlements, as to whether it makes any sense to keep “settling” when you know it is counterproductive, and as to what happens to any displaced people.
So I have to conclude
[ul]
[li]This is not, and never was, an honest discussion[/li][li]It’s not OK, unless Israelis do it. Then it’s OK[/li][li]It’s not going to change even if it’s wrong, because it’s popular among the voters[/li][/ul]
I’m not going to waste any more time here. I think I got my answer - “we will do whatever we want and to hell with anyone else, we don’t care if it’s wrong or illegal”.
Have a nice war. That’s what you’re pushing for anyway.
Oh, and since I’m still a bit shocked at Amanset’s support for Britain’s barbarous and brutal policies regarding Holocaust survivors and Jewish refugees, I’d like to point out where the refugees on the Exodus ended up once they were captured and imprisoned by the British. That’s Benevolent Barbed Wire and a Compassionate Camp Guard, for those who are curious.
There have been several answers, actually. The first is that some are illegal under Israeli law. The second is that, as you yourself have cited, much of the land at issue was not Palestinian in the first place. The third is that, yes, some of it is (wrongly) built upon privately owned Palestinian land. The fourth is that Israel as a nation has no particular attachment to the settlements, but the nature of its coalition government means that those MK’s who do want settlements and who wield their votes in a block often get their way as they’re vital for building many coalitions.
There are even more answers, such as the fact that Israel attempted to the territories back in exchange for peace in '67 and was met with The Three Noes. That Jordan relinquished its claims to the West Bank some time ago (after invading and preventing the formation of a Palestinian state in 1948). That due to Ottoman-British-Jordanian land codes, much of the land was state-owned and had no sovereign owner after 1967. That the armistice deal with Jordan specified that it was not to prejudice the future disposition of land in the territories. Also that UNSC 242 calls for Israel to withdraw from territories but deliberately avoided the words “all” and “the”, making clear that the final map was to be determined via negotiation. It also makes clear that a peace will be based on mutual recognition and a negotiated compromise rather than an unilateral withdrawal of Israeli forces. And, further, the 4th Geneva Convention specifically allows an occupying power to move/intern even protected persons if it has security and/or military reasons for doing so.
Meaning that the whole issue is a metric fuckton more complicated than “are they legal or not?”
This is silly. If Israel wanted a war bombings would have started yesterday.
And like we’ve already pointed out that’s almost always the case with peace negotiations in situations like this. It was in Northern Ireland, it was in South Africa. You’re not going to get a total cessation of violence and history shows that it’s incumbent on the occupier/aggressor to make a good-faith comittment to peace negotiations while ignoring the ongoing violence. The fact that Israel have for years said that there’ll be no negotiations without a cessation of violence that’s determined by conditions they set leads observers to think that they’re not serious about making peace.
And I’m sure in your own mind you’ve debunked lots of people in this thread but I don’t think the rest of us are so sure about that. 
And you still haven’t answered my question. Here it is again :
If it was OK for the Israelis to use terrorism and ongoing killing as part of theirattempts to gain their own state, if the international community dealt with them and recognised them despite the ongoing terrorism, why isn’t it OK for them to do the same thing now with the Palestinians?
Well, the only problem is that you’re using the word “fact” when, really, you’re claiming something that is gainsaid by reality.
That is, the real fact is that your claim above isn’t true at all, and is just another piece of non-fact that your narrative is built upon. For instance, the Wye River Memorandum of 1998 was designed to implement the Interim Agreement of 1995. Between that time there were several Palestinian attacks that targeted Israeli civilians for murder via bombing. There’s also the Camp David Summit of 2000 followed by the Taba Summit of 2001, between which there were not only numerous acts of Palestinian terrorism but *the Second Intifada was launched.
*
If your argument can’t even cleave to the most basic of facts, how do you expect to build conclusions upon your claims?
Not only did I answer, I proved that you were factually incorrect, yet again. I guess I can elaborate for the benefit of those reading along.
The official Israeli defense forces did not use terrorism, those that did had no ability/drive to found a state as the entire apparatus of Jewish government was behind the Haganah, not Irgun. Nor was it an ongoing campaign since once the British left, they were (in the main) no longer targeted. The entire reason that the Haganah was founded in the first place was due to Arab terrorism against Jews and a virtual absence of protection from the British. The reason that Irgun split from the Haganah was because the Nazi-aligned Grand Mufti helped continue orchestrating violence aimed at Jews and some Jews were not content to simply defend themselves, especially after events like the genocidal cleansing of Hebron of its Jewish population.
You have, in fact, refrained from even mentioning these facts and gone as far as to try to equivocate the Mufti’s alliance with the Nazis for the purpose of exterminating the Jews from the face of the Earth with a most likely forged letter that purported to come from an organization with fewer than 100 members and which, in any case, offered to keep attacking the British as they’d been doing anyways if the Germans would spare the lives of some of the Jews they planned on butchering.
The reason that the Irgun turned their attention to attacking the British was that the British were arming and supporting the Arabs and using racist immigration policies to keep Jews out while allowing Arabs to immigrate. And that, even after the war was over, the British stopped Jews from entering and instead imprisoned them behind barbed wire in detention camps.
And despite your non-factual claims on yet another point, the international community did not reward Irgun. They determined that there were two populations who wanted self determination and acted to grant that to both populations. The proto-Israelis agreed, the Arab states refused and launched a war of annihilation.
And on yet another error of yours, I’ve already clarified (I think, perhaps, seven or eight times now) my remarks about ongoing violence and the existential reality behind a declared peace treaty in its face.
So not only is there any question of yours that’s gone unanswered, the very premise is based on a substantial and glaring distortion that’s been cleared up time and time and time again.
Let’s go back to when there was no “Israeli” and no “official”. Let’s go back to when the majority was Palestinian and theminority featured groups which, however you want to apologise for or explain away, carried out acts of terrorism. Now the UN are meeting in New York to decide whether to give Israel a state. The various factions in Israel are using terrorism as a tactic to attain their own state. Should the UN have said, no, no concessions to or negotiations with anybody who uses terrorism as a tactic? Should they have waited for a complete cessation of Jewish violence before they made any decision over whether to allow a Jewish state?
Steve,
First of all, I want to apologize to you for your questions not being answered. I didn’t see them, and the thread moved pretty quickly. So I’ll try to answer your questions the best I can.
Settlements usually aren’t built on land where Palestinians live, although they’re sometimes built near Palestinian towns and villages. So there’s not much actual displacement, although there often is tension between the settlers and the Palestinians living nearby, because there are sometimes encroachments from one group on another, which causes violence, from stone throwing to shootings. The army then usually tries to police the situation, usually without too much success, because both sides tend to turn on the army. The settlers, as a rule, don’t care about Palestinian rights, though.
To answer this question, we need to look back at history. In 1949, when Israel was founded, it was attacked by its neighbors. it successfully defended itself, and a ceasefire was signed. The borders of the state of Israel are the land that the Israelis controlled at the time of the ceasefire. This border is called the Green Line. At that time, parts of what was the British colony of Palestine wasn’t in Israeli hands. An area called the Gaza Strip was held by Egyptian armies, and Jordanian armies controlled the West Bank of the Jordan River, along with the eastern half of the city of Jerusalem. After the peace treaty was signed, Egypt annexed the Gaza Strip, and Jordan annexed the West Bank and East Jerusalem.
This situation continued until the Six Day War of 1967. In June of 1967, war broke out between Israel and its neighbors, when Israel attacked Egyptian forces that had been built up on the Israeli border in preparation to attack Israel. Israel was extremely successful in the war and occupied the Gaza Strip and the Sinai Peninsula from Egypt, and East Jerusalem and the West Bank from Jordan. (Israel would go on to give back the Sinai to Egypt in 1979) Israel’s held onto the Gaza Strip and the West Bank since, and both Egypt and Jordan have renounced any rights to the territory.
So right now, the West Bank and Gaza Strip are territories occupied by Israel, and under Israeli military law. They’re not parts of Israel, the way that New York/New Jersey are parts of the US, and at the same time, they’re also not a sovereign nation. Much of the problem comes from the fact that the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza want to be an independent nation. East Jerusalem, on the other hand, was annexed by Israel, is considered part of Israel, but most of the Palestinians in East Jerusalem aren’t allowed to vote in Israeli elections, because citizenship in East Jerusalem is way too complicated for me to want to go into here right now.
This is a little complicated by the fact that, in 1994, the Oslo Accords, which were an agreement between the Israelis and Palestinians set up what’s known as the “Palestinian National Authority”. The Palestinian National Authority is elected by the Palestinians and has administrative and civil authority over most of the West Bank and Gaza (although not all.)
So, why build/expand settlements? Well, first of all, there’s a segment of the Israeli extreme right, many of whom are devout Orthodox Jews and make up large parts of the settler movement that think that Israel should just annex the entire West Bank and kick out the Palestinians. There’s sort of a religious component to this. If you read the bible, most of the events took place in what’s now the West Bank, not in what’s now Israel, so these people think that this land is properly Jewish land, or, less politically and more personally, they want to live in places that are holy to them, and a lot of those tend to be in the West Bank. (Israel also had settlements in Gaza, but they forcibly evacuated the settlers and the Israeli military, and turned control entirely over to the PNA).
That’s the idealistic extremist reason. There’s also a more practical reason the government likes the idea of some of the settlements. Remember how I said that the Green Line was just a provisional boundary as a result of a cease fire? Because of this, it’s not the most defensible border in the world. In fact, at its narrowest point, Israel is only three miles wide. Pretty much everybody, except for some of the crazy people I mentioned in the last paragraph, and some equally crazy people on the Palestinian side who want to kill all the Israelis and take over the whole thing, recognize that there will be, in the end, a separate Palestinian state in the West Bank next to Israel. But what its borders will be are negotiable. Some Israelis figure that by having Israeli settlements on the West Bank side of the Green Line, the border will be drawn so that those settlements will become part of Israel. To some extent, this is probably true. The Jewish city of Ariel in the West Bank, for instance, has a population of about 17,000 people. It’s really unlikely that when a Palestinian state is set up, Ariel will be part of it. There’s no practical way for Israel to evacuate 17,000 people.
Anyway, I hope this helps answer your questions, and sorry again for not getting to them in the thread.
No retraction on your massive factual errors about what Israel demands wrt violence, you’re just going to keep soldering on, eh?
In other words, you want yet another non-fact to slip in as if it was a fact? No, sorry, still going to stick with the facts. The official governing body of the proto-Israelis was established in 1921, before the Arab Riots of the 1920’s and British inaction necessitated the formation of the official defense force, the Haganah. And before continued Arab terrorism caused an ideological split that saw Irgun leave the Haganah, especially since the British had deemed the Haganah to be illegal. Even then, the Irgun were a minority, Lehi a tiny splinter with less than 100 members and terrorism was neither the official policy nor sanctioned by the official governing body of the proto-Israelis.
Your desire to talk about the UN meeting shows that either you are unaware of history or choosing to disregard its facts and chronology in order to set up your hypothetical. You are also committing the same factual error that I just pointed out, namely that the decision was not to “give Israel a state” but to partition the land so that two ethnic groups could achieve self determination. And the land was specifically partitioned along ethnic-majority lines.
And yet again you’re repeating the same mistake that I just cleared for you int he post right above, that nobody’s said that there can’t be negotiations in the face of sporadic violence aimed at ending violence and securing peace. Kick that strawman’s ass, show it who’s boss!
‘settlers’ is the wording prescribed by Israeli govt and must be rejected. Looters have forfeited their lives.
“They cannot be held responsible like civilised people as, they are only Jews.” Well, it’s an argument I suppose, but it is surprising to see it so widely, quietly accepted.
Leaving aside the fact that nobody has actually ever said any such thing, anywhere, ever… there is indeed a group that claims that due to organized force of arms stealing territory, it not only is theirs but theirs until the end of time.
[
So there you have it folks, Sevastopol’s own logic now demands that he call for the death of each and every single Muslim in the region. Kind of a scary position, all in all, but then again since there is no actual right to kill people for the crime of theft (and most land in the West Bank wasn’t privately owned in the first place anyways), we can rest comfortable in the knowledge that Sevastopol’s argument means he must support the genocide of every Muslim in the region but that there’s no legal basis for doing so.
Dodged a bullet there, boy howdy.
That answers one of my questions - so there is little actual displacement (some, but not wholesale “invasion”).
I remember that from the news. Israel kicked ass and took names, and at least on this side of the ocean, it looked like a case of justified self defense.
OK, so they do have an amount of self governance then, as far as having a police force and the responsibility/government of that area.
At the risk of sounding glib, this extreme right sounds suspiciously like our own “God given right to subjugate or wipe out the natives and fullfill our Manifest Destiny”. Why can’t they just learn to co-exist? Why kick anyone out? Does it have to be all or nothing? Maybe it’s my background growing up here, but I don’t know.
OK, so this could be considered a military consideration, in that this narrow part of the “property line” is extremely vulnerable. I can understand that. If the borders will be drawn along the lines of the settlements, it seems that not creating them “deeper into enemy territory” would be a sign of good faith.
No evacuating a city that size (Ariel), that would be a logistical nightmare. They will have to decide for themselves which government they want to live under - the new Palestinian one if that happens, or the Israeli one. And, if they continue to fight, whichever government is in charge, should arrest whoever it is and press charges.
Thank you for taking the time to answer. I was starting to get “annoyed”.
Maybe it’s time for both the Israeli police and the Palestinian police to start arresting the “crazies”.
You just keep on believing with your factual errors.
Can you answer the question please. I’m interested in whether the UN partition decision in 1947, which most people would say allowed the creation of Israel, shouldn’t have happened due to ongoing Jewish terrorism. Should the UN have said that there can be no concessions to terrorism and demanded a complete cessation of Jewish violence before making any decision? That’s the specific question I’d like you to answer.
So you are admitting that Israel’s actions are making it more difficult, even impossible to be able to negotiate over the posession of East Jerusalem. Despite the PA wanting it to be an area of negotiation, Israel is basically saying “no, you can’t have this, but what about this lovely piece of desert?” It seems to me that you have concluded that Israel has the right to claim EJ as its own without negotiation. So are you saying “Israel annex EJ, it’s part of Israel, end of story”?
The fact that the PA wants EJ makes it a point of negotiation. You are saying that since Israel doesn’t want to negotiate over it, the PA should just drop it and go on with the other negotiations. Why does this not cut the other way - that is, why can’t Israel decide that it wants to negotiate over EJ?
Suppose you go in to negotiate with your neighbour over where the fenceline should be between your two properties. However, he has been defecating on an area of the lawn that you think is yours, but he says is his. You ask him to stop shitting in the yard, but he says no, it’s his piece of lawn and that’s not up for negotiation anyway. Do you go ahead and negotiate the rest of the fenceline with him anyway, conceding the fact that he has already claimed the shit-on piece of yard? If you tell him that you won’t talk with him until he at least stops shitting on the lawn, are you in the wrong?
So not building settlements equates to handing over EJ to the PA? Why can’t they negotiate a deal with the PA over who it should belong to? It sounds more like you are the one who give divine privilege to the Israelis.
Also, even if it was the PA’s choice to withdraw from negotiations or not, don’t you think Israel knew that building more settlements in EJ would jeopardize negotiations? If so, aren’t they at least partially responsible for the fact that negotiations aren’t occurring?
A: “If you take that red M&M, I’ll smack you. You know how much I like red M&Ms.”
B: “That’s stupid. There are like 20 M&M’s there. They’re all the same anyway” Eats only red M&M
A smacks B
Sure, A may be in the wrong. Does that mean that B did not do something that caused himself to get smacked?
It’s also worth pointing out that the international community considers East Jerusalem to be Palestinian territory that’s under illegal occupation. Any realistic peace plan has it becoming Palestinian again.
“Realistic” is probably the wrong word to use to describe any Arab-Israeli peace plan.
“Admitting”? From one of my first posts here I pointed out that it could be a way to strengthen Israel’s negotiating position so they could back away from it and gain more in that maneuver. I’ve also taken great pains to point out, again and again, that the PA has no claim on EJ and there’s no real reason to privilege their claims that they’re entitled to it.
Of course any nation has the right to not negotiate on any point up for discussion, especially if that point is whether or not it will divide its capital city. Are you honestly claiming otherwise, Israel doesn’t even have the right to do anything but negotiate away a part of EJ?
No, it doesn’t. Any more than “And Israel requests that all Palestinians wear pink and walk on their hands” must become a point of negotiation. That’s the whole concept of negotiation. Sides ask for things, and they’re either met with counter offers or not, on a range of issues. If I’m buying a house from you and I want to you to lower the price because I think I’ll need to put in a new roof soon, you’re perfectly able to say “no, I won’t discuss that.” It’s not automatically a point of negotiation just because I’d like it to be.
That’s one tactic, to be sure. Or they could continue to try to negotiate on that issue while they continue to negotiate on others as well. Or they can shoot themselves in the foot and declare that they won’t negotiate for anything, at all, unless EJ is on the table.
Obviously you think that the PA is somehow served by postponing getting a sovereign state if a piece of land which they do not need is not granted to them. I believe that to be a very odd position, especially since there’s nothing stopping them from resuming negotiations and still asking for EJ.
No, nobody ever said that. The current demand from the PA is that they want EJ, and Israel building housing in it violates their demands. That’s what we’ve been discussing, that the PA wants to stop Israel from building on Israel’s own territory because the PA wants to negotiate for a slice of it.
You keep using language improperly. Yet again, negotiations were not jeopardized by the housing plans. Negotiations could have continued. You are privileging PA demands and stating that if their demands are not met entirely as a prerequisite for negotiation, then Israel is, in some way or another, to blame for the PA choosing not to negotiate. It’s an incoherent position.
Could the PA have kept on negotiating and even kept negotiating for EJ?
Yes.
Could the PA have kept on negotiating, and tabled EJ for the present on negotiated on other matters?
Yes.
Could the PA still negotiate for a sovereign, viable state of their own that doens’t include EJ?
Yes.
Was it their volitional choice to suspend negotiations, in toto, if their demands about Israeli construction in EJ were not unilaterally conceded to?
Yes.
Is that Israel’s fault?
No.
Finn, I’m going to ask you again: is there anything that Israel does that you find morally repugnant, or is is there even anything that they do that you find questionable in a “human rights” sense?
I’d appreciate a response that doesn’t direct me to PM you. It’s TOTALLY relevant to this thread, especially as derailed as its become.
I think the Dope at large would be very interested in your response. I know I am, and I mean you no harm or foul. There’s got to be something. Israel is a nation, and not perfect. Which acts has it committed that you wish it hadn’t?
By no stretch of the imagination did Sevastopol say that. This sort of thing ought to be beneath you, work on that, won’t you? There’s a good chap.