It’s not hard to find, kid.
Please show me in any of my posts where I said that any kind of brutality was “justified.”
To make it clear, instead of merely playing the stupid “show me” game, no, brutality is not justified, I never said it was, and Israeli crimes are bad, just as Palestinian crimes are bad.
In my opinion, the specific crimes committed by the Palestinians are worse: rocket attacks, desecration of religious shrines, etc. Israel is not sending rockets into Palestinian towns, and Israel has allowed a Palestinian organization control over the Al Aqsa mosque and Dome of the Rock.
Saying, “A is worse than B” is not at all the same as saying “B is okay.” Your reasoning is very, very bad here, and it has led you to make an erroneous accusation. The Israeli/Palestinian matter is complex, and simplistic blunders of this kind do no one any service.
The land was not partitioned on the basis of proportional populations. That isn’t how borders are drawn. It may or may not be “fair,” but that simply isn’t a legal issue. Many, many legal rulings are unfair as sin; it’s their legality that we have to judge them by.
(Do you approve of Turkey seizing the northern third of Cyprus on the basis of proportional population?)
Russia seizing Sakhalin.
You said, “Can you give an example.” An example was given. You didn’t specify any other limitations.
In that same war and comparing the USSR to Israel is a poor comparison. In WW2, the USSR had the largest and most powerful army on the planet. No one could have forced them to give up their conquests. The USSR got the last legitimate acquisitions of land by force of arms.
Except it’s not an example. The USSR took their land during WW2. I shouldn’t have to explain that. Israel tok land after. The Soviet Union took land during.
What nonsense.
-
Israel uses rockets too.
-
The desecration of shrines isn’t a crime and Israel does it too.
-
What Palestinian towns? There is no Palestine anymore. For all the talk of Iran wanting to wipe Israel off the map (based on a mistranslation), the only country in the middle east that’s been wiped off the map is Palestine.
-
Gee. Israel has allowed Palestinians to rule their lands under the auspices of Israeli domination. They should be grateful.
-
Except your blaming the victims. Blaming Palestinians for fighting Israeli occupation is like blaming the Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto for rising up against the Heer.
-
Everything in politics is complicated. World War 2 was complicated, but there comes a time when you have to call a spade a spade. Israel is wrong. Israel is the agressor. Israel blatantly defies international law. Israel is racist. And Israel is engaging in an ethnic cleansing project burgeoning on genocide.
-
Will you acknowledge that what happened and what’s happening to the Palestinians right now isn’t fair?
-
No. And no one else recognizes it aside from Turkey. That’s the point.
In the words of George W. Bush, you forgot Poland! The Oder-Neisse Line is the current German/Polish border, and even after WWII, Germany never really sought it back even tho that issue stayed in the public eye there and elsewhere for decades. Germany’s cession of it was only formalized 25 years ago.
Much of the land the Jews got in the partition they accepted (and the Arabs rejected) was the empty and barely irrigable Negev Desert.
Given that the far-left (and paleo-right’s) argument against Israel sounded very similar before Netanyahu, I doubt your opinion would be different if someone who talked nicer were in office there. Also, why does the broader Muslim world really care enough about “Palestine” to commit jihad around the world for it? Is it because yea there’s a holy sight there? The Muslims have nearly all of their holy sights, tons of them in countries led, populated, and run by Muslims, so let someone else have just one. And if that actually is some sort of justification for terrorist Islam jihad, then that demonstrates why they’re terrorists.
If you had bothered to read my post you would have seen that the court also ordered the site to be destroyed by March, 2012, which was ignored. The Palestinians still don’t have their land back. What would you do if you were in their situation?
How can we possibly have a reasonable discussion if you keep ignoring what I’ve posted (and cited)?
You didn’t make any such specification in your question. If you only wanted answers post 1945, why didn’t you say so?
Also, India got Goa in 1961, and Sikkim in 1975. And Indonesia probably isn’t going to be giving up West Papua anytime soon.
Why, exactly? What makes something you disagree with “nonsense?”
Not against civilian targets, only against targets of war. (You may disagree that someone launching a rocket from a site makes it a target of war, but, since many of your arguments are based on legalistic interpretations of the Geneva Conventions, then, yes, launching a rocket from a site – even a hospital or shrine – makes that site a legitimate target of war.)
Can you cite this? I do not dispute it automatically, but I’d like to make a straight-up comparison. How many shrines has Israel desecrated, compared to the Palestinian desecrations? Remember, I never said “Israel is without fault.” I said that the Palestinians are worse.
Palestine was never a nation, and so cannot have been “wiped off the map.” It was never on the map to begin with.
And by “Palestinian towns,” it’s clear that this means towns in the West Bank or Gaza under Palestinian Authority or Hamas governance.
I don’t care if they are grateful or not: they are receiving a consideration which they do not offer to Jewish citizens under their authority. Palestine is behaving worse than Israel is.
Your sarcastic response is, in fact, not a rebuttal in any sense. It’s just snark. It does not actually state a position and it fails to advance your cause. That’s a bad debate technique, and you might want to reconsider its use.
I disagree. The comparison is inapt and badly contrived. Also, so what. It’s a comparison. A simile. Do you believe that debating on the basis of similes is valid? It’s like putting lipstick on a pig.
Those are your opinions, with which some of us in this thread disagree. Your assertions are, in fact, a legitimate form of debate (something up till now you have not been accomplishing) but they are still only assertions. My assertion is that Palestinian behavior is worse that Israeli behavior, something you have not addressed at all, in any form whatever.
If I say, “A is worse than B,” only indicating B’s crimes is not a logical rebuttal. “Hitler was worse than Stalin.” “But Stalin murdered millions, and had his enemies killed, and made war against neutral countries.” The response is true, but it fails to serve as an actual functioning rebuttal.
You flunk Rhetoric 102.
Sure. I’ve argued against the Israeli seizure of lands to expand their settlements, calling it improper. “Unfair” is a perfectly valid word for it.
Will you acknowledge that what has happened and what is happening to Israelis right now isn’t fair?
You are wrong for two independent reasons:
- General Assembly resolutions are considered non-binding and cannot pass into law.
- J & S is not the territory of any State.
Looks like you are the one whose posts are based on ignorance.
Again you are wrong:
The court extended the time to comply with its order to August 2012 and the order was complied with.
Assuming for the sake of argument that is true (which I doubt, based on the veracity of your other claims), the answer is very simple: Petition the courts for relief.
I’m not ignoring it at all, I’m scrutinizing it and your claims are not standing up to scrutiny.
Now please answer my questions from before:
What are some of the “many concessions” required of the Palestinian Arabs?
Also, do you agree that the Palestinian Arabs must unilaterally stop their illegal actions, e.g. the rocketing attacks against civilians, the use of human shields, attempting to steal Jewish land, etc.?
Why did it take 10 pages for rational analysis to emerge in this thread?
This is a good post to segue into a mild rant.
Part of my unease with leftish analysis of the situation in the ME is that some people on the left have a very evident tendency to choose what to me appears exactly the wrong analogies to approach the current situation with. This is natural enough, because there is a human situation to look for analogies in which the ‘right’ side ‘won’. in the past.
Hence the desire to see in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict something either exactly alike, or at least closely akin, to the “decolonization” movements of the 50s through '60s, or to “Apartheid” - with the Israelis cast, respectively, as colonialists or South African Whites.
The problem, of course, is that these analogies don’t fit in the slightest, meaning that “lessons learned” from these prior situations are not going to be applicable.
The Israelis are not “colonists”. A “colonist” is someone who, ultimately, has a “metropolitan” to look to for support and if necessary for shelter. Hence, it is perfectly possible to terrorize or propagandize a “colonist” into simply giving up his or her colonial efforts, packing their bags, and returning to the ‘homeland’ if the going gets too rough.
Israelis can’t do that. They are already living in what they consider their ‘homeland’ and have nowhere to go. So the tactics used against ‘colonists’ simply can’t work on them. All terror does is make them nastier and all propaganda does is convince them that the person producing the propaganda can’t be trusted.
Similarly, they aren’t engaged in “Apartheid”. What White South Africans were doing, in essence, was creating a society in which racial discrimination artificially kept a minority of Whites at the top of a society in which the majority of the population was Black - a system of economic exploitation used by an ‘overclass’. The Israelis do not rely on economically exploiting Palestinians - while some do employ Palestinians from the WB, this is tangential to their economy, and if necessary they can and will cut all contact without suffering much. Moreover, Jewish Israelis are an absolute majority within Israel - they are not a small exploitative minority. Again, the same tactics that worked against South Africa will not work on Israel, because they are fundamentally unlike.
In reality, what is going on with Palestine vs. Israel is nothing unusual - it is a perfectly normal clash of ethno-nationalisms, both created at much the same time; somewhat complicated these days by the fact that the Palestinians have been caught up, as has much of the ME, with a very unpleasant fundamentalist religious revival (in their case, Hamas). Look not to “decolonization” or to “Aparthied”, but to situations like the break-up of Yugoslavia into competing ethno-nationalist states.
Why does this matter? Because by barking up the wrong tree, I am convinced, those uncritically plugging the modern-leftish line are doing more harm than good - to the Palestinians above all. They, poor saps, have been led to believe that such tactics will work (when you have nothing you are easy to convince) and this has led them to putting their energies in the wrong places - looking always to get back at Israel, rather than looking forward to either building new lives elsewhere, or a country that could actually be a possible rival for Israel in what land they can get. Why should they, when they have been promised that any day now Israel will be swept away and they can get their old villages back, down to the last pre-1948 well?
I agree with you on the “colonial” analogy, but this part is at odds with my impression. Do you have numbers on the employment part? And I know that concern (justified or not) with “Arab” birthrates, and non-Jews catching up in population, is often given as a reason why non-Jews can’t simply be granted full and equal citizenship.