What I’m saying is that with the post-war occupation of germany there were two occupying countries, the USA and USSR, which had markedly different ways of conducting themselves. One tried to build a civil society in the land they were occupying and gave billions of (today’s) dollars in aid to build a new state in the occupied land. One deported large numbers of people from their homes, imprisoned others and so on. Which of these two situations is closer to how Israel has behaved towards the Palestinians.
And yes the USA, Britain and France can both be accused of endless historical massacres, atrocities and genocide in their imperial phases (and in the case of the US, as recently as the 1970s). So you’re comparing Israel to genocidal mass-murdering countries like these to say, hey, we’re slightly better than this!
Also, too, you’re saying that these days those former imperial countries are now fairly well behaved and so is Israel. Which one of those countries has been illegally occupying another for nearly half a century, building all over it and stealing its natural resources in defiance of the entire international community?
Sure, and I’m not here to debate the policies and practices of other countries. I brought them up solely to demonstrate how ridiculous and unprincipled your position is. That your argument is based on special pleading.
Actually, I wasn’t saying Israel is better or worse. I was simply pointing out your double-standard for “illegal.”
Are you talking about legal standards or moral standards?
Are you saying that Israel is morally superior to its neighbors?
I think it’s clear to see which of us is making the ridiculous argument.
There’s no double standard. I’m happy to agree that something is illegal if, let’s say the world’s foremost international lawyers and forums like the UN and the ICC all agree that something is illegal. Will you also agree that something is illegal if all those entities agree it is?
And as far as legal or moral standards go, I’m not saying Israel is morally or legally superior than other countries/situations. I think my opinion on Israel is pretty clear.
Absolutely. You claim without any support that military occupation is illegal.
So you believe it was illegal for the US to occupy Japan after World War II?
A simple yes or no will do.
Not necessarily. Are we talking about a general principle? Or a specific claim regarding Israel?
I’m just trying to figure out what you are saying. When you said that “Israel are supposed to be operating at a higher standard,” were you talking about moral standards? legal standards? both? something else?
And if Israel is not morally superior, why do you hold Israel to a higher moral standard?
I like the U.N. a lot, but it is not a legislative body. It does not pass laws. It is the King Hell of all treaty organizations, but that’s all. It has some minor enforcement power, which, however, depends solely on the cooperation of other countries. Like the WTO: it cannot compel someone to follow its decrees, but only request, with some small degree of moral suasion, that others act.
The Secretary General was in Syria, trying to help reduce the violence there. He didn’t succeed.
In fact, I wish there were a world government, and some day there probably will be one. But the UN isn’t one, and so, in my opinion, you have not succeeded in backing up your claim that the Israeli occupation of the West Bank (or, in the past, of Gaza or Sinai) is illegal.
Is this violation of Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention what motivates you to call the occupation illegal, or is there another legal issue in play? That is, was the occupation legal until the first settlements were completed, or was it always illegal?
I’m pretty sure Japan signed an unconditional surrender treaty and agreed to the US occupation of their country and that the US abided by the Geneva Convention when they were an occupying power in Japan. They built almost no Christian fundamentalist settlements for instance.
I’m talking about in general. When international law/community considers something illegal then so do I, whether it’s Israel or some other illegal thing. I’m not singling Israel’s illegalness out here, I’m saying all illegal stuff is bad. Do you agree?
I’m saying that the basis of our support for Israel is that it’s the only democracy in the region. And you genrally expect democratic countries to abide by democratic norms, not have an ongoing near half century blah blah. If Israel is just paying lip service to democratic ideals but is actually just a nasty little racist apartheid colonial state then why should we support them over any of the other shithole states in that region?
So what? In the context of Israel, you claimed that military occupations are illegal. But when it’s the United States, there is at least one exception to the rule. You have a double-standard. When it comes to Israel, according to you any military occupation is “illegal” without exception. With other countries, there are convenient exceptions.
Anyway, I asked you a simple, reasonable question: When you said that “Israel are supposed to be operating at a higher standard,” were you talking about moral standards? legal standards? both? something else?
I asked you twice and both times you ignored my question. Of course it’s a difficult question for you. If you were talking about legal standards, then you admit you have a double-standard. On the other hand, if you were talking about moral standards, it shows you were trying to confuse the issues and that Israel is morally superior.
Anyway, I have no interest in engagements where the other fellow hides (or attempts to hide) his position behind a cloak of ambiguity. This exchange is concluded.
I happen to agree, but of course the Israel haters frequently do not. Many of them seem to feel that Israel is the very worst country in the entire world.
If somebody wants to say “Israel is morally superior to other countries and therefore should be held to a higher moral standard,” I have no problem with that.
But if they hold Israel to a higher moral standard without acknowledging Israel’s moral superiority, they are engaged in special pleading.
Of course all states (and other entities) should be held to the same standards for deciding if their conduct is “illegal.”
The United States, clearly. After all, the Palestinians are still there. If Israel behaved even remotely like the Soviets, the entire question of Palestinian rights would be an academic one.
East Germans were still there. The USSR didn’r remove every single German from what was to become East Germany and Israel didn’t remove every single Palestinian from what was to become Israel. Although East germany did end up as a recognised state with defined borders so the Soviets were much better in that regard than Israel has been.
It’s Israel who claimt ehy have a higher standard than other countries in the region. They’re the people always claiming that they’re the only democracy in the region, the only one that respects human rights and so on. What I’m saying is that Israel just pay lip service to democratic ideals.
You don’t know what you are talking about. The ethnic cleasining of eastern europe of its pre-war ethnic German population resulted in deaths estimated frim a low of 500,000 to a high of 3 million. Moreover, they were not removed from “east Germany”, but from places like east Prussia which then ceased to exist as a territorial enity.
The fate of east Prussia alone is far worse than anything that has happened to the Palestinians.
How many Palestinians were deported to work in Israeli slave-farms? How many Palestinain civilians were actually massacred by Israeli soldiers when they took the WB and Gaza? Did Israeli soldiers engage in officially sanctioned mass rape of Palestinian women - as the Soviets did of German women? And where is the talk at the UN of granting statehood to east Prussia?
Comparing Israel’s treatment of Palestinian civilians unfavorably to the Soviet treatment of German civilians post-WW2 displays an outrageous ignorance of the history of these two regions.
Compare recent regime changes in Egypt and Syria to those in Israel.
Having actual, free, working, functional, popular elections is far more than just “lip service.” It is the soul of democracy itself.
And, yes, Israel has room for improvement. So does the U.S. (gerrymandering.) Britain, France, Germany, none of 'em is perfect. And all of 'em are better than most of Israel’s neighbors.
In any case, so what? This kind of penis-size comparison doesn’t address the central issue: how do we go forward with peace, freedom, and justice in the region?
re the question of the OP, no, the sky doesn’t fall. Let Palestine exist! Let it exist as a state, and attempt to function as one. Will it be born into a state of war with Israel? Or in a kind of uneasy neutrality? Will its border commission draw a map that encompasses large regions now claimed by Israel? Or will it try to avoid direct confrontation by not drawing a border at all?
I see it as a step (an awkward one, but that’s the only kind available) toward stability and peace. It creates a land-based entity, rather than merely a self-declared entity, that Israel can talk with. Or…not talk with. I’m sure that walking out on talks will continue to be a frequent tactic of both sides.
If you’re talking about East Prussia then that’s an even better comparison to Israel as the Soviets actually grabbed half of the land.
What I originally said was that with the post-war occupation of germany there were two occupying countries, the USA and USSR, which had markedly different ways of conducting themselves. One tried to build a civil society in the land they were occupying and gave billions of (today’s) dollars in aid to build a new state in the occupied land. One deported large numbers of people from their homes, imprisoned others and so on. Which of these two situations is closer to how Israel has behaved towards the Palestinians?
This is basically a rhetorical question. It’s obvious to anybody apart from the pro-Israel people on the board what the answer is. Any pro-Israel people trying to answer it by saying USA instead of USSR just look silly. You’re not allowed to name-call and what have you on this board but there’s no rule against making people look ridiculous.
Holding elections doesn’t make a country a democracy. If there’s no respect and equal rights for minorities, no freedom of religion and so on then then country doesn’t look very democratic.