We should give Israel to the Mormons

The BBQ Pit
101

The Israeli Palestine is the “least complex, the most simple, the most easily resolved” conflict. If the public were aware of the facts, the conflict would be resolved. “There can be no compromise on fundamentals” - quoting Gandhi - that’s a surrender. No other ways to resolve conflict other than international law and human rights. Most people accept the legitimacy of international law.

Most difficult areas: “peace process”. Final status issues: settlements, East Jerusalem, rights of refugees, borders. Legal status of 500k inhabitants in occupied territories, 1948, 1967 refugees, where does East Jerusalem end and Palestine begin. In 2004 ICJ gave opinion on the legality of the Gaza wall. They had three preliminary topics to address: Israel’s borders (whether they included West Bank or not). Two: are the settlements the wall encircles legal? Three: East Jerusalem (how is it to be assigned?).

On borders: peremptory norm is that territory cannot be acquired by war. Gaza and West Bank acquired in 1967war, so they’re occupied Palestinian territory. East Jerusalem likewise, occupied Palestinian territory. Under article 49 of the 4th Geneva convention, population transfer to an occupied territory is disallowed, so settlements illegal. Decisions were unanimous on these issues. The American judge dissented on the legality of the wall.

Right of return: Amnesty Internation and Human Rights Watch claim that the right of return is uncontroversial.

The UN has a vote on the “Peaceful settlement of the question of Palestine” in the last week of November to which the US, Israel and South Pacific islands dissent (along with Australia now and then). The resolution has the terms described above (right of return, lack of settlements, borders according to 1967). The Arab States and the Islamic Conference (including Iran) concur. “Hamas accept a state on the pre-June 1967 borders”. The charter of Hamas is quite ugly though.

Hamza Tzortis I skipped watching and haven’t read anything by, so won’t defend his claims.

102

I don’t see any evidence or argument here – just conclusions. And it’s not even clear what those conclusions are.

Let me ask you the question a different way:

  1. Exactly what would Israel need to do (or not do) to satisfy you that it is not “the belligerent”?

  2. Is there anything at all the Arabs have done in this conflict which is unacceptable or unreasonable? If so, what?

103

  1. Not punish the many for the actions of the few. Fuck me, both groups are supposed to be human beings… they must have something in common that one side can put forward and the other take in good faith.

  2. Lots, but it doesn’t give Israel a pass to take it out on every Palestinian.

104

Can you give me a few specific examples of Israel punishing the many for the actions of a few?

Can you give me a few specific examples please?

TIA

105

I’ll give you one, blockades. They’ve probably killed as many via them as they’ve done via their military excursions, if not more.

What for? I don’t want to play your game of “I’m more informed than you are!”

Slagging Israel off isn’t a vocation or hobby for me, nor is defending asshole Palestinians.

106

How many people? And do you have a cite? And is that the only thing you can think of?

Also, would you say that launching rockets indiscriminantly into populated areas qualifies as “punishing many for the acts of a few”?

So I can understand your position and evaluate it. It’s a simple enough question.

If you cannot even name one thing done by the Arabs which you deem unacceptable or unreasonable, it shows either astounding ignorance or astounding bias.

107

Ok. I think The International Jew is a piece of anti-Semitic propaganda. Would you like me to go through it and explain to you why?

108

Is it do with it being ultra-critical of jews? Shouts of “Anti-semite” seem to be the usual way they head off at the pass anything that points out uncomfortable home truths about the actions of some semites.

109

Ok, here we go. I’m putting on my hip waders and entering the racist sludge that is “The International Jew”

In part 1, “The International Jew”, we’re informed that the Jew controls international finance. We’re told he has an aversion to industrial work, preferring instead the commercial. We’re told that he controls international business, and that he has spread throughout the world, and that everywhere he goes, his natural racial tendency, exacerbated by his history, is to attempt to control and dominate. We’re told that the Jew is the most closely knit race on earth, and that, while there are rich Jews and poor Jews, even the poor Jews have the backing of the rich one and act in concert with them.

We’re told that Jews make up their own international state, the state of All-Judaan", and that Jews, wherever they may be, are more loyal to Jewry than they are to their host nations. This Jewish state of “all-Judaan” has no army or navy of its own, but because it manipulates the other nations of the earth, it doesn’t need one. It’s navy is the British navy. Jews are, it points out, responsible for nationalism in the rest of the world, the better to leave the Gentiles divided, but Judaism is never divided. Jews control the world’s sources of news, and use them to shape public opinion the way they want it. Whenever the malfeasance of an individual Jew is found, Jews claim persecution, but the true persecution is that of the Gentile by world finance. World War I started because of Jewish hatred of Germany, and now they defeated it and control it.

Really, do I have to go on through the whole thing? We’re told that Jews control modern finance, modern business, modern media, that they are behind capitalism and behind Communism. We’re told that they control US theater, songs, bootlegging, movies, that they want to destroy Christianity in the US, and get rid of any references to Christ by the government and the singing of Christmas carols. We’re told they want to make Jewish law the law of the US. We’ve even told that Jews were responsible for Benedict Arnold turning traitor.

And we’re told they do all this as some sort of unified group, almost a hivemind, and hunt down anyone who knows the truth of all this and labels them an anti-Semite and discredits them.

You’re saying all this ISN’T anti-Semitic?

110

  1. Extricate itself from territories where it has no legal right to govern. For what it’s worth, I think the standard line in Israel is that they rejected the findings of the international court since they had no Jewish members (IIRC).

  2. Plenty. I think deliberately targeting civilians is unconscionable (I don’t believe in legitimate reprisals) and they’ve also engaged in heavy duty propaganda.

111

Has there ever been an “Ask the Zoroastrian” thread?

112

Exactly what territories does Israel have the legal right to govern? And exactly what territories does Israel need to extricate itself from in order to comply with your standard?

In that case, it makes no sense to assert that Israel is “the” belligerent. I mean, if the Arab side is engaging in unconscionable targeting of civilians, then that side is also a “belligerent.” No?

113

Who gave Israel the legal right to determine legal rights, and what legal rights did the granters of the right to those legal rights have?

114

Who gave any state (or entity) the legal right to determine legal rights, and what legal rights did the granters of the right to those legal rights have?

115

That’s fairly obvious, really.

Way back in the mists of time, some rich and powerful person who had robbed and killed his way to such a position and who probably called himself “King” or some other such title, discovered that allowing his cleverer subjects to make up rules that made the people believe they were being considered, while really, all they did was protect the wealth of himself and those he favoured, made being a ruler slightly easier.

I suppose you thought benevolent wise men got together and made up all the rules we have for the good of mankind’s long-term future, yes?

116

Ok, and how is it any different for Israel? And if it’s no different, then you’ve answered your own question.

Anyway, gamerunknown seems to believe that there exists a piece of land that Israel has the legal right to govern. I would like to know what that land is so I can assess his claim that Israel is “the belligerent.”

117

Off the top of my head, I’m having trouble remembering another closely-knit societal group that suffered great misfortune then got the backing of 2 of the world’s most powerful nations to ensure they got a homeland. Perhaps you know better?

118

As far as I know, no group has ever successfully returned to (in large part) and set up a homeland besides the Jews. I’m not sure what 2 nations you are talking about, but anyway, I don’t see how these things affect the source of Israel’s legal authority.

119

Any territories it didn’t acquire by war, namely, its borders in (say) January 1967.

120

Ok, so between 1948 and 1966, Israel was not “the belligerent” in the Arab/Israeli conflict. Agreed?

Also, you did not fully answer my question:

Exactly what territories does Israel need to extricate itself from in order to comply with your standard?