And that is the question to be debated: whether Israel’s current course of action will lead to a bad outcome for them, or whether they won’t in fact face additional negative ramifications from a world that doesn’t reject this. Which is sort of my point: if the reaction tops out at something like the ICJ — or a junior-high class — saying stuff that can be breezily dismissed, then it shouldn’t factor in to their calculations.
…the reaction doesn’t “top out” at the ICJ.
The ICJ here (in the most basic terms) points out what laws, INCLUDING Israeli law, is being violated here, if at all. It isn’t a ‘reaction’.
It is very difficult to understand what you are talking about because what you have said here literally makes no sense. Again: if you don’t understand the role of the ICJ or what this advisory opinion says, then perhaps making another thread will help you out.
And I’d like an answer to this question, please.
It wasn’t the UN that brought down apartheid in SA, it was the combined independent actions of dozens of countries, driven by their populations, who were angry about apartheid injustice and brutality (plus, quite obviously, ongoing and unrelenting internal protests and resistance).
If (hypothetically) the next US administration, and future European leaders, see Israel as a dangerous, supremacist pariah state rather than a democratic ally, how long could Israel continue on its present path? How long could Israel survive without Western trade and allies?
But that’s my point. I can’t tell if you’re missing my point or I’m missing yours, but: I’m saying that some things are like dozens of countries taking actions — which is serious business, and can bring things down, and gets treated accordingly — and some things are like a junior-high class when it comes to ramifications and get disregarded accordingly.
I’m saying that, if and when ramifications would alter the cost-benefit analysis, then I’d figure Israel would factor them in when deciding what’s in their best interest. What makes sense if we’re not there yet? What makes sense if we never get there?
Anyone. I’m saying that, if you tell me Israel believes it’s acting in its best interests by treating people — any people — a given way, then I’m waiting for you to get to the interesting and useful part; heck, I’m listening attentively while waiting for you to get to the interesting and useful part.
…why?
Literally the next sentence after what you quoted says “if you tell me Israel believes it’s acting in its best interests”. Was that unclear?
So your point is that Israel is already considering all these potential ramifications and we should just trust them? Or something else? I still can’t tell.
I’m sure Israeli authorities will say that these circumstances are best for Israel. That’s not interesting or novel to me. I’m trying to find the actual reasoning behind it. Why and how do they think this ongoing apartheid and injustice and brutality (or however they’d characterize it) is best and justified?
…yep.
Why does it matter what they think?
They aren’t the ones who are being treated inhumanely.
I thought it was a given that apartheid-like systems are bad.
Do you think apartheid-like systems are good? Do you support apartheid?
The last couple dozen posts sound to me like like a classic “Do the means justify the ends?” argument.
There are those who are comfortable that any means are justified to achieve their end. Because their end is so important, or so difficult or …
And others who argue that first we must decide which means are simply unacceptable no matter what the ends, rule those out, and then proceed with some of the remaining means to whatever end.
All of which is upstream of deciding which ends are unacceptable, which are undesirable, and which are desirable.
Hint: these kinds of arguments / debates are insoluble. Due to utterly incompatible bedrock assumptions on both sides.
My point of view–and this applies generally–is that the status quo is “okay” by default, or at least presumed the lesser of two evils, and the burden is on you to demonstrate a better alternative. The worse the status quo is, the easier it should be to show a better alternative.
The way you phrased the debate shifts the burden in a way that does not align with my worldview. If you talk to someone who supports Israel and poke their brain a bit, I suspect you will find they don’t think about it as if the situation in the West Bank is desirable; they might, however, have semi-coherent reasons to prefer the status quo over an alternate, tangible proposal.
That being said, as I am following this debate, I am partial to Smapti’s posts. If it is true that settlers tend to be Israeli citizens, and Palestinians are not, and the West Bank is not part of Israel, then conceivably it makes sense for Israeli civil jurisdiction to extend extraterritorially to its own citizens but not the non-citizen Palestinians, while military jurisdiction conceivably extends to the West Bank territory itself, and thus any non-citizens within, by virtue of military occupation. I think the system is unfair in a moral sense, and I don’t pretend to know whether it is legally sound, but logically, it sort of makes sense. (Banquet_Bear has cited the ICIJ, possibly for the proposition that the dual-system is legally unsound–I might read it, but I wish someone might dumb it down for me or walk me through it.)
I am very confident religious Zionism has a huge, foundational role in the reason Israel does what it does in the West Bank. Take away the Zionism and I don’t think it is possible to justify West Bank settlements in the first instance. I am not a Zionist, but an agnostic Jew; however, I personally think the Zionist interpretation of the Torah is ‘correct’ and admittedly not compatible with human rights or international law. Ideally, there would be no Zionists. However, that does not necessarily mean I think there is a better alternative to the status quo. For a dash of realism, I don’t think Zionism will fade from Israeli and U.S. politics any time soon and I am opposed to forcibly repressing Zionism. Bypassing the legal process–even an unfair one or one inconsistent with international law–is no trifling matter. Until I am convinced of some more appealing alternative, I personally tolerate the status quo by default.
~Max
For the record, I think the West Bank settlements are wrong and that any long-term solution is going to have to involve either requiring them to leave or telling them that after a certain date they’ll be subject to the laws of a sovereign Palestinian republic (which I hope would not treat them the way they’ve been treated, but I’m not optimistic about that).
IMO the better alternative is to actually protect the rights of Palestinians from rape and brutalization and theft and murder, and to actually hold accountable everyone who violates those rights.
You know, now that I’m thinking about it, ISTR that a long time ago (like maybe 20+ years ago) we had an AMA thread started by a person who actually was a West Bank settler. I’m going to have to try and dig that up and see what they thought of the situation, and whether they’re still around and if so whether their opinions have changed with time.
Ideally yes, but how do you get from point A to point B? Presume right now, Israeli law does not extend protections to Palestinians living in occupied territories such as the West Bank. Is there a pathway to changing that policy that does not involve, for example, actively repressing Israeli citizens of the Zionist persuasion? ETA: I’m not saying anything is strictly off the table, but you will have to be more specific about the means so I can at least consider the alternative.
~Max
…the TLDR version is Israel is illegally occupying Palestine.
End the illegal occupation.
And presuming Israel’s own courts, administration, and electorate disagree as to the legality of their own policies, by what means may the illegal occupation be ended?
~Max
…what exactly do you think the advisory opinion is all about? They talk about this. It’s an entire legal opinion that includes Isreali court decisions and laws.
They could, at the very least, stop authorising illegal settlements.
But the rather comprehensive legal opinion makes it quite clear. It’s an illegal occupation. You said you “don’t pretend to know whether it is legally sound”…well the ICJ aren’t pretending. So this should be the starting point for any discussion about what is happening in the occupied territories. It doesn’t start with the assumption the occupation is legal, which is what you’ve done.
It’s a situation where even the people with the ‘best’ normative arguments–the Zionists–do not actually want the status quo. I’m sure we’re all familiar with the arguments, which are worthless if you are not a Zionist… From that position, the ideal would be for the Palestinian people to relinquish all claims to the land and just go live somewhere else (at their own expense).
It’s kind of like asking Israel to just do the right thing, or asking for a unicorn…
~Max
In my opinion, the occupation is “legal” to Israel by virtue of Israel being a sovereign state and doing the occupying; as a matter of definition, law is what the sovereign says it is. I assume there is a debate to be had for the topic at hand. Why would anyone defend an illegal Israeli policy, let alone an illegal and immoral policy? The best defense would necessarily start with the assumption that the policy is legal.
~Max