Of course he wasn’t really making that case. There is not an iota of integrity in Airman’s post. He dutifully gave the stock right-wing phrasing and moved on. As they do. It is about demonstrating support, not soundly made argument.
As it is a war crime, this is a proper argument for this dissolution of the state of Israel and the trial and execution of its political class.
Since you’ve decided to grace us with your prescence once again could you please answer my question as to whether or not you think Israeli settlers are legitimate targets.
Also, do you think it’s perfectly permissible to target Americans and Canadians as well as Han Chinese in Tibet and ethnic Russians living in areas conquered by the Soviet Union?
Certainly if you think the killing of Jewish settlers is justified you’d feel the same regarding the killing of American, Canadian, Chinese and Russian settlers?
Do you also support the dissolving of the PRC and the execution of it’s political class for it’s vastly more brutal treatment of Tibet.
Also, since UN Resolution 242 explicitly allows Israel to retain territory it gained after Jordan and Syria attacked it, how can the occupation be deemed a war crime?
Are you saying that countries aren’t allowed to take an enemy’s territory when they’re attacked?
This is an attack on Airman Doors, USAF as a person rather than a rebuttal of anything he said. Stick to commenting on the arguments rather than the people making them.
The issue has been (imho deliberately) clouded by introducing wrong and irrelevant considerations. And you have landed the very worst of them. “Are they Jewish?” you ask. This question is only ever asked for malevolent purposes. Can you imagine this entire discussion if that single question is forbidden. Well no you cannot, as you have already evidenced you are too deep in. Pity, because eliminating that irrelevant question is the gamechanger. It is what separates the misguided and evil from the righteous and just. eg
Hillary Clinton Well what can you expect, they are only Jews.
IDF … sure but they’re Jews; and so are we!
Regrettably, your experience of the issue is immersed in irrelevant considerations. This as a direct and planned outcome of Israeli policy. Similarly a short time ago several men with hatred in their hearts conceived of a plot to advertise that Judaism requires its adherents to support Israel. By and large it has caught on and may become the epidemic that sinks Judaism. You can see some of it here.
In any case, let’s just imagine a moment of clarity for you: Occupied Territory & Looters. See if you can take it from there?
Shall we continue? We shall.
And what’s this Marley?
It is not a gray area in this slightest. Which is why the US cannot airlift its homeless into Baghdad real estate, or loot Iraqi treasures. The occupier’s duty to preserve property from interference is well established.
What on earth does that mean?
This isn’t Macbeth you know. Can be undone.
Again these are the wrong questions. The correct starting point is the rights and duties of the occupying force. Answered correctly there is no need to make an inquiry into the property rights of the affected persons.
A perfect object lesson, and perhaps now Sal will understand a bit of what I’ve already written. Alessan elaborates on the fact that I’d mentioned, namely that treating Israeli political decisions as a fungible whole with a monolithic cause is pointless and counterproductive, and Sal just shoves it into his narrative.
What’s that you say, there are divergent reasons and thought patterns behind a number of phases of settlement construction and expansion? Thank you for confirming that it’s all about might-makes-right-and-also-lebensraum-and-of-course-peace-is-utterly-impossible-if-there-are-property-disputes-but-not-if-one-side-supports-or-engages-in-civilian-targeted-violence.
There’s a script goddamnit, and folks must not deviate. :smack:
Ok, so then I assume when Baruch Goldstein murdered several dozen Arab Muslim men praying in a Mosque you were thrilled since those men were from Hebron, living on land that had belonged to Jews until the Hebron Pogrom and felt that they were therefore “looters” who deserved to be killed.
Similarly, I assume you think that the killing of white people in Canada and the US as well as Han Chinese in Tibet is justified since they are all “looters”?
Actually, the Spiegel Report made clear that a considerable number of settlements were built at least partially on private Palestinian land. And that’s not even touching the question of land declared vacant by Israeli fiat, expropriated, and built on.
But do you really want to use this thread – which is actually about something else – to justify Israel’s land-taking policies? Or should we just note that you approve of them and move on?
Actually, a typical Israeli procedure is to raze the house of the families of those accused – not convicted – of terrorism. And sometimes Israel just bulldozes the houses of people who are guilty of nothing more than being Palestinian.
But I’ll ask you the same question I asked Alessan: do you want to use this thread – which is actually about something else – to justify Israel’s collective-punishment policies, or should we just note that you approve of them and move on?
Readers will note that Alessan is correct, and Sal is distorting the facts. Even Israel’s most ardent anti-settlement groups have certified that most of the land that the settlements are built on was, in fact, not privately owned Palestinian property. Sal’s comment is obfuscatory in the extreme, as the Spiegel Report also found that some settlement "were to some extent built on private Palestinian land. " Alessan stated the fact that most was not privately owned, and Sal is attempting some semantic chicanery and linguistic sleight of hand.
And that’s not even touching on the fact that the Ottoman and Jordanian legal systems both counted public land as forfeit if it wasn’t continually cultivated by its renters, and their systems too allowed for the government to determine that by “fiat”.
Considering that I don’t approve of Israel’s “collective-punishment policies” it would be pretty stupid for anyone to assume that I do.
The only people who would think I do are those who have rather simplistic manichean views on the conflict who think anyone who doesn’t agree that “ISRAEL IS TEH EVUL!” approves of their policies.
Incidentally, since you’re outraged by Israel seizing the homes and property accused of crimes, I assume you’re outraged, outraged by the fact that here in the US that happens far, far more often on a greater scale where very often people have been thrown out of their homes because their nephews or grand-children were accused of being drug dealers.
I assume that you’re disgusted with property seizure laws in the US and that you’ve often complained about them.
Similarly, I’m sure that there are many threads on the Dope railing about them and complaining about them and using the same verbage used regarding Israeli policies.
Did you not click the link? Or do you consider Amnesty International a non-reliable source?
Readers will note that Sal is distorting the content of his own link. Rather than implying, let alone saying that anybody was having their home bulldozed “simply for being a Palestinian”, the cite discussed how Israel said that security concerns mandated that it remove a population from an area.
Now, whether or not this was justified or supportable is a separate question, but as usual if fact-checking is the order of the day, it’s somewhat difficult to have an informed discussion if we can’t get past the boilerplate and counter-factual stuff.
You distorted the report significantly.
What Israel was doing was declaring one valley because of it’s proximity to the Jordanian border “a closed military area” and forcing people to move for security reasons.
That’s similar to many forms of urban renewal that occur throughout the West and the Third World.
Government’s regularly do that sort of thing for all sorts of reasons.
For example Egypt threw around 70,000 Arab Muslims out of their homes to build the Al Aswan dam.
Here in the US, the government has regularly done that using “eminent domain.”
Often it’s been quite egregious. For example thousands if not tens of thousands of people in Chavez Ravine(most of whom were poor Latinos) were thrown out of their homes to allow for the building of Dodger Stadium.
By contrast, the number of Palestinians affected in the report is around 30.
Can we also assume that you’re outraged, outraged by the US government’s use of Emminent Domain and that we can find many threads on the subject that you’ve expressed your anger about it?