I’m not sure what you mean by “legitimately,” but even assuming that’s true, it doesn’t necessarily follow that their presence is illegal.
Of course you are not. Because your reasoning implies the absurd conclusion that such a group of people is breaking some law. Even though they are descendants from people who were moved against their will.
It depends how you define “encourage.” I understand that many of the Puerto Ricans who moved to New York City in the 1960s did so in order to collect the generous welfare benefits being offered at the time. Others did so in order to get jobs or other economic opportunities.
But anyway, I doubt you are going to answer my question. Because any reasonable person would disagree with the claim that the United States “transferred” hundreds of thousands of Puerto Ricans to New York City.
Certainly if the UN were to announce that the United States is occupying Puerto Rico illegally, nobody would seriously claim that Puerto Rican Americans are therefore in New York City illegally and must be removed.
Ah, so you have no idea what you’re talking about, check.
Hebron and Gush Etzion are both solidly within the West Bank and are called “settlements” and Jerusalem has expanded as its population has grown and that has also been called “settlement”.
It’d be helpful if you knew something about the topic so that when I talk about its facts, you don’t get confused and think that they’re a strawman.
It’d also be helpful, now that I’ve given you some of the basic, minimum level of knowledge that you’d need to conduct an informed debate, if you justify your strange view whereby people returning to their homes or to their family’s homes, of their own free will, are guilty of ‘illegal’ ‘transfer’. Or, I suppose, why the government allowing people to return to their homes or their family’s homes is guilty of ‘illegal’ ‘transfer’.
Yes, that’s clear.
I’ll put it in a nutshell for you.
If the group which would become the sovereign power agrees that the situation can be settled via negotiation rather than simply deemed illegal, then they have accepted the fact that some settlements may remain depending on the negotiated outcome. And, thus, that the settlements themselves are not illegal.
So what?
So what that the territories were never “Palestinian territories” in the first place and their exact shape will only be determined via negotiation?
So what that the sovereign powers which had held control of them renounced their personal interests in them?
So what that most of the land was never privately owned and there was never any Palestinian state to accept receipt of them as a sovereign power?
I see a pattern emerging somewhere there, but can’t quite put my finger on it…:smack:
It should also be pointed out that, yet again, you really do need to learn what you’re talking about before you talk about it. Both the Golan and Jerusalem itself have, indeed, been annexed by Israel and fall squarely under Israeli sovereignty and civil law rather than military.
Well, that’s Israel’s take on it, at least. But UN Resolution 478 holds that the annexation of East Jerusalem was illegal and that Israel is not in fact entitled to sovereignty over it. UN Resolution 57/128 says the same about the Golan.
You seem to equate “not knowing what one is talking about” with “not agreeing with FinnAgain”. You are entitled to your own opinion, but your opinion does not determine facts.
Yet again, non-binding resolutions. Why you’d even mention them is beyond me.
Especially since you’d have to jump through some interesting rhetorical hoops to claim that Israel is not the sovereign power in Jerusalem or the Golan. What, the power that mints currency, determines and carries out law, monopolizes the use of force etc… isn’t a sovereign power?
I know that you like to argue against what I say even when you admit that you haven’t bothered to read up on the issues, but when you’re at the point of claiming that the ultimate authority in an area isn’t a sovereign because some non-bindings opinions disagree, it really looks like your argument is simply contrarian.
And yeah, not knowing that Israel is the sovereign power over those areas is indeed ignorance. Not knowing that not some “settlements” are really people returning to their ancestral homes is ignorance.
You, Kim, are entitled to your own opinions. You are not entitled to your own facts.
And the facts show your objection is spurious.
Because they represent significant disagreement with your opinion that Israel is legitimately entitled to sovereignty over East Jerusalem or the Golan.
You seem to think that I believe that non-binding UN resolutions are equivalent to unchallenged legal authority, and I don’t. But I do think they count for something when it comes to assessing international recognition of legitimacy.
I don’t think anybody is unaware that Israel is in de facto control of the areas in question, and that it claims sovereignty over them. What is widely disputed is whether those claims of sovereignty are legitimate.
I think there’s one too many "not"s in there, but I understand what you mean. What is the legal significance of your phrase “returning to their ancestral homes”? Are you claiming that the settlers in question have a legally recognized hereditary right to the property they are occupying?
Nope, my objections to your overstated rhetoric are valid. You are attempting to dismiss rational disagreement with your position by presenting your opinion about facts as tantamount to the facts themselves. You hold extremely biased views in favor of the validity of almost all actions taken by Israel, and attempt to block out all opposing views by automatically condemning them as springing from ignorance and/or anti-Israel and/or anti-Semitic prejudice. This is not a persuasive line of argument.
Nope. Nothing I said was attempting to discredit your positions by attacking irrelevant characteristics of you as a person, which is what an ad hominem fallacy is.
In fact, I know pretty much nothing about you as a person except that you are apparently fond of James Joyce, so I couldn’t make an ad hominem argument against you even if I wanted to. What I am criticizing is your positions and arguments in and of themselves.
‘Settlers’ is the Israelis euphemism for their looters. It is another propaganda coup that it is the accepted term in the West. Secondly, that’s ‘bated breath’ by the way.
Shooting looters on sight is a good, robust principle. No-one has said why it should not apply to Israelis in the occupied territories. The discussion so far serves to complicate what is a straightforward issue.
Once you have got to a good starting point of realizing the looters’ lives are forfeit, then you can start to talk sensibly. Often these discussions all into the trap of assuming too much forgiveness of those looters. Obviously an optimum response would be to shoot as few as necessary in order to bring about a just resolution. But if it takes the intervention of foreign powers or a great many dead the Israelis and looters have only themselves to blame.
If we assume roughly equal fertility rates among the Palestinian “looters” as among all Palestinians during the time period, that 25,000 would have been multiplied by the same factor as the roughly 700,000 refugees were. As there are now roughly 4,000,000 Palestinians living in the West Bank and Gaza, that represents an increase of about 5.5 times.
So, Sevastopol’s own argument means (since he’s not rationalizing a desire for Israeli blood), that he honestly believes Israel would be well within its rights to round up and slaughter 137,500 Palestinian men, women, and children for the crime of “looting” land which was not theirs in the first place.
A rather monstrous act of butchery, but since he’s not deceptively trying to find a way to justify a desire to kill Israelis, we must assume that he really does believe that 137,500 Palestinians should be killed with malice aforethought. Or, I suppose, that Israel could kill up to that number but might stop earlier if the rest of the Palestinian ‘looters’ were driven off.
Scary stuff there.
Probably a very good thing that the Israelis are quite a lot more civilized than the horror he’d advocate being carried out against the Palestinians.
Sorry for not quoting the entirety of your post, but once again in English? Are you just trying again to blind people with bullshit in walls of text? Where exactly did I “consider lands which were won by wars of aggression and then sold to a foreign power by another foreign power, totally ignoring the native inhabitants, to be legal possessions of those foreign powers?” Just making up my position as you go along? Care to actually rerspond to anything I’ve written or are you going to ignore it and ramble about unconnected things like Sevastopol?
You know, what’s sad is that Sevastopol is easier to understand than you. He’s anti-semetic and doesn’t bother with making any logical connections. You seem to sometimes make them, but at other times dismiss any counter arguement by assigning the most bizzare positions to those who don’t agree with you.
Yes, pointing out what you’ve said is horrible bullshit on my part.
I am ashamed for trying to blind people by analyzing your own words.
Really.
My bad.
Hrmmm… let’s see…
Maybe where you said that the lands that were conquered by France and then sold to the US, totally bypassing the will of the native Americans themselves, were “bought and legally the possession of” the United States.
Oh, sorry, quoting you is probably bullshit too.
Pointing out your double standards and contradictions is probably also totally bullshit designed to blind people with facts.
I really should stop such underhanded behavior.
Why thanks for correcting my typo. You can of course prove that settlers are looters with some substantiantion aside from you say so? Not like I’ve been asking for a bit. Or should I typo that as bite so you can hang me on it and avoid the issue?
Yeah, I gotcha, we should just shoot the Jews. Very straightforward issue.
Oh I see, we should just shoot the Jews 'til they leave, it’s the humanitarian thing to do. Pointless to ask, but once again do you have any kind of a cite to back up your positions that settlers somehow = looters, or that the IDF considers settlers subhuman? Which is the position you took and I’ve been asking you to support for 13 days now?
Should I point out your typo of “all into the trap” instead of fall into the trap? Seriously, you think the starting point of this discussion should be that settler’s lives are forfeit? And it’s doing the Jews a favor to just kill some of them rather than all of them? My apologies that I don’t have a good starting point from the wisdom of the Turner Diaries.:rolleyes:
I’m sorry
For doubting you poetic heart.
This isn’t a Haiku though, is it?
Very double standard.
France 'conquered" these lands when again exactly?
You know I didn’t claim that the indiginous population had no will or rights.
Simply that your comparison of the Lousiana purchase (where nobody died) to the occupied lands from 1967 (which were taken by military force) might not be equal?
You can of course cite where I said “bought and legally the possession of” the United States.
Though it be broken
And broken again
It’s still there
The face in the water
Sorry
Thought poetic one line sentances
Might get your attention
Are you being intentionally obtuse or do you simply not know how to differentiate the meaning of words? English has tonnes and tonnes of words with different shades of meaning and people (normally) choose a particular word for a meaning.
ISRAELI DOES NOT EQUAL JEW! when someone suggests a course of action against ISRAELIS that probably mean just that - they are not advocating all known jews in the world, in fact it is incidental to the discussion whether or not the person is a Jew or of Jewish descent. Just as if I were to be locked up for murder, the state of Singapore is not declaring war on Scotland or Germany (I have Scots and German heritage but come from neither country)
Well by that argument Japan was the soverign power of Singapore at the very least, they conquered the country in a war and then imposed their law, currency, use of force etc etc - until of course they got kicked out because the rest of the world didn’t conisder their right to claim the country to be valid
Notice a few things, if I can draw your attention to them. The original claim was that Israel held sovereignty. Not, as Kim later distorted the issue to try to draw attention away from what was actually said, “legitimate” sovereignty.
Note, also, that her contrarian argument had become so absurd that she was forced to argue against the fact that Israel holds sovereignty over the areas it annexed by stating, in her own words, that Israel held sovereignty over them in point of fact.
That’s a serious desire to argue even if you’re wrong… when you’re reduced to claiming that someone is “biased” for stating that Israel is in fact the sovereign, and you prove that “bias” by stating that Israel is in fact the sovereign.
Now, of course, someone could remove Israel by force or by treaty or what have you. But to claim that the sovereign power, aint, because other people don’t like it… is just silly. By that absurd standard, someone would be horribly “biased” for stating that the United States held sovereignty over the South after our civil war, since there was still “disagreement” as to whether or not America had the right.
You honestly and truly have no idea of the history of European powers in America?
France, in particular, settled areas that didn’t belong to them and then defended them through force of arms. France, in particular, lost much of their holdings, including Louisiana, to the British, in a war. France, in particular, got Louisiana back because it was able to put enough military pressure on Spain that Spain caved.
So, yeah, massive double standard on your part that, rather unsurprisingly, you won’t cop to.
When France and other European powers conquer the New World and trade off other people’s land, you call that legal and perfectly valid. When one side in WW I defeated the other and took possession of the Ottomans’ territory, granting settlement rights to another group of people, you call that illegal settlement and transfer.
Silly denial on your part.
If you’re honestly going to go through the contortion of denying the facts, please try to argue where France considered the Plains Indians’ views when it sold their homes to the United States.
Or just admit that you’re supporting an action whereby France sold the natives’ very homes to the US government without the consent of those natives.
What game is this? You’ve forgotten your own post? Really? I just quoted you, that should’ve jogged your memory at best or at least allowed you to find your own post at worst.
The thread isn’t even long enough for you to honestly require a cite.
But, okay, here’s a protip: hit control-F, then put in “territory that was bought and legally the possession of Israel exactly like the lands of the Louisiana Purchase were to the US?”
Doesn’t surprise me that you’d try to deny it.
Double standards are rather gauche.
Nonsense: I didn’t distort the issue at all. The whole point of the sovereignty issue is precisely that its legitimacy is contested. So when you assert categorically that the Golan and Jerusalem “fall squarely under Israeli sovereignty” as though that were an undeniable fact, you are the one distorting the issue.
I join Dissonance in expressing amazement that you are able to outdo even the ludicrously irrational and biased statements of Sevastopol by the distortions, evasions, and illogic of your posts.
Argue some more about how Israel isn’t in fact the sovereign, it’s just the sovereign in fact.
I get it, you’re willing to present an argument so absurd that you are forced to agree with me in order to pretend I’m wrong. I get it.
You’ll agree with the facts and then call the facts “bias” and “opinion”. I get it.
You’ll agree with the facts and then claim that they’re “distortions”. I get it.
You’ll agree with the facts and then claim that they’re “irrational”. I get it.
You’ll agree with the facts, but play the point-of-view evasion game since your argument is simply contrarian rather than rational. I really do get it.
You can quit this bullshit any time you like.
Or babble more about how the facts have a well known bias against your bullshit. Or how it’s irrational to state facts, or whatever.
You’re confusing “sovereignty” with “de facto control”.
Sovereignty is “the exclusive right to control a government, a country, a people, or oneself.” It hinges on whether the controlling power actually has the right to exercise control. And that’s a debatable issue.
Nobody is contesting the statement that Israel is indeed the de facto controlling power in the Golan and East Jerusalem, as well as in the rest of the occupied territories. But that is not the same thing as saying that Israel has sovereignty over those areas. Whether or not Israel has sovereignty there depends not only on whether Israel is the de facto controlling power there (which it is), but whether Israel has the right to exercise control there (which is a matter of opinion).