Why Does the West Bank Need to be Ethnically Cleansed?

Great Debates
221

I don’t understand your point. If he believed his actions were illegal, then what does it matter who’s deciding if they are illegal or not?

That’s nonsense. Kindly assume that I am arguing in good faith. Thank you.

Do you have a cite for that? Because I’m seriously skeptical of your claim.

You are presenting me with a false dilemma..

I have no idea how well informed Ban Ki-Moon is on international law, but another possibility is that Ban Ki-Moon has an agenda which is informing his statements and/or beliefs.

But let’s do this: If I can give you the name of a scholar with better legal credentials than Ban-Ki Moon who takes the position that the settlements are legal, will you abandon your argument about Ban-Ki Moon?

222

He he he he - you’re funny.

223

By the way, since you won’t answer my question, I will answer it myself:

The answer is that it doesn’t mean much, because the Jewish settlements are outside the jurisdiction of the NYC Parking Violations Bureau. Similarly, if I get a parking ticket in Manhattan, who would have the authority to find that the ticket is invalid – the Parking Violations Bureau or the International Court of Justice? The answer is the former.

Ok, so what about Jewish Settlements and the 4th Geneva Convention? As noted earlier, the 4th Geneva Convention does not give any judicial or interpretation authority to the UN. As far as I can tell, anyway.

224

Finnagain - I would just like to give you due recognition for this statement, until I saw this my general opinion of you was about that of Allessan or Brazil 84 - having seen this I can give your arguments far great weight. :slight_smile:

225

Well considering that “the world” has pretty much recognised both of the above, by their deliberate and explicit actions (if not with an actual statement) I would think that it is no longer seriously considered an issue.

I am not going to go and research it, but I would be willing to bet that there are hundreds, if not thousands of High Commissions or other national representative offices in the southern states.

What countries have established embassies or missions of any sort in the occupied territories? in fact isn’t just the opposite happening with many countries specifically and explictly saying that they won’t / don’t officially recognise Israels claim to these territories, or that they are part of Israel?

226

You are correct that it isn’t considered an issue, but I was discussing the underlying legal/moral premise and not the reaction to it.
There wasn’t, for instance, anywhere near the level of outrage when, say, Jordan ruled the territories, but there is when Israel does. And, of course, it should be noted that with the Three Noes Jordan abandoned its claims of sovereignty, the territories then had no sovereign claims to rule other than Israel’s, and the vast majority of the land wasn’t privately owned in the first place. The situation is way too complicated for oversimplifications.

In any case, the fact that there wasn’t near constant opposition to Jordanian sovereignty (even though Jordan’s invasion helped kill Palestinian self-determination in the wake of the '48 war) between 1948 and 1967 doesn’t mean that it did fill the role a sovereign while Israel does not.

Thanks for the compliment (although I’d rather not get into a comparison between my posts and those of others, to be honest).
And, for those who are curious, an expanded elaboration on my position.
If it was funny I’d laugh… but the fact that I’m routinely slandered as supporting Israel “100%” and demanding that others do the same is, simply… unpalatable.

In case you’re curious, Moon has a BA and an MPA. He’s not a trained lawyer.
More to the point, you seem to be unaware of the fact that the Sec Gen is the C.A.O. of the UN, and not in the position to determine international law.
High comedy, I know.

Well, the charter would suggest that the UNSC can at least compel resolutions to breaches of the peace via use of force if necessary. But the ICJ would have jurisdiction over the enforcement of treaties.

There are issues, however, as to whether or not the PLO was entitled to become a signatory of the 4th GC.

[

](http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/WebSign?ReadForm&id=375&ps=P)

The 4th GC applies to conflicts between signatory nations.
Additionally, ICJ opinions are just that.

227

This post is such a poor representation of the correct position that I have no confidence that I can convey to you what it actually is.

Secondly, I responded promptly to your request re: IDF/looters (settlers). If you are closed to any persuasion other than a bare statement, so be it. In summary the conclusion is the best one available from the evidence.

No slam is intended in the bated/baited remark, nor in fact is it a typo. They are different words altogether.

Correctly, however the starting point is that starting position is that the looters are justly shot on sight. ‘Looters’ is a normal word, with a definition. If you have a reason why it is a poor descriptor, recite.

Turner Diaries, at a guess, not the delectable Kathleen in a tell-all?

228

How so?

This bald evaluation merely suggests the reader’s own bias and resistances. That is the thing about reasoning, it often takes you to unexpected places, even ones you do not want to go.

229

As I read it, the ICJ has jurisdiction over such things only to the exent the state in question agrees to ICJ jurisdiction. Has Israel agreed to submit to ICJ jurisdiction on this point? Somehow I doubt it.

230

Do you think that the United Nations Secretary-General might have advisors working for him that know a thing or two about international law?

From the UN Report I quoted earlier:
“The advisory opinion and a number of United Nations resolutions have all
affirmed that Israel’s practice of constructing settlements — in effect, the
transfer by an occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it
occupies — constitutes a breach of the Fourth Geneva Convention. In addition to
the construction of the settlements, other activities related to settlements are also
illegal.”

UN Report - 5 November 2008

It does not matter what qualifications the Secretary-General has. The report was prepared by the UN Special Committee - a group that has access to better resources and access to persons better informed on international law than brazil84.

231

Like when the ICJ issued another opinion on whether or not military necessity justified Israel’s security barrier, and its own judges objected to the fact that they didn’t actually look at military concerns?
Or when Kofi Annan called the occupation illegal and then quickly had his aide retract the statement as factually incorrect?

The fallacy of appeal to authority isn’t all that convincing.
Especially when the authority you’re appealing to has a long, long record of bigotry and bias.

232

You sound like FinnAgain: if somebody rejects your viewpoint, it must be because they’re prejudiced. I think most people would agree that “ludicrously irrational” is, if anything, a fairly restrained way to characterize the recommendation that Israelis in the occupied territories should be shot on sight.

Do you have a cite for this alleged proxy retraction? Because AFAICT, Annan’s response to negative reactions to his use of the term “illegal occupation” in March 2002 was not to retract it but to reaffirm it:
U.N. Chief Defends Using Term “Illegal Occupation”

233

Does it give you any pause, at all, that you’re reduced to slinging such malicious fictions about me, Kim? Or has your argument has sunk so low that it now contains verifiable fictions designed to slander me, and that doesn’t even bother you?
Does it not disturb you at all that your argument contains claims of utter fiction about how I allege, imply, suggest (let alone state) that everybody who I disagree with is prejudiced/bigoted?

It really doesn’t bother you at all to sling slime at me like that?
Ah well.

And you expect me to talk to you as if your argument was on the level?
Yeah, good strategy Kim.
It’s not quite at the level of spitting in someone’s face and then asking them to carry your groceries, but it’s close enough.

[

](Double standards)

I suppose I could do the extra work and track down the original letter… but not only is the Economist a fine cite, it’s normally quite critical of Israel.
That, and I’m not going to attempt to carry your groceries while dodging your spittle.
Fight your own ignorance on this one, Kim.

234

I don’t agree that they’re fictions, and I don’t agree that they’re malicious. I think that this melodramatic response on your part is just another example of how extremely poorly you react to honest disagreement.

No problem, it wasn’t hard to find; thanks for the cite. What you were referring to is this letter from the UN spokesman, Frederic Eckhard,:

So the sequence of events actually went like this:

  • March 12, 2002: Annan calls on Israel to “end the illegal occupation”.

  • March 14: Annan defends the use of the term “illegal occupation”.

  • March 23: Eckhard clarifies that the term “illegal occupation” was intended to convey not that Israel was acting illegally in 1967 when it began the occupation, but rather that Israel is acting illegally now.

I think you are, at the very least, exaggerating in characterizing this as “Annan called the occupation illegal and then quickly had his aide retract the statement as factually incorrect”. In fact, both Annan and Eckhard stood by the claim that Israel is acting illegally.

235

Total crap, that’s actually the excuse that Nazis on the docks in Nuremburg tried to use to explain away why they could do anything they wanted to Soviet prisoners since the USSR hadn’t signed Geneva 3. You might want to read through the preamble here:

Relevant bits bolded for you. The conventions most certainly do not just apply to conflicts between signatory nations.

Apologies I guess for calling you writing each sentence on its own line poetry?
'Cos Poetry has many ways of being expressed.
And deciding that each sentence no matter how short.
Needs it’s own line.
Really, WTF is up with that?

236

The correct position? Sorry for deviating as much as an inch from the party line, please don’t send me to a re-education camp.:rolleyes:

Actually you responded to repeated requests to provide a solid foundation that the IDF considers settlers to be subhuman by providing another of your opinions with no factual foundation by calling them looters who should be shot on sight and failing to actually cite your first bit of drivel. Sorry, I will not take your bare statement of such a bizarre position as fact unless you can actually support it. I could make a bare statement that aliens from the future contact me in my dreams and tell me that I’m going to be the savior of the galaxy - but I wouldn’t expect anyone with a working brain to take it on face value.

And yet you are still unable to explain how the settlers are looters all deserving of death, or how the IDF considers them to be subhuman after I’ve been asking you to provide some sort of citation for it or some argument that doesn’t boil down to “because I say so,” for ermm… 3 weeks now?

Somehow I’m guessing you know this book rather well.:rolleyes:

237

You just bolded the parts that say Powers will only be bound by it in their mutual relations or if the second party agrees to the GC. They’re quite clear as to what circumstances will cause a nation to be bound by the GC.
What, you think "They shall be bound… if… " is not a statement of what has to happen for them to be bound?

You think that they meant to write “They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, even if if the latter doesn’t accept or apply the provisions thereof, because that totally doesn’t matter.”
What, just a big ol’ typo?
:dubious:

238

Gee, do you read your own damn cites?

Switzerland may try to prevaricate but 1) a belligerent abiding by the conventions even if it isn’t a signatory is still provided the protections from all signatory powers and good god,

  1. Its practically obscene that I need to quote from the Nuremburg trials; world turned on it’s head and all that, but here it is:See the Doctors (or Medical) Milch case, the Pohl/WVHA case, the Hostage Case and the Einsatzgruppen Case. Guess what? As a simple for example on your reading of things, the Einsatzgruppen could have shot Jews, Communists, Gypsies, and any other undesirables all day long, and it’d be OK since the USSR didn’t sign Geneva 3. Germany did, and was bound to follow it, even against the USSR.

Your fantasy interpretation would be nice, but it didn’t work for the Nazis at Nuremburg, and by your own cite the PLO declared their adherence to Geneva 4.

239

Nice way to admit that you quoted your own refutation in your last post to me.
Oh, no, wait, you just tried to chane the subject.
I always confuse explicit retractions and attempts at changing the subject.
And yeah… I always did like the argument that “You haven’t read your cite!” proven by a dramatically mistaken interpretation of that person’s cite.

Yeah, I didn’t read my cite and we know that I didn’t because you didn’t understand it.
If you’d understood it, we’d all know I read it. But since it confused you, I obviously didn’t read it.

:rolleyes:
Switzerland stated clearly that they couldn’t certify that the PLO had the right to act as a sovereign Power.

Which would be a good point if the governing authority behind the PA hasn’t, continually, engaged in civilian-targeted killings, had their soldiers deliberately avoid distinguishing emblems, etc, etc, etc. …
If you’re honestly claiming that the PA/PLO/Hamas have obeyed the 4th GC, I’m obliged to tell you that your next request to sell me a bridge in Brooklyn will have to be turned down.

The Nurenberg trials were years before the 3rd GC was ratified.
And the convention which would govern the treatment of civilians is the 4th, not the 3rd.
Swing and a miss.

You’re also confusing normative and legal arguments, and making a hash out of what might otherwise be a coherent and/or a cogent argument.
The Nuremberg Principles were created to inform and justify the rulings that were handed down. They wouldn’t have had to be created if they’d already existed and the current legal framework was adequate.
Grok?

If you want to argue that Germany should have followed the Nuremberg Principles because they were moral, that’s one thing. If you want to claim that the Germans violated one of the Genea Conventions which wasn’t ratified until years after the trials, then your factual basis is simply slipping, rapidly. That’s the problem when you obfuscate factual claims by trying to switch 'em with moral ones.

Well shit, if they said it, it must be true :smack:

240

Why do you have to start attacking the poster when they are clearly just posting citations and rational argument? I don’t want to sound like a junior mod, but it seems to me that you have resorted to personal insults now realising the argument you present is lost.

link