Video: Palestinian Terrorists Firing Mortars from Elementary School [Archive]

David Lyle Segal

11-03-2007, 08:13 AM

Just out of curiosity, I clicked on your personal blog (http://www.yirmeyahureview.com/articles/2007/honored_by_hatred.htm) to see what you had to say when you had more room to ruminate. I can't say that I was impressed. For instance,

The U.N. neither has the authority to take land from one people and give it to another nor has it ever presumed to usurp such authority. On November 29, 1947, the U.N. General Assembly adopted a non-binding resolution (only U.N. Security Council resolutions are legally binding) recommending the partition of Palestine, subsequent to the end of the British "mandate", into Arab and Jewish states. Though Jews were a minority of the population of Palestine (608,000 Jews to 1,269,000 Arabs at the end of 1946), the plan apportioned a majority of Palestine, including most of the best land, to the Jews (approximately 56 percent to 43 percent). The Arabs, naturally, rejected the proposal.

You have a fascinating way of making your argument, Y. You start off by assuming a fact-not-in-evidence: that Palestine was "owned" by the Arab Palestinians. That's simply not true, however much you may need to assume it. They didn't own it at all. If anyone did, the UN (as successor to the League of Nations) owned it and could dispose of it as it saw fit. Without that assumption, your claim that the UNGA took the land away from the Arabs is less than worthless; it's fantasy.

Similarly, you ignore the Jews' right to self-determination in the part of Palestine where they were in the majority. Instead, you direct everyone's eyes to all of Palestine (leaving off, of course, the 80% that was earlier partitioned to the Hashemites). The UNGA didn't 'give' all of Palestine to the Jews, just the half (of the remaining 20%) where their exercise of self-determination would have impact. The other half was allocated to the Palestinian Arabs, who ignored the offer in favor of trying to deny the Jews a life in the other half.

I could, of course, bring you similarly to task about your "best land" statement, but that would be overkill; I'll save it for later. Just keep in mind that your implied argument of the unfairness of 'giving' the Jews 'half' when they were only one-third of the total population depends not only on including the Negev Desert on the Jewish side of the line but on your purposely ignoring the fact that everyone knew that the Jewish side was about to receive hundreds of thousands more Jewish refugees who were then rotting in the DP camps or being thrown out of their homes in the Arab countries.

David Segal

UserName

11-03-2007, 12:40 PM

Smurf-Herder

11-03-2007, 02:37 PM

Bill

11-03-2007, 04:23 PM

It's despicable!

boo hoo, boo hoo.

It's classic strategy.

Sure, you'd rather they fired from out in the open where they can be easily killed.

Why don't you go over there and tell them how to do it right.

Bill

11-03-2007, 04:24 PM

They have to agree to stop attacking Israel, before anything can be settled; and actually mean it.

And if they did that I'll bet you'd be on the phone the next day telling your congressperson to support palestine.

not.

Smurf-Herder

11-03-2007, 04:56 PM

And if they did that I'll bet you'd be on the phone the next day telling your congressperson to support palestine.

not.

I fully support an Independent Palestinian State, Bill. As long as it's not used for a springboard to attack Israel more efficiently.

Gaza sure didn't prove their credibility, by attacking Israel with rockets as soon as Israel withdrew.

Smurf-Herder

11-03-2007, 04:57 PM

boo hoo, boo hoo.

It's classic strategy.

Sure, you'd rather they fired from out in the open where they can be easily killed.

Why don't you go over there and tell them how to do it right.

So now you're saying you support terrorism, Bill?

BTW, firing from a civilian populated are, in order to draw return fire on civilians is considered a War Crime. And the force responding to such initial fire is within their right to respond; according to the Geneva Convention treaties. With the intial party being held accountable for all ensuing civilian fatalities.

David Lyle Segal

11-03-2007, 05:14 PM

Your argument has merit David, except for the fact that Jews continue to steal land from the Palestinians, and continue their genocide of the original inhabitants of Palestine.

The vulgar part of this theft is that Israel attempts to legitimize their offensive behavior...

Israel's law is clear about taking over land; your problem is in your definition of what is, and is not, "Palestinian land". You not only confuse national-territory with private ownership, but lump all government land with Palestinian (undifferentiated between government or private). If what you're doing is assuming that all undeeded, government land, belongs to the Palestinian state-to-come, you know more than anyone else in the world, since that country's border with Israel hasn't yet been agreed. If instead you're talking about private land ownership, you are merely guilty of gross deception. This is graphically shown in your first map. The white parts were certainly Jewish-owned, but the green parts weren't owned by Arabs. Over 80% of all land in Mandatory Palestine was government land, and in some regions the percentage was much higher. For example, about 1% of the land around Beersheva (the southernmost white dot) was Jewish owned; all of the rest was government-owned. All the way south to Eilat. None of it was Arab-owned.

Of course, Israel didn't claim any Arab-owned land outside the UN Partition Plan's lines when independence was declared on May 15, 1948, so the inquiry should start with a comparison of Arab and Jewish private ownership within those lines. Within those lines, private Jewish ownership was approximately equal to, or greater than, private Arab ownership. Moreover, about a third of the Arabs living inside the lines in 1947 stayed there (or returned shortly) after the war ended in 1948. They aren't citizens of the Palestinian state and show no interest in trading in their Israeli citizenship. Their ownership hasn't been lost at all.

Further, the 1948 armistice lines, which enlarged Israel's footprint somewhat, didn't result in the transfer of private ownership. Instead, in both UN and Green Line terms, national authority over land was administered by the state. You may not realize it, but the state still owns almost all of the land; very little is owned in private freehold.

Finally, for those lands owned by Arab refugees whom Israel has refused to repatriate, there has been a compensation law in effect since 1953. Land Acquisition (Validation of Acts and Compensation) Law, 5713-1953.

Perhaps you should have read the Haaretz article more closely. Your own citation only proves the argument that Israeli law doesn't permit theft from Palestinian freeholders of their privately owned land. Whatever local corruption may have been, it was stopped upon petition:

The High Court did not hesitate to halt the construction in Matityahu East until the planning procedures and inquiry into the ownership issue could be completed. If the government does not quash the planning council's decision to allow construction to continue, the High Court will have no choice but to respond to the recent petition. It will have to abrogate that decision, to protect both the rule of law and the rights of those victimized by its breach.

Of course, we wouldn't be having any of this conversation if the Arabs had won in 1948 or 1967. Jordan had no hesitation to seize all Jewish-owned land (e.g., Gush Etzion and the Old City of Jerusalem) after driving out those Jews who survived the massacres. Take, for instance, the community of Kfar Darom, which was built in Gaza in the 1930s by Jews who purchased the land. The community was driven out by the Egyptians in 1948. After the 1967 war, some returned to re-build. They were evacuated again in 2005 and the land was taken over by the Palestinian Authority. Are you equally as concerned about the Jewish landowners' rights to recover their land in Gaza as you are about the Palestinian Arabs'?

David Segal

Bill

11-03-2007, 05:27 PM

I fully support an Independent Palestinian State, Bill. As long as it's not used for a springboard to attack Israel more efficiently.

With your support, and a dinar, I'll bet the palestinians could buy a nice cup of coffee.

And that's about all that your support is worth to them.

Talk is cheap.

Bill

11-03-2007, 05:33 PM

So now you're saying you support terrorism, Bill?

BTW, firing from a civilian populated are, in order to draw return fire on civilians is considered a War Crime.

Kiss my hairy ass. Your rhetoric is pathetic. Cheap theatrics from a cheap mind.

If it was your country that had been taken from you, you'd be firing from schoolyards too, and to claim you wouldn't is the claim of a man without balls.

Asymmetrical tactics are always considered war crimes by the powers with the bigger guns.

Which doesn't keep those same powers from committing war crimes themselves, whenever it suits them.

Kill the palestinians if you want, I don't give a shit about palestinians, but don't whine like a little girl about war crimes.

Smurf-Herder

11-03-2007, 06:26 PM

Kiss my hairy ass. Your rhetoric is pathetic. Cheap theatrics from a cheap mind.

If it was your country that had been taken from you, you'd be firing from schoolyards too, and to claim you wouldn't is the claim of a man without balls.

Asymmetrical tactics are always considered war crimes by the powers with the bigger guns.

Which doesn't keep those same powers from committing war crimes themselves, whenever it suits them.

Kill the palestinians if you want, I don't give a shit about palestinians, but don't whine like a little girl about war crimes.

You don't give a shit about Palestiniains?

Then WTF are you even arguing about? You're starting to sound like Disrupter.

Well hey, I do give a shit about the Palestinians; and how their own leaders and other countries are using them to advance their political agendas.

radioguy

11-03-2007, 06:37 PM

boo hoo, boo hoo.

It's classic strategy.

So, if I understand you correctly Bill, you believe using school children as human shields to launch attacks on innocent civilians is a "Classic strategy", and you see nothing wrong with that? Intentionally putting women and children in the path of enemy fire as a tool for propaganda is also a "Classic Strategy" in your book too? Yet Bill, because our government has used waterboarding on 3 al qaida members, we are in your words turning into a "military torture state".

I think I've got it now... As far as your concerned Bill, anything a terrorist organization does, no matter how violent and barbaric it may be, you see it as classic war strategy and acceptable, but the US waterboarding 3 terrorist scum bags makes us a nation of war criminals.

Sure, you'd rather they fired from out in the open where they can be easily killed.

The point is Bill, they shouldn't be firing at civilian Israeli neighborhoods in the first place. You and others on the left claim they are fighting for their "stolen land", and that sir is a complete load of horse shit. All they have ever needed to do during the last 25 years, to not only get their land back, but to have their own state, was to stop the deadly attacks against the Israeli people. As we have all witnessed, killing Jews is far more important to them, than living in peace, having their own land, and even more important than the welfare of their own people.

The fact that you make excuses to justify their reprehensible actions, sure says a lot about the sincerity of your beliefs Bill.

Why don't you go over there and tell them how to do it right.

According to you, they are doing it right.

Yirmeyahu

11-03-2007, 11:35 PM

You have a fascinating way of making your argument, Y. You start off by assuming a fact-not-in-evidence: that Palestine was "owned" by the Arab Palestinians.

I refer to the fact that Arabs were the majority population while Jews were the minority in the region.

If anyone did, the UN (as successor to the League of Nations) owned it and could dispose of it as it saw fit.

That's ridiculous.

Without that assumption, your claim that the UNGA took the land away from the Arabs is less than worthless; it's fantasy.

Yes, that's correct. It is a fantasy, because I never said that. In fact, you just quoted me stating the exact opposite, so I don't know where you got confused.

They have to agree to stop attacking Israel, before anything can be settled; and actually mean it.

Do you place the same demand on Israel?

Anybody remember what happened when Israel withdrew from Gaza last year?

Sure, it was used to appease against international pressure and internal opposition to the ongoing policy of occupation in order to allow further plans to take over more of the West Bank to go forward.

And, of course, Israel has held Gaza in a stranglehold ever since. I think it was just last week they announced that they would allow in only the bare minimum humanitarian goods to keep the population from a humanitarian catastraphe.

Gaza sure didn't prove their credibility, by attacking Israel with rockets as soon as Israel withdrew.

Please source this.

BTW, firing from a civilian populated are, in order to draw return fire on civilians is considered a War Crime.

Yes, it is.

Whether that is what we see occurring in the video is another question. It was shown on Israeli TV, the source most likely being the IDF. What is actually seen in the video is one thing, it's what they claim we see that is in question. Reminds me of Powell's satellite images during his Feb. 5 2003 presentation before the UN Security Council on Iraq.

For instance, we are told this was a school courtyard. Doesn't look like one to me. The building itself could very well be a school. It could also very well be an abandoned building for all I can tell.

Propaganda videos are put out by both sides pretty regularly, and there have been fabrications before. I'm always skeptical of such videos before knowing the facts surrounding the alleged incident in question.

Israel's law is clear about taking over land; your problem is in your definition of what is, and is not, "Palestinian land".

I don't know about that, but Israel's policy about taking over land is most certainly clear. I agree with the international concensus that the occupation and settlement expansion is illegal.

Smurf-Herder

11-04-2007, 12:45 AM

I refer to the fact that Arabs were the majority population while Jews were the minority in the region.

That's ridiculous.

Yes, that's correct. It is a fantasy, because I never said that. In fact, you just quoted me stating the exact opposite, so I don't know where you got confused.

Do you place the same demand on Israel?

Sure, it was used to appease against international pressure and internal opposition to the ongoing policy of occupation in order to allow further plans to take over more of the West Bank to go forward.

And, of course, Israel has held Gaza in a stranglehold ever since. I think it was just last week they announced that they would allow in only the bare minimum humanitarian goods to keep the population from a humanitarian catastraphe.

Please source this.

Yes, it is.

Whether that is what we see occurring in the video is another question. It was shown on Israeli TV, the source most likely being the IDF. What is actually seen in the video is one thing, it's what they claim we see that is in question. Reminds me of Powell's satellite images during his Feb. 5 2003 presentation before the UN Security Council on Iraq.

For instance, we are told this was a school courtyard. Doesn't look like one to me. The building itself could very well be a school. It could also very well be an abandoned building for all I can tell.

Propaganda videos are put out by both sides pretty regularly, and there have been fabrications before. I'm always skeptical of such videos before knowing the facts surrounding the alleged incident in question.

I don't know about that, but Israel's policy about taking over land is most certainly clear. I agree with the international concensus that the occupation and settlement expansion is illegal.

Hey, Yirm. If you're going to respond to someone, please separate your replies. It's bad enough to have to copy & paste quote code to respond to broken up responses as it is. But doubling up on two people is just a plain pain in the ass.

Smurf-Herder

11-04-2007, 12:56 AM

"Originally Posted by Smurf-Herder
They have to agree to stop attacking Israel, before anything can be settled; and actually mean it.

Do you place the same demand on Israel?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Smurf-Herder
Anybody remember what happened when Israel withdrew from Gaza last year?

Sure, it was used to appease against international pressure and internal opposition to the ongoing policy of occupation in order to allow further plans to take over more of the West Bank to go forward.

And, of course, Israel has held Gaza in a stranglehold ever since. I think it was just last week they announced that they would allow in only the bare minimum humanitarian goods to keep the population from a humanitarian catastraphe.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SmurfHerder
Gaza sure didn't prove their credibility, by attacking Israel with rockets as soon as Israel withdrew.

Please source this."

Boy, you are unbelievable, Yirm. You totally avoid dealing with the repeated rocket attacks from Hamas.

Already I find your manner of responding to posts irritating, to say the least. And you definitely have a biased view - will trying to give the impression you don't. I'm getting seriously phoney elitist vibes from you.

Yirmeyahu

11-04-2007, 01:44 AM

Hey, Yirm. If you're going to respond to someone, please separate your replies. It's bad enough to have to copy & paste quote code to respond to broken up responses as it is. But doubling up on two people is just a plain pain in the ass.

My intention is not to inconvenience you. It is more convenient for me to do so and hence I will continue to do so.

I don't post at or for your convenience, but at and for my own.

You totally avoid dealing with the repeated rocket attacks from Hamas.

Smurf-Herder, you claimed that "Gaza" responded to the withdrawal from Gaza "by attacking Israel with rockets". I simply asked for a source for this information.

You may or may not, of course, choose to acquiesce to my request. I'd appreciate it if you would do so, however. Please.

David Lyle Segal

11-04-2007, 06:20 AM

Originally Posted by David Lyle Segal
You have a fascinating way of making your argument, Y. You start off by assuming a fact-not-in-evidence: that Palestine was "owned" by the Arab Palestinians.

Y> I refer to the fact that Arabs were the majority population while Jews were the minority in the region.

Then you're talking about ownership in the national sense. That form doesn't necessarily follow from being in the majority, Y. In the case of Palestine, the land was owned by the Ottoman Empire from the middle 15th Century until WWI. Ownership thereupon transferred to the Allies until the UN disposed of it. In all of this, the Arabs didn't own it at all.

Originally Posted by David Lyle Segal
If anyone did, the UN (as successor to the League of Nations) owned it and could dispose of it as it saw fit.

Y> That's ridiculous.

Thus spake Yerimiyahu, I guess. Got anyone else as an authority? What Arab nation owned Palestine and when?

Originally Posted by David Lyle Segal
Without that assumption, your claim that the UNGA took the land away from the Arabs is less than worthless; it's fantasy.

Y> Yes, that's correct. It is a fantasy, because I never said that. In fact, you just quoted me stating the exact opposite, so I don't know where you got confused.

Ownership is a legal concept; it defines rights with respect a physical thing at a particular point in time. Among those rights are the right to govern, to maintain order despite the use of force by others, to determine who may or may not immigrate, to confer citizenship upon the inhabitants, to regulate the use of the land and to dispose of it. Not one of these rights was taken away from the Arabs by the UNGA, since the Arabs never had it to begin with. If I've missed some rights that the Arabs held, please let me know.

Originally Posted by David Lyle Segal
Israel's law is clear about taking over land; your problem is in your definition of what is, and is not, "Palestinian land".

Y> I don't know about that, but Israel's policy about taking over land is most certainly clear. I agree with the international concensus that the occupation and settlement expansion is illegal.

Now, in your confusion, you're shifting your time frame, Y, as well as your point of reference. You're no longer talking about Arab ownership in 1918 or 1948 or 1967, but today. Between then and now, the rights of the parties have evolved, both by reason of agreements signed and by reason of the evolution of political perspectives. Those changes have generally shifted in the direction of Arab self-determination, but they don't cancel legal rights established in a different temporal setting. They don't have the power to label the establishment of Israel as some sort of 'original sin'. Whatever 'international consensus' you are referring to doesn't have any more legal consequence than they could nullify the deed to your house and turn it over to someone else. To the extent that the 'international consensus' has any effect, it only constrains the future exercise of rights.

At least I hope you're not talking about ownership of Tel Aviv, but of the West Bank. Israel doesn't claim the WB per se, hence she hasn't annexed it to her sovereign territory. Israel's extension of military authority over the entirety will remain until a border is agreed upon; until then, she retains the right to administer it to the extent necessary to assure the security of Israelis. Your 'international consensus', I hope, acknowledges Israel's right to self-defense.

Over the first twenty-five years since the 1967 war, Israel tried to encourage local Arabs to form a government with which to negotiate peace and borders. They refused (most often because to do otherwise would bring them assassination at the hands of the PLO). Beginning at Madrid in 1991, Israel accepted the PLO terror organization as the 'legitimate representative' the Palestinians and in 1993 concluded the Declaration of Principles so that the PLO could take responsibility to form a Palestinian government and negotiate a border. That process is still ongoing and when it's completed, a border will be drawn that can tell you and me just what part is Israel and what part is Arab. Until then, we're both just guessing (you with far more confidence than I would dare).

Israel doesn't occupy the West Bank, since at least part of the WB well may become part of Israel in the negotiations; Israel acknowledges her responsibility to treat the Palestinian Arabs as an occupied people. As to the Jewish communities in the West Bank, the "settlements", Israel has the right to allow the use of state land in the WB to anyone. She doesn't hold the land in some sort of perpetual trust for the benefit of the Palestinian Arabs whenever they come to their senses. Israel doesn't have the right to take private land, as the case you cited clearly demonstrates, at least not unless the taking is justified according to principles of eminent domain, but that doesn't constrain her administration; only a peace treaty can do that.

Israel's rights come with obligations. So long as Israel controls the WB, she also has the obligation to seek to transfer an agreed portion to the Arab state-to-come. The Arabs have (with Israeli help) finally formed the makings of that state, although they do not yet demonstrate the ability to negotiate the 'permanent status' issues with one voice, much less the capacity to make peace. When they do, Israel will have the obligation to negotiate in good faith with a view to a viable Arab state.

David Segal

Yirmeyahu

11-04-2007, 07:05 AM

Then you're talking about ownership in the national sense. That form doesn't necessarily follow from being in the majority, Y. In the case of Palestine, the land was owned by the Ottoman Empire from the middle 15th Century until WWI. Ownership thereupon transferred to the Allies until the UN disposed of it. In all of this, the Arabs didn't own it at all.

The land was controlled by the Ottoman Empire, yes. But Arabs were the majority population. They occupied the land. The Empire collapsed and the British took over control. But the Arabs continued to live there and work the land. The British left and the Jews unilaterally declared the land theirs with extreme prejudice towards the Arab inhabitants of the land.

If anyone did, the UN (as successor to the League of Nations) owned it and could dispose of it as it saw fit.

That's ridiculous.

Thus spake Yerimiyahu, I guess. Got anyone else as an authority? What Arab nation owned Palestine and when?

To say that the UN "owned" Palestine and "could dispose of it as it saw fit" is, frankly, just stupid. I don't know what else to tell you.

Without that assumption, your claim that the UNGA took the land away from the Arabs is less than worthless; it's fantasy.

Yes, that's correct. It is a fantasy, because I never said that. In fact, you just quoted me stating the exact opposite, so I don't know where you got confused.

Ownership is a legal concept; it defines rights with respect a physical thing at a particular point in time. Among those rights are the right to govern, to maintain order despite the use of force by others, to determine who may or may not immigrate, to confer citizenship upon the inhabitants, to regulate the use of the land and to dispose of it. Not one of these rights was taken away from the Arabs by the UNGA, since the Arabs never had it to begin with. If I've missed some rights that the Arabs held, please let me know.

As I said, I never claimed "that the UNGA took the land away from the Arabs". As I will point out a second time, you quoted me stating the exact opposite. So I don't know why you're still trying to argue that with me.

Israel's law is clear about taking over land; your problem is in your definition of what is, and is not, "Palestinian land".

I don't know about that, but Israel's policy about taking over land is most certainly clear. I agree with the international concensus that the occupation and settlement expansion is illegal.

Now, in your confusion, you're shifting your time frame, Y, as well as your point of reference. You're no longer talking about Arab ownership in 1918 or 1948 or 1967, but today.

Of course I was talking about today. I agree with the international concensus that the occupation and settlement expansion is illegal. That has been the international concensus since 1967, with regard to the West Bank and Gaza.

Whatever 'international consensus' you are referring to doesn't have any more legal consequence than they could nullify the deed to your house and turn it over to someone else.

I refer to the international concensus that the occupation and settlement expansion is illegal.

Your 'international consensus', I hope, acknowledges Israel's right to self-defense.

The community of nations most certainly has repeatedly acknowledged Israel's right to self-defense, just as it has been repeatedly pointed out that Israel is in violation of international law.

Israel doesn't occupy the West Bank...

Israel illegally occupies the West Bank and illegally constructs settlements there, in violation of the Geneva Conventions, the UN Charter, and numerous UN Security Council resolutions. That's incontrovertable.

David Lyle Segal

11-04-2007, 08:25 AM

Originally Posted by David
Then you're talking about ownership in the national sense. That form doesn't necessarily follow from being in the majority, Y. In the case of Palestine, the land was owned by the Ottoman Empire from the middle 15th Century until WWI. Ownership thereupon transferred to the Allies until the UN disposed of it. In all of this, the Arabs didn't own it at all.

Y> The land was controlled by the Ottoman Empire, yes. But Arabs were the majority population. They occupied the land. The Empire collapsed and the British took over control. But the Arabs continued to live there and work the land. The British left and the Jews unilaterally declared the land theirs with extreme prejudice towards the Arab inhabitants of the land.

I'm sure that there must be an argument in all this, but you haven't made it yet. The fact that the Arabs were in the majority in 1919 didn't confer on them the right of self-determination. Perhaps it would if WWI were to have been fought today, but in 1919, when the war was actually fought and won, it conferred the rights on the new rulers, the Allies. That's how the world had worked in all previous history and that is how it worked then. I can tell that you find it offensive, but you're not living in the 'then', but in the 'now'. In the 'then', Palestine belonged to the Allies, to do with as they decided.

By way of comparison, are you as willing to give Texas back to Mexico?

Originally Posted by David
DLS> Ownership is a legal concept; it defines rights with respect a physical thing at a particular point in time. Among those rights are the right to govern, to maintain order despite the use of force by others, to determine who may or may not immigrate, to confer citizenship upon the inhabitants, to regulate the use of the land and to dispose of it. Not one of these rights was taken away from the Arabs by the UNGA, since the Arabs never had it to begin with. If I've missed some rights that the Arabs held, please let me know.

Y> As I said, I never claimed "that the UNGA took the land away from the Arabs". As I will point out a second time, you quoted me stating the exact opposite. So I don't know why you're still trying to argue that with me.

What you said in your blog was that the U.N. neither has the authority to take land from one people and give it to another nor has it ever presumed to usurp such authority. I'll agree that the UN didn't take it away from the Arabs, but that only goes to the point that the Arabs didn't own it in the first place. You seem to think it did, based on population. That's not what the Allies thought in 1919 and not what the British Mandatory thought when it turned the question of disposition to the UN in 1947, and theirs was the only controlling opinion at the time. 600,000 Jews had moved to Palestine on the promise of the San Remo resolution that established the Mandate. You are arguing that the resolution had no legal effect at all. So prove it.

Originally Posted by David
Israel's law is clear about taking over land; your problem is in your definition of what is, and is not, "Palestinian land".

Y> I don't know about that, but Israel's policy about taking over land is most certainly clear. I agree with the international concensus that the occupation and settlement expansion is illegal.

DLS> Now, in your confusion, you're shifting your time frame, Y, as well as your point of reference. You're no longer talking about Arab ownership in 1918 or 1948 or 1967, but today.

Y> Of course I was talking about today. I agree with the international concensus that the occupation and settlement expansion is illegal. That has been the international concensus since 1967, with regard to the West Bank and Gaza.

To my knowledge, the international consensus has been the formula set out in UNSC 242, and made mandatory in UNSC 338: negotiation leading to peace. How can you tell Which of the 'settlements' is illegal if you don't know where the border will be?

Originally Posted by David
Whatever 'international consensus' you are referring to doesn't have any more legal consequence than they could nullify the deed to your house and turn it over to someone else.

Y> I refer to the international concensus that the occupation and settlement expansion is illegal.

Big deal. Even accepting your assertion that there is such a consensus, what is its legal effect?

Originally Posted by David
Your 'international consensus', I hope, acknowledges Israel's right to self-defense.

Y> The community of nations most certainly has repeatedly acknowledged Israel's right to self-defense, just as it has been repeatedly pointed out that Israel is in violation of international law.

So now even you acknowledge that Israel's control of the West Bank is legal. I'm glad to see that. It's not the 'whether' question of the control, but the 'how' question of the manner in which Israel exercises her control. On that question, reasonable minds can differ. Take, for example, the fact that the borders aren't agreed. That means that Israel's claim to ownership is no less than that of the future Arab state. Are the Arabs living in the West Bank in illegal occupation?

Originally Posted by David
Israel doesn't occupy the West Bank...

Y> Israel illegally occupies the West Bank and illegally constructs settlements there, in violation of the Geneva Conventions, the UN Charter, and numerous UN Security Council resolutions. That's incontrovertable.

No, that's debatable. You've already acknowledged Israel's right to control what goes on in the West Bank. The question is only whether it is legal for Israel to permit Jewish communities to be built on land that may, or may not, become part of Israel. Your personal revulsion -- even the general revulsion shown by the UN -- are not enough to answer the question of where the border will be. And, as you've already said, the UN doesn't have the right to draw the border.

David Segal

Yirmeyahu

11-04-2007, 10:30 AM

The fact that the Arabs were in the majority in 1919 didn't confer on them the right of self-determination.

The right to self-determination is inherent, a right of the Palestinian people which Israel refuses to recognize.

In the 'then', Palestine belonged to the Allies, to do with as they decided.

The British controlled Palestine, but that by no means made Palestine British land.

The fact that nations and empires conquer territory and prejudice the rights of those territories' inhabitants does not negate the fact that all human beings have the right to self-determination.

The only question is whether we recognize and respect others' rights or do we reject and disregard them.

By way of comparison, are you as willing to give Texas back to Mexico?

I fail to see the parallel you're trying to draw.

What you said in your blog was that the U.N. neither has the authority to take land from one people and give it to another nor has it ever presumed to usurp such authority. I'll agree that the UN didn't take it away from the Arabs, but that only goes to the point that the Arabs didn't own it in the first place. You seem to think it did, based on population.

Look, it's real simple. The land was not a vacuum. People lived there and worked there and raised families within that land. The land was inhabited, and the fact of the matter just so happens to be that the majority of the lands' inhabitants were Arabs. Jews were a vast minority.

You keep saying Arabs didn't "own" the land. I would observe that Jews didn't "own" the land. You apparently think there was no injustice in denying the inhabitants of Palestine the right to self-determination, and best I can tell you seem to think Israel had some sort of "right" to unilaterally declare itself a state with extreme prejudice to the majority population.

You are arguing that the resolution had no legal effect at all. So prove it.

Only Security Council resolutions are legally binding. The General Assembly resolution was a recommendation only, to be accepted or rejected by the relevant parties, in this case the inhabitants of Palestine.

As I wrote in the article you referred to:

Besides our moral principles, we must also support Israel because "Israel is a legally sanctioned state, created by the United Nations in 1948." This, simply stated, is a fabrication—though an often enough repeated one that blame for its propagation cannot be placed with Cohen. The United Nations did not create the state of Israel in 1948. The U.N. neither has the authority to take land from one people and give it to another nor has it ever presumed to usurp such authority. On November 29, 1947, the U.N. General Assembly adopted a non-binding resolution (only U.N. Security Council resolutions are legally binding) recommending the partition of Palestine, subsequent to the end of the British "mandate", into Arab and Jewish states.[16] Though Jews were a minority of the population of Palestine (608,000 Jews to 1,269,000 Arabs at the end of 1946), the plan apportioned a majority of Palestine, including most of the best land, to the Jews (approximately 56 percent to 43 percent). The Arabs, naturally, rejected the proposal. When the British withdrew from Palestine on May 15, 1948, the Zionist leaders under David Ben-Gurion unilaterally proclaimed the existence of the State of Israel.[17]

To my knowledge, the international consensus has been the formula set out in UNSC 242, and made mandatory in UNSC 338: negotiation leading to peace. How can you tell Which of the 'settlements' is illegal if you don't know where the border will be?

Correct, the international consensus is very much reflected in 242 and subsequent resolutions. 242 notes the inadmissability of the acquisition of territory by war and calls upon Israel to withdrawal from the territories it occupied during the war.

The occupation is illegal. The settlements are illegal.

Big deal. Even accepting your assertion that there is such a consensus, what is its legal effect?

There is very much an international consensus on the issue. I don't understand your question "what is its legal effect". The "legal effect", as expressed in 242 and subsequent resolutions is that the occupation and settlement activity are illegal, a violation of the UN Charter and the Geneva Conventions.

Your 'international consensus', I hope, acknowledges Israel's right to self-defense.

The community of nations most certainly has repeatedly acknowledged Israel's right to self-defense, just as it has been repeatedly pointed out that Israel is in violation of international law.

So now even you acknowledge that Israel's control of the West Bank is legal.

I'm not sure how you got that out of what I said. Perhaps I'm not being clear: the Israeli occupation of the West Bank is illegal and all settlement activity within the West Bank is illegal. I'm not sure what part of that you don't understand.

Are the Arabs living in the West Bank in illegal occupation?

What kind of stupid question is that?

No, that's debatable.

No, the fact that the occupation is illegal, as is all settlement activity within the occupied territories is incontrovertable.

You've already acknowledged Israel's right to control what goes on in the West Bank.

I'd love for you to explain how you arrived at that conclusion based on anything I've said.

I don't know what part of "the occupation is illegal" you don't understand, but I've stated that repeatedly. Ergo, Israel has no right to "control what goes on the West Bank". Israel's control over the West Bank is in violation of international law.

Your personal revulsion -- even the general revulsion shown by the UN -- are not enough to answer the question of where the border will be. And, as you've already said, the UN doesn't have the right to draw the border.

That's correct, the UN does not have the right to draw the border. That's for the Jews and Palestinians to decide.

Until that occurs, Israel may do nothing to prejudice any future agreement on where that border might be, such as it is doing with its illegal occupation, illegal settlement activity, illegal construction of an annexation wall, illegal destruction of Palestinian property, etc., etc.

Smurf-Herder

11-04-2007, 11:50 AM

My intention is not to inconvenience you. It is more convenient for me to do so and hence I will continue to do so.

I don't post at or for your convenience, but at and for my own.

Smurf-Herder, you claimed that "Gaza" responded to the withdrawal from Gaza "by attacking Israel with rockets". I simply asked for a source for this information.

You may or may not, of course, choose to acquiesce to my request. I'd appreciate it if you would do so, however. Please.

This is ridiculous. I've got to waste my time to search back a year to find specific stories about something that was widely publicized at the time. I can tell, you are going to be a serious pain in the ass - and one who likes to rewrite history, because you know it's a pain in the ass to dig through hundreds of search results on old stories. Very calculating.

I'm hoping I don't have to waste all afternoon, just to prove this simple, well-known point. So I'm using something in a 2006 story from CNN.

Troops, militants battle in northern Gaza
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/07/05/israel.soldier/index.html

"In the months since the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza last summer, Palestinian militants have fired hundreds of rockets at the Jewish state."

And considering I have to do this, you either aren't informed enough to have a valid opinion, or you purposely hide facts like this to bolster your opinion; showing an extremely biased agenda.

David Lyle Segal

11-04-2007, 07:09 PM

Originally Posted by David
The fact that the Arabs were in the majority in 1919 didn't confer on them the right of self-determination.

Y> The right to self-determination is inherent, a right of the Palestinian people which Israel refuses to recognize.

1. You deny that the Jews had the right to self-determination.

2. You might be surprised to learn how recent is this 'inherent' right. Quite frankly, it had no international recognition before 1919, and only then slowly gained traction.

3. Israel supports the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination. She's been after that ever since at least 1939, when the Peel Commission recommended a two-state solution. She urged it in 1947. She tried to convince Kings Abdullah and Hussein of the idea between 1948 and 1967. She sought Palestinian leaders to exercise it between 1967 and 1993. And she agreed to it with the PLO at Oslo. She won't take it to your extreme, however, by permitting Palestinian independence to create an armed neighbor intent on Israel's destruction. That's not opposition to self-determination, but simple self-defense, Y.

Originally Posted by David
In the 'then', Palestine belonged to the Allies, to do with as they decided.

Y> The British controlled Palestine, but that by no means made Palestine British land. The fact that nations and empires conquer territory and prejudice the rights of those territories' inhabitants does not negate the fact that all human beings have the right to self-determination. The only question is whether we recognize and respect others' rights or do we reject and disregard them.

You've completely lost your attachment to the timeframe in which the recogition of a right to self-determination evolved, Y. Just look at the territory-swapping that went on after WWI. Palestine wasn't alone in this; Poland, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, Ruthenia (do you remember Ruthenia?), Istria, and Transylvania were all re-assigned to other countries from those to which they were attached before the war. That couldn't have taken place had self-determination (which was, after all, first voiced by President Wilson in his 14 Points) had the traction then that you give it today. I never said or implied that Palestine was "British land"; quite the contrary, the Mandate system devised by the Allies was considered to be a giant step towards enlightened action of the victors after a great war. It just wasn't what you seem to think it was back then.

Originally Posted by David
By way of comparison, are you as willing to give Texas back to Mexico?

Y> I fail to see the parallel you're trying to draw.

Don't brag about it, Y. The parallel is that in 1848 Texas belonged to Mexico. After a number of US citizens moved there, they agitated for independence, and the US came in and took it from Mexico for them. And then annexed it via the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. Your sense of self-determination would logically reverse that imperialist act by the US and require Texas to be returned to Mexico, from which it was unquestionably stolen.

Originally Posted by David
What you said in your blog was that the U.N. neither has the authority to take land from one people and give it to another nor has it ever presumed to usurp such authority. I'll agree that the UN didn't take it away from the Arabs, but that only goes to the point that the Arabs didn't own it in the first place. You seem to think it did, based on population.

Y> Look, it's real simple. The land was not a vacuum. People lived there and worked there and raised families within that land. The land was inhabited, and the fact of the matter just so happens to be that the majority of the lands' inhabitants were Arabs. Jews were a vast minority.

You keep saying Arabs didn't "own" the land. I would observe that Jews didn't "own" the land. You apparently think there was no injustice in denying the inhabitants of Palestine the right to self-determination, and best I can tell you seem to think Israel had some sort of "right" to unilaterally declare itself a state with extreme prejudice to the majority population.

The Zionist Organization declared itself a state only in that part of Palestine in which they were a majority. They didn't claim all of Palestine, just their part. They exercised the self-determination that you are so keen to uphold. What it seems to me, Y, is that you think that the immigration of the Jews during the British Mandate is what was illegal, not their exercise of self-determination. If so, please make your point; if not, then explain how you can stand such a contradiction.

Originally Posted by David
You are arguing that the resolution had no legal effect at all. So prove it.

Y> Only Security Council resolutions are legally binding. The General Assembly resolution was a recommendation only, to be accepted or rejected by the relevant parties, in this case the inhabitants of Palestine.

1. Only SC resolutions adopted under Chapter 7 (you can tell, since the wording will include the word, "Decides") are legally binding. The others are not.

2. Israel doesn't owe her existence to the UNGA resolution. She owes it to the Jews who withstood the onslaught of the Arabs who fought to throw them into the sea. Israel owes her international recognition in part to her admission as a de jure state and member of the UN.

Originally posted by Y:
As I wrote in the article you referred to:
Besides our moral principles, we must also support Israel because "Israel is a legally sanctioned state, created by the United Nations in 1948." This, simply stated, is a fabrication—though an often enough repeated one that blame for its propagation cannot be placed with Cohen. The United Nations did not create the state of Israel in 1948. The U.N. neither has the authority to take land from one people and give it to another nor has it ever presumed to usurp such authority. On November 29, 1947, the U.N. General Assembly adopted a non-binding resolution (only U.N. Security Council resolutions are legally binding) recommending the partition of Palestine, subsequent to the end of the British "mandate", into Arab and Jewish states.[16] Though Jews were a minority of the population of Palestine (608,000 Jews to 1,269,000 Arabs at the end of 1946), the plan apportioned a majority of Palestine, including most of the best land, to the Jews (approximately 56 percent to 43 percent). The Arabs, naturally, rejected the proposal. When the British withdrew from Palestine on May 15, 1948, the Zionist leaders under David Ben-Gurion unilaterally proclaimed the existence of the State of Israel.

In which you imply that Israel's existence is somehow immoral, if not entirely illegal. You're wrong. Israel's existence is the product of her people's will to survive. She doesn't need your approval. Her self-determination was legal. Her resistance to the Arab wars of annihilation was legal.

Originally Posted by David
To my knowledge, the international consensus has been the formula set out in UNSC 242, and made mandatory in UNSC 338: negotiation leading to peace. How can you tell Which of the 'settlements' is illegal if you don't know where the border will be?

Y> Correct, the international consensus is very much reflected in 242 and subsequent resolutions. 242 notes the inadmissability of the acquisition of territory by war and calls upon Israel to withdrawal from the territories it occupied during the war.

Have you actually read 242 to its end? It doesn't sound like you have.

Originally posted by Y:
The occupation is illegal. The settlements are illegal.

Nonsense. Stop demanding of Israel and start working on the Palestinians to negotiate a legitimate peace. Israel may have been born at night, Y, but not last night.

David Segal

David Lyle Segal

11-04-2007, 07:32 PM

Originally Posted by David
Big deal. Even accepting your assertion that there is such a consensus, what is its legal effect?

Y> There is very much an international consensus on the issue. I don't understand your question "what is its legal effect". The "legal effect", as expressed in 242 and subsequent resolutions is that the occupation and settlement activity are illegal, a violation of the UN Charter and the Geneva Conventions.

Where does 242 say any such thing? Perhaps you're due for a close examination of the resolution.

Originally Posted by David
Your 'international consensus', I hope, acknowledges Israel's right to self-defense.

Y> The community of nations most certainly has repeatedly acknowledged Israel's right to self-defense, just as it has been repeatedly pointed out that Israel is in violation of international law.

DLS> So now even you acknowledge that Israel's control of the West Bank is legal.

Y> I'm not sure how you got that out of what I said. Perhaps I'm not being clear: the Israeli occupation of the West Bank is illegal and all settlement activity within the West Bank is illegal. I'm not sure what part of that you don't understand.

Israel's right of self-defense isn't a slogan on a wall, Y, but a reality in which real people's lives are at stake. Israel drove Jordan out of Jerusalem and the West Bank after Jordan attacked her in 1967. Had Israel withdrawn immediately afterward, Jordan would have re-filled the vacuum. Israel's staying in possession of the West Bank was a necessary part of her self-defense and, according to 242, legal. Israel need not withdraw from any part of the WB unless and until there is a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians.
Further, Israel is under no obligation to withdraw from all of the West Bank, since the WB is, as defined by the people who drew the Green Line, NOT a political border, but merely the line across which the parties' forces (Israel and Transjordan) "shall not pass." Look it up if you don't believe me. It's repeated in at least two sections of the armistice agreement. The agreement goes on to say that a border can only be drawn by future political negotiations, negotiations which, as you and the international community well know, have not yet taken place, due to Arab intransigence.

If you are now arguing that Israel's continued control of the WB is illegal, when did it become so?

Originally Posted by David
Are the Arabs living in the West Bank in illegal occupation?

Y> What kind of stupid question is that?

If the border is not yet agreed, then those Palestinians could well be living on Israeli land, Y. Or are Palestinians, in your opinion, somehow more equal than others?

Originally Posted by David
No, that's debatable.

Y> No, the fact that the occupation is illegal, as is all settlement activity within the occupied territories is incontrovertable.

Ah, the imperial dictum. BS, Y. Israel's occupation began legally. It legally continues until it is terminated by a negotiated settlement. The settlements that wind up on Israeli land are legal. The legal status of those that wind up on Palestinian national land will be defined in the negotiations. I don't wince at the prospect of disagreeing with your so-called 'international consensus'. The most weight that its thoughts carry is, perhaps, persuasive; it is definitely not dispositve.

Originally Posted by David
You've already acknowledged Israel's right to control what goes on in the West Bank.

Y> I'd love for you to explain how you arrived at that conclusion based on anything I've said.

When you acknowledged Israel's right to self-defense. Or did you mean self-defense from behind some line that you choose to impose?

Y: I don't know what part of "the occupation is illegal" you don't understand, but I've stated that repeatedly. Ergo, Israel has no right to "control what goes on the West Bank". Israel's control over the West Bank is in violation of international law.

Really? When did that occur? So far as I know, 242 doesn't say any such thing; instead, it recognizes that the Green Line (which it brokered between Israel and Transjordan, after all) says what it says: the border can only be determined by negotiations to that end. That leaves all of Palestine, east and west of the Green Line, up for grabs, Y. You seem to think that the Green Line means more than its drafters intended, despite the care they took to making sure you made no such mistake.

Originally Posted by David
Your personal revulsion -- even the general revulsion shown by the UN -- are not enough to answer the question of where the border will be. And, as you've already said, the UN doesn't have the right to draw the border.

Y> That's correct, the UN does not have the right to draw the border. That's for the Jews and Palestinians to decide. Until that occurs, Israel may do nothing to prejudice any future agreement on where that border might be, such as it is doing with its illegal occupation, illegal settlement activity, illegal construction of an annexation wall, illegal destruction of Palestinian property, etc., etc.

BS. The longer the Palestinians wait to negotiate the border, the less their chances of gaining all that they legitimately desire. According to the latest official statement by the Palestinians' prime minister, ALL of Mandatory Palestine is Arab land. Israel, at least, acknowledges that the Palestinians are entitled to a share. Perhaps you would do better to talk to Mr Haniyeh.

David Segal

Yirmeyahu

11-05-2007, 12:44 AM

Smurf-Herder, you claimed that "Gaza" responded to the withdrawal from Gaza "by attacking Israel with rockets". I simply asked for a source for this information.

You may or may not, of course, choose to acquiesce to my request. I'd appreciate it if you would do so, however. Please.

This is ridiculous. I've got to waste my time to search back a year to find specific stories about something that was widely publicized at the time.

As you wish. It's a reasonable request, yours to acquiesce to or not. Just be aware that I don't take your word for it.

I'm hoping I don't have to waste all afternoon, just to prove this simple, well-known point. So I'm using something in a 2006 story from CNN.

Troops, militants battle in northern Gaza
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/...ier/index.html

"In the months since the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza last summer, Palestinian militants have fired hundreds of rockets at the Jewish state."

And considering I have to do this, you either aren't informed enough to have a valid opinion, or you purposely hide facts like this to bolster your opinion; showing an extremely biased agenda.

You've misunderstood. What I'm questioning is your implication that rockets have been fired at Israel in response to the withdrawal from Gaza, as a reaction to that withdrawal.

The CNN article is not relevant to this line of inquiry.

Yirmeyahu

11-05-2007, 12:46 AM

1. You deny that the Jews had the right to self-determination.

That is absolutely incorrect. I've not said anything even remotely implying any such thing.

You like to repeatedly attempt to put words in my mouth and create strawmen, and, frankly, I don't have time for it.

Anyone is welcome to go back and read what I've actually said. I'm not going to discuss it with someone who refuses to be honest about it.

David Lyle Segal

11-05-2007, 05:18 AM

Originally Posted by David Lyle Segal
1. You deny that the Jews had the right to self-determination.

Y> That is absolutely incorrect. I've not said anything even remotely implying any such thing.

Doesn't Message #30:
Y> The land was controlled by the Ottoman Empire, yes. But Arabs were the majority population. They occupied the land. The Empire collapsed and the British took over control. But the Arabs continued to live there and work the land. The British left and the Jews unilaterally declared the land theirs with extreme prejudice towards the Arab inhabitants of the land.
(including its over-broad territorial reference) imply precisely that? Or were you suggesting that the Jews take their declaration of indendence somewhere else?

David Segal

Yirmeyahu

11-05-2007, 06:28 AM

No, nothing about that statement implies that in the least.

Yirmeyahu

11-05-2007, 07:47 AM

Israel supports the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination.

Not according to the facts on the ground. The ongoing occupation and settlement activity are attestation to the fact that Israel rejects the right to self-determination of the Palestinian people.

Your sense of self-determination would logically reverse that imperialist act by the US and require Texas to be returned to Mexico, from which it was unquestionably stolen.

That was long ago enough now that the current inhabitants do indeed now exercise their right to self-determination (at least so far as the US lives up to the democratic ideal).

We're talking here about a people whose rights are being violated RIGHT NOW. No, we can't go back in time and undo the injustice of Polk's war. But there is injustice happening today that we can do very much about. So the analogy has no parallel.

The Zionist Organization declared itself a state only in that part of Palestine in which they were a majority.

Incorrect.

Jewish villages were built in the place of Arab villages. You do not even know the names of these Arab villages, and I don't blame you because geography books no longer exist, not only do the boooks not exist, the Arab villages are not there either. Nahlal arose in the place of Mahlul; Kibbutz Gvat in the place of Jibta; Kibbutz Sarid in the place of Huneifis; and Kefar Yehushu'a in the place of Tal al-Shuman. There is not one single place built in this country that did not have a former Arab population -- Moshe Dayan

1. Only SC resolutions adopted under Chapter 7 (you can tell, since the wording will include the word, "Decides") are legally binding. The others are not.

Incorrect. Article 25 says, "The Members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council in accordance with the present Charter."

But whatever. General Assembly resolutions are not legally binding. The one in question was a recommendation, to be accepted or rejected by the relevant parties

2. Israel doesn't owe her existence to the UNGA resolution.

Yes. That's why I said, "The United Nations did not create the state of Israel in 1948."

In which you imply that Israel's existence is somehow immoral, if not entirely illegal.

That's like saying I think the United States of America's existence is immoral, if not illegal.

Israel was founded with an act of grave injustice.

Have you actually read 242 to its end?

Of course, many times.

The occupation is illegal. The settlements are illegal.Nonsense.

I don't know what to tell you. The occupation is illegal. The settlements are illegal. That's not controversial. It's an incontrovertable fact.

Where does 242 say any such thing?

242 very clearly expresses the inadmissability of the acquisition of territory through war and hence calls upon Israel to withdraw from the territories occupied during the war.

The Geneva Conventions very clearly forbid such activities as Israel's settlements.

Israel is a party both to the UN Charter and the Geneva Conventions.

Hence, the occupation and settlement activity are illegal.

Israel's right of self-defense isn't a slogan on a wall, Y, but a reality in which real people's lives are at stake.

Certainly. I'm not arguing that with you. I'm simply observing that the rights of Palestinians are equal and equally real.

Are the Arabs living in the West Bank in illegal occupation?

What kind of stupid question is that?

If the border is not yet agreed, then those Palestinians could well be living on Israeli land, Y.

242 very clearly states that Israel must withdrawal from the territories occupied during the war. We're talking about the Green Line. The occupation is illegl and it's illegal for Israel to do anything to prejudice the outcome of any future negotiations over final border settlements. Israeli withdrawal from illegally occupied territories is a prerequisite.

Israel's occupation began legally.

That's utter nonsense.

242 emphasizes the "inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war."

It also emphasizes that "all Member States in their acceptance of the Charter of the United Nations have undertaken a commitment to act in accordance with Article 2 of the Charter".

Article 2 of the Charter states that "All Members, in order to ensure to all of them the rights and benefits resulting from membership, shall fulfill in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the present Charter".

Article 2 also states that "All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations."

242 hence calls for the "Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict".

242 also calls for the "Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorieal integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force".

The occupation and and all settlement activity are illegal. That's not controversial, it's the international consensus on the matter, as reflected in 242 and numerous other resolutions.

UserName

11-05-2007, 11:28 AM

Don't you just love the way the thieving Israelis attempt to justify their theft of Palestinian land? Thievery and murder in pursuit of promoting the financial and other interests of the superior Jewish race can't be bad, can it? No, certainly not! Just serving God, right?:lmao2:

luciano

11-05-2007, 12:57 PM

LadyMod at scam.com

11-05-2007, 01:20 PM

yawn. Where is Grimmy????????:hi:

He's the Hippie known as Radio Guy.

Lady Mod

luciano

11-05-2007, 01:24 PM

He's the Hippie known as Radio Guy.

Lady Mod

Ohhhhhhhhh!!! I see!!

Hey LM how come I couldnt get on scam for months?

LadyMod at scam.com

11-05-2007, 02:29 PM

Ohhhhhhhhh!!! I see!!

Hey LM how come I couldnt get on scam for months?

It was attacked, I guess.

Now it's just FUBARed. LOL.

Lady Mod

luciano

11-05-2007, 03:19 PM

It was attacked, I guess.

Now it's just FUBARed. LOL.

Lady Mod

Oh hope that earthquake guy wasnt a computer genius;)

radioguy

11-05-2007, 06:47 PM

yawn. Where is Grimmy????????:hi:

I'm here luciano... I just stated my peace on this topic, and am not going to go round in circles with the terrorist supporting Jew haters like UserName. They will always support the Palestinians killing innocent woman and children, so why bother? Once a terrorist supporter, always a terrorist supporter.

UserName

11-05-2007, 11:50 PM

I'm here luciano... I just stated my peace on this topic, and am not going to go round in circles with the terrorist supporting Jew haters like UserName. They will always support the Palestinians killing innocent woman and children, so why bother? Once a terrorist supporter, always a terrorist supporter.

Don't be so melodramatic, rg, it makes you look foolish. If you have proof that more innocent Israeli women and children have died than innocent Palestinian women and children, then please show us or lose all credibility. If you have proof that I support terrorists, then please provide validation or be forever labeled a fraud. And if you have substantiation for your idiotic assertion that I hate Jews, then please have the common decency to prove you assertion, or forever be branded a lying cocksucker.

The choice is yours.

David Lyle Segal

11-06-2007, 04:55 PM

Message #40:
Originally Posted by David
Israel supports the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination.

Y> Not according to the facts on the ground. The ongoing occupation and settlement activity are attestation to the fact that Israel rejects the right to self-determination of the Palestinian people.

Not at all, Y. They attest to the fact that the Palestinians demonstrate every day that (1) they are not interested in negotiating peace in accordance with 242 and (2) Israel won't wait around indefinitely while they make up their minds. Forty years is more than enough for them to come to their senses and realize that they are not about to obliterate her (Hamas Covenant Preamble: "Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it..."). The longer they wait, their independence is put off that much further and, absent Israeli agreement to the contrary, their country may well be that much smaller.

Originally Posted by David
Your sense of self-determination would logically reverse that imperialist act by the US and require Texas to be returned to Mexico, from which it was unquestionably stolen.

Y> That was long ago enough now that the current inhabitants do indeed now exercise their right to self-determination (at least so far as the US lives up to the democratic ideal).

Just how long ago is long enough for you, Y? The Mexican American War was closer to the time of the San Remo Resolutions than we are today. Even closer, if you wish, was the Spanish-American War, where we took Puerto Rico, Guam and the Phillippines from Spain and god-fathered Cuban independence. Do they have to go back now, according to your analysis?

Y> We're talking here about a people whose rights are being violated RIGHT NOW. No, we can't go back in time and undo the injustice of Polk's war. But there is injustice happening today that we can do very much about. So the analogy has no parallel.

Israel is with you, Y. By all means, let's stop the injustice. The early years of the Oslo Accords showed Israel's wholehearted interest in alleviating the difficulties faced by the Palestinian people. They saw the admission of the PLO to set up an independent government over 95% of all Palestinians in Gaza and the WB, elections, training and arming of Palestinian police, and Israeli investment in the Palestinian economy. Israel, under Y Rabin, even kept it up despite the rise of Hamas and the mounting death toll from terror against Israeli civilians; "sacrifices for peace" is how I remember Rabin answering his critics as Hamas and Islamic Jihad went from stabbings and shootings of single Jews to larger scale bombings:

04/06/94 - eight killed in bombing of Afula bus station
04/13/94 - five killed in bombing of bus in Hadera
10/19/94 - 19 killed in bus bombing in Tel Aviv
01/22/95 - 21 killed in bombing at Beit Lid Junction
04/09/94 - eight killed in bomb at Kfar Darom (Gaza Strip)

All in all, between 9/93 and Rabin's death in 11/95, 111 Jews died at the hands of Hamas & Co.

Then came Rabin's successor, Shimon Peres, the man who, if anything, was far more accommodation-minded than Rabin. And how did Hamas accept his obvious interest in making peace?

02/25/96 - 27 bombed to death in a Jerusalem bus
03/03/96 - 18 more bombed to death in another Jerusalem bus
03/04/96 - 13 more killed the next day in a bus in Tel Aviv

All in all, the interregnum saw 63 Jews murdered in just these eight months, which, as Hamas obviously knew, guaranteed the election of Binyamin Netanyahu in June of that year. Bibi wasn't elected on a platform of appeasing the Palestinians, as you know. The Palestinians got precisely what they wished for: the IDF in their faces so that idiots and clowns -- who somehow don't see Jews being mowed down while they attend synagogue or ride the bus as in any wise unjust -- could boo hoo that Israel was treating them unjustly.

Yet Netanyahu, as strong as his mandate was to secure the lives of the Israelis, nevertheless went through with Israel's Oslo commitments and negotiated the Hebron Protocol and the Wye River Memorandum, which turned more land over to Palestinian police control. It's not as if Hamas backed off to let these go through, of course. They kept up the murder throughout his tenure in office, including 21 more Jews were blown up in Jerusalem on 09/04/97.

Do you see a pattern yet, Y? Do you see, as I do, that the Palestinians, who have since elected Hamas as their leadership, simply don't want peace with Israel? And that they'll kill anyone within their reach whenever the two sides start to look like they're making headway?

David Segal

SirMoby

11-06-2007, 05:16 PM

Jeopardizing the lives of innocent civilians, especially children, by launching attacks from neighborhoods and schools is reprehensible and barbaric. Almost equally reprehensible, is the fact that media outlets like the AP and Reuters not only don't report these facts, but should the Israeli's launch a counterstrike, will gladly print how many "innocent civilians" were killed by "Israeli aggression".

It's despicable!
It is despicable. There's no doubt about it. It's the basic tactic used when a smaller weaker force combats a larger stronger force. It's the reason why the queen ain't on our money.

Also a good reason why cooler heads should try to negotiate and use force as a last resort. I know that wouldn't have won the 2004 election but it would have saved lives.

Yirmeyahu

11-09-2007, 07:04 AM

David Lyle Segal

11-09-2007, 07:44 PM

Originally Posted by David
Israel supports the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination.

Y> Not according to the facts on the ground. The ongoing occupation and settlement activity are attestation to the fact that Israel rejects the right to self-determination of the Palestinian people.

DLS> Not at all, Y.

Y> Actions speak louder than words. The ongoing occupation and settlement activity are attestation to the fact that Israel rejects the right to self-determination of the Palestinian people.

I already answered this, to wit:-

Not at all, Y. They attest to the fact that the Palestinians demonstrate every day that (1) they are not interested in negotiating peace in accordance with 242 and (2) Israel won't wait around indefinitely while they make up their minds. Forty years is more than enough for them to come to their senses and realize that they are not about to obliterate her (Hamas Covenant Preamble: "Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it..."). The longer they wait, their independence is put off that much further and, absent Israeli agreement to the contrary, their country may well be that much smaller.

If you can't respond other than to repeat your unsupported claim, then shame on you. Let's talk facts, Y, not slogans. The fact is that Israel isn't going to sue the Palestinians for peace. The Palestinians have twice tried by all-out war to wipe out Israel. They have continued to attack where and when they could. Israel's control of the West Bank will last only so long as the threat from the Palestinians continues. They have the keys to their own independence, not Israel. Israel is committed to their independence; the Palestinians are, unfortunately, still committed to jihad.

Originally Posted by Yirmeyahu
But there is injustice happening today that we can do very much about.

DLS> Israel is with you, Y.

Y> 2+2=5 WAR IS PEACE FREEDOM IS SLAVERY Etc., etc. Please explain to me how the party responsible for committing the injustice I was referring to be with me in condemning itself and seeking to right the wrongs it is itself responsible for.

I already answered this, too. In detail. Every time Israel has relented in her security vigilance in hopes of making progress towards peace, the Palestinians have instead taken advantage of the lowered guard to kill more Jews. Wake the hell up.

Y> As for your discussion of Palestinian crimes against Israelis, I join you in condemning acts of murder and violence. But if your point was to try to justify Israeli violence against Palestinians, I would simply observe that Israel is responsible for far more Palestinian deaths than vice versa. And that's strictly in terms of body count, disregarding every other aspect of oppression which Israel deals out to the Palestinian people on a daily basis.

1. Of course more Palestinians have died. Israel is better equipped to fight. Israel takes the fight to the Palestinians' areas of concentration. That hardly demonstrates criminality on the part of Israel. Jews don't wake up in the morning thinking of how many Palestinians they can kill today, but I can show you case after case of Palestinians having those thoughts at the start of their day.

2. Are you able to distinguish between Palestinian fighters killed and innocent civilians? I can give you the Israeli body count, broken down between military and civilian. For every Israeli soldier killed, four Israeli civilians have died, in most cases by ambush or by suicide bomb, not in the course of active fighting, as when IDF is attacked while trying to apprehend terrorists. That's an unambiguous indicator that the great weight of criminality is on the Palestinians, not on Israel.

David Segal

Americanadian

11-09-2007, 07:54 PM

They have to agree to stop attacking Israel, before anything can be settled; and actually mean it.

Anybody remember what happened when Israel withdrew from Gaza last year?

There has to be a Palestinian government with the desire and ability to stop attacks on Israel by Islamic Jihad and Hamas, or it's just plain stupid for Israel to give more land back; just to allow closer places to fire rockets from into Israeli cities and towns.

And hopefully the coming peace conference can work this out. Israel wants a Palestinian State under Abbas. As long as he has the power to maintain peace.

Israel seeks deal with Palestinians within a year
http://www.reuters.com/article/featuredCrisis/idUSL02560825

Abbas is a shill, purchased by Israel for their deviant agenda to divide the Palestinian people, thus encouraging a destruction from within. The economic boycott enacted after Hamas was elected during the Palestinian election resulted in millions of aid withheld from the Palestinian people. Ironically, Israel held the funds and they released $100 million of it to Abbas a few months ago. In my opinion, the hope of the Israeli and American government is for Abbas to successfully "buy" the votes of the Palestinian people. However, I'm certain the Palestinian people will reject it because true justice cannot be bought with money. Justice hasn't been forthcoming since the Zionists drove them from their land in 1948.

Smurf-Herder

11-09-2007, 08:04 PM

Abbas is a shill, purchased by Israel for their deviant agenda to divide the Palestinian people, thus encouraging a destruction from within. The economic boycott enacted after Hamas was elected during the Palestinian election resulted in millions of aid withheld from the Palestinian people. Ironically, Israel held the funds and they released $100 million of it to Abbas a few months ago. In my opinion, the hope of the Israeli and American government is for Abbas to successfully "buy" the votes of the Palestinian people. However, I'm certain the Palestinian people will reject it because true justice cannot be bought with money. Justice hasn't been forthcoming since the Zionists drove them from their land in 1948.

So what's the deal then?

War or peace?

All you're doing is giving reasons to justify Palestinian rocket attacks.

Hamas is still considered a terrorist organization. Fatah renounced that after Arafat died. Israel is willing to recognize statehood for the Palestinians, under Fatah - because Fatah hasn't insisted on the destruction of Israel, like Hamas continues to do. If you were Israel, would you allow Hamas to run the country next door to you - a terrorist group running a country, receiving money from Iran? Isn't that kind of foolish, when you have a Fatah government who agrees to live peacefully next to you?

Americanadian

11-09-2007, 08:09 PM

So now you're saying you support terrorism, Bill?

BTW, firing from a civilian populated are, in order to draw return fire on civilians is considered a War Crime. And the force responding to such initial fire is within their right to respond; according to the Geneva Convention treaties. With the intial party being held accountable for all ensuing civilian fatalities.

The conflagration was originally started by Zionist aggression. That's a fact. The land transferred to the Zionists by the UN was fine since it was under British authority at the time. The land that they were not entitled to was the privately owned land held by the Arab owners. 650,000 Arabs were driven from their land in the face of Zionist aggression. Palestine over time continued to shrink as more land was slowly annexed by Israel.

Why would you think they should adhere to International Law, when International Law and the organizations that are a signatory to them have failed to protect the Arabs from Israel since 1948? The UN and the world for that matter, failed to protect the unarmed Palestinian populace from becoming refugees and victims in the face of Zionist terrorism. America continues to side with the original terrorists of the region rather than prevent any further bloodshed of the innocent.

War crimes don't apply to an occupied country with oppressed people trying to fend off a superiorly armed enemy bent on ethnically cleansing the indigenous population for the purpose of acquiring the land they desire. Much the same as the west convincing the Palestinians for a time to resort to "Peaceful Protest". In this way they used their bodies as shields to hopefully prevent the D-9 Cats from destroying their homes. However, they quickly discovered that the IDF D-9's don't refrain from destroying their structures, therefore, "Peaceful Protest" was a sham since it is never recognized by the IDF. Therefore, violence is the only thing the Zionists comprehend. Without Palestinian violence, Israel would have no justifiable pretext to occupy or wage aggression against Palestine. Although, if the Palestinians quit resisting, they would be eradicated quite quickly.

Americanadian

11-09-2007, 08:24 PM

So what's the deal then?

War or peace?

All you're doing is giving reasons to justify Palestinian rocket attacks.

Hamas is still considered a terrorist organization. Fatah renounced that after Arafat died. Israel is willing to recognize statehood for the Palestinians, under Fatah - because Fatah hasn't insisted on the destruction of Israel, like Hamas continues to do. If you were Israel, would you allow Hamas to run the country next door to you - a terrorist group running a country, receiving money from Iran? Isn't that kind of foolish, when you have a Fatah government who agrees to live peacefully next to you?

Ultimately I desire for there to be peace. However, the terms are determined by America and Israel. As long as the foreign policy in America is heavily influenced by Israeli lobbying groups, America will continue to support Israel financially and militarily in addition to their endorsement via the veto at the UN. Israel was founded on terrorism, yet, no justice has been levied upon them. That is why I laugh when America, who endorses Israel's terrorist conduct against an unarmed civilian populace, defines the resistance organizations in a sovereign nation as "terrorist organizations". How absurd and hypocritical.

America and Israel demanded that the Palestinians hold democratic elections and they did so. Since the people elected a group that wasn't Israeli or American friendly, they paid the price. (and continue to pay the price)

Why should anyone recognize Israel considering the history of the region and the fact that no apologies or reparations for the stolen land ? Some of the more prominent leaders of the Zionist terrorist gangs went on to become Prime Ministers of Israel.

Until justice is levied and Israel is restrained from further aggression and illegal acts of occupation and annexation of land, nothing will change. Palestine is an occupied nation and its people are resisting in any form possible to send a message to Israel and America that they refuse to be conquered or kowtow to their rule. That is their right to do so. To date, International Law has been violated by Israel innumerous times. If Israel is supposedly the "Democracy of the Middle East", and they cannot conform to the simple precepts of the Law, why should the Law apply to the Palestinians? Until Israel adheres to the law, it will set an example for the Palestinians to do likewise.

Smurf-Herder

11-09-2007, 08:43 PM

Ultimately I desire for there to be peace. However, the terms are determined by America and Israel. As long as the foreign policy in America is heavily influenced by Israeli lobbying groups, America will continue to support Israel financially and militarily in addition to their endorsement via the veto at the UN. Israel was founded on terrorism, yet, no justice has been levied upon them. That is why I laugh when America, who endorses Israel's terrorist conduct against an unarmed civilian populace, defines the resistance organizations in a sovereign nation as "terrorist organizations". How absurd and hypocritical.

America and Israel demanded that the Palestinians hold democratic elections and they did so. Since the people elected a group that wasn't Israeli or American friendly, they paid the price. (and continue to pay the price)

Why should anyone recognize Israel considering the history of the region and the fact that no apologies or reparations for the stolen land ? Some of the more prominent leaders of the Zionist terrorist gangs went on to become Prime Ministers of Israel.

Until justice is levied and Israel is restrained from further aggression and illegal acts of occupation and annexation of land, nothing will change. Palestine is an occupied nation and its people are resisting in any form possible to send a message to Israel and America that they refuse to be conquered or kowtow to their rule. That is their right to do so. To date, International Law has been violated by Israel innumerous times. If Israel is supposedly the "Democracy of the Middle East", and they cannot conform to the simple precepts of the Law, why should the Law apply to the Palestinians? Until Israel adheres to the law, it will set an example for the Palestinians to do likewise.

As long as they want "Death to Israel" they will remain the way they are. Nothing can be done with people who feel that way; no matter what the reason. You don't get a country by threatening people; unless you have a chance of winning. And they don't. So all they're doing is condemning themselves to perpetual violence.

Americanadian

11-09-2007, 09:06 PM

As long as they want "Death to Israel" they will remain the way they are. Nothing can be done with people who feel that way; no matter what the reason. You don't get a country by threatening people; unless you have a chance of winning. And they don't. So all they're doing is condemning themselves to perpetual violence.

The Zionist movement started the conflagration. Period. Unfortunately, it will take a large military presence to restore order there. And I wager America would never take on such an undertaking since Zionist influence in the US is huge. Therefore, who is left and willing to bring peace and stability to the Middle East? Such a reluctance exhibited by the rest of the world leads me to believe that many are deriving some sort of benefit by maintaining a conflagration in the region. Justification to keep oil prices elevated for maximum profit? A convenient testing ground for the latest technological advances in military weapons? Purportedly, Israel tests new American weapons on the Palestinians whenever a new 'toy' is created. Convenient, n'est pas?

There needs to be a legitimate military force to act as a mediator in Palestine. One that can prevent Israeli aggression and begin to enforce International Law. The apartheid wall can be dismantled according to the ruling by the International Court of Justice, all illegal settlements can be evacuated and the land returned to the Palestinian people. Israel would be made to conform to the pre-1967 borders and also made to declare those lines as their bonafide border.

The Palestinians will be made to understand that the border is what it is and will need to recognize Israel as long as Israel respects Palestinian autonomy. As long as there is an absence of suicide attacks or rocket attacks, eventually, a Palestinian armed forces could be trained (since America is doing so in Iraq) for the purpose of defending itself from future Israeli aggression. Perhaps some military equipment can be donated to Palestine since America donates to Israel such equipment on an annual basis.

If either side attacks the other, and either side disregards the UN Resolution passed to halt the aggression, an outside military force would need to intervene and put a stop to the aggression.

Judging from the history between the two, the mediator force may need to be in place for a few decades in order to maintain peace. Ultimately, I still question why the Zionist movement refused to accept land in Uganda or Canada when it was offered to them in the early 1900's. Someone must have known that settling in Palestine would have riled up the natives.

In politics, things happen for a reason. If it happens you can bet it was planned that way.

Those are my ideas on a possible solution for the conflagration. However, I also believe that Israel will never be held in check nor held responsible for their continued violation of UN Resolutions. America permits this to occur, so therefore, America can never be a part of the military mediator force, unless their foreign policy and relationship with Israel undergoes some changes.

Yirmeyahu

11-09-2007, 10:11 PM

If you can't respond other than to repeat your unsupported claim, then shame on you.

Do you deny that Israel is occupying the West Bank? Do you deny that Israel has an ongoing policy of expanding settlements within the West Bank?

If not, I rest my case. Actions speak louder than words. The ongoing occupation and
settlement activity are attestation to the fact that Israel rejects the right to self-
determination of the Palestinian people.

Let's talk facts, Y, not slogans. The fact is that Israel isn't going to sue the Palestinians for peace. The Palestinians have twice tried by all-out war to wipe out Israel. They have continued to attack where and when they could. Israel's control of the West Bank will last only so long as the threat from the Palestinians continues. They have the keys to their own independence, not Israel. Israel is committed to their independence; the Palestinians are, unfortunately, still committed to jihad.

Israel's existence has never been threatened by the Palestinians (unless we discuss demographics, in which case we see the reason for Israel's racist policy of ethnic cleansing, settlement expansion, and land-grabbing). The existence of any future Palestinian state has long been threatened by Israel. Israel has committed aggression against its neighbors many times, from the initial '48 war in which hundreds of thousands were driven or fled in fear from their homes (never allowed to return, in violation of their rights recognized under international law) to the '67 war that began with a surprise Israeli attack upon Egypt that destroyed Egypt's air force while most its planes were still on the ground to the '81 airstrike against Iraq, the '82 invasion of Lebanon in which hundreds of men, women, and children were brutally slaughtered at the refugee camps of Sabra and Shatila, the '06 invasion of Lebanon, the '07 bombing of Syria, etc., not to mention the countless, constant aggression against the Palestinian people within the occupied territories themselves.

There is no justification for Israel's illegal occupation and illegal settlement activity.

2+2=5 WAR IS PEACE FREEDOM IS SLAVERY Etc., etc. Please explain to me how the party responsible for committing the injustice I was referring to be with me in
condemning itself and seeking to right the wrongs it is itself responsible for.

I already answered this, too. In detail.

No you didn't. It's impossible to do so, being a paradox. It's a nonsensical argument.

Every time Israel has relented in her security vigilance in hopes of making progress towards peace, the Palestinians have instead taken advantage of the lowered guard to kill more Jews. Wake the hell up.

Let's talk about a specific example. I'll let you choose it. Give me an example of a time
Israel "relented" its "security vigilance".

There's a very simple solution to the problem. Israel could comply with international law and withdrawal completely from the illegally occupied territories.

Israel's violation of international law has no justification.

1. Of course more Palestinians have died. Israel is better equipped to fight. Israel takes the fight to the Palestinians' areas of concentration. That hardly demonstrates criminality on the part of Israel.

Of course it doesn't, in your paradigm, which relies upon rejection of international law and internationally accepted human rights standards.

The murder of Palestinians as the result of an ongoing illegal occupation is one of the inherent evils of the greater crime. There is no justification for Israel's crimes. Nor are
her crimes controversial. You may not like the law, you may not agree with it, but
Israel is a criminal regime nonetheless.

2. Are you able to distinguish between Palestinian fighters killed and innocent civilians? I can give you the Israeli body count, broken down between military and civilian. For every Israeli soldier killed, four Israeli civilians have died, in most cases by ambush or by suicide bomb, not in the course of active fighting, as when IDF is attacked while trying to apprehend terrorists. That's an unambiguous indicator that the great weight of criminality is on the Palestinians, not on Israel.

It's intersting how you draw your conclusion before also looking at the ratio of militants
and civilians killed on the Palestinian side.

That's quite instructive, and I hope other readers here take note.

Let's look at some statistics that lead us to another unambiguous conclusion.

Since September 29, 200, 119 Israeli children have been killed by Palestinians, compared to 971 Palestinian children killed by Israelis.

http://www.rememberthesechildren.org/remember2007.html

Since that time, 1,027 Israelis have been killed, compared with 4, 345 Palestinians (not including the numbers of Palestinians who died as a result of not receiving medical care due to Israeli roadblocks, ect.)

http://www.btselem.org/English/Statistics/Casualties.asp

Currently, 1 Israeli is being held prisoner by Palestinians, while 10,756 Palestinans are
imprisoned by Israel.

http://www.mandela-palestine.org/

Israel has demolished 4,170 Palestinian homes. Palestinians have demolished 0 Israeli homes.

http://www.btselem.org/english/Publications/Summaries/200411_Punitive_House_Demolitions.asp

http://www.ifamericansknew.org/

There are a great many Jews and Jewish organization who recognize that Israel is a criminal regime, including B'Tselem, Neturei Karta, and Jews Against the Occupation.

Israel has been the target of at least 65 UN resolutions, including:

Res 101 (Nov 24, 53): Expressed 'strongest censure' of Israel for the first time because of its raid on Qibya.

Res 106 (Mar 29, 55): Condemned Israel for Ghazzah raid.

Res 111 (Jan 19, 56): Condemned Israel for raid on Syria that killed 56 people.

Res 127 (Jan 22, 58): Recommended Israel to suspend its no-man's zone in Jerusalem.

Res 162 (Apr 11, 61): Urged Israel to comply with UN decisions.

Res 171 (Apr 9, 62): Determined 'flagrant violation' by Israel in its attack on Syria.

Res 228 (Nov 25, 66): Censured Israel for its attack on Samu in Jordan.

Res 237 (June 14, 67): Urged Israel to allow return of new 1967 Palestinian refugees.

Res 248 (Mar 24, 68): Condemned Israel for its massive attack on Karameh in Jordan.

Res 250 (Apr 27, 68): Called on Israel to refrain from holding military parade in Jerusalem.

Res 251 (May 2, 68): Deeply deplored Israel's military parade in Jerusalem and declared invalid Israel's acts to unify Jerusalem as its capital.

Res 256 (Aug 16, 68): Condemned Israeli raids on Jordan as 'flagrant violation'.

Res 259 (Sep 27, 68): Deplored Israel's refusal to accept UN mission to probe occupation.

Res 262 (Dec 31, 68): Condemned Israel's attack on Beirut airport destroying the entire fleet of Middle East Airlines.

Res 265 (Apr 1, 69): Condemned Israel for air attacks on Salt in Jordan.

Res 267 (July 3, 69): Censured Israel for administrative acts to change status of Jerusalem.

Res 270 (Aug. 26, 69): Condemned Israel for air attack on villages in southern Lebanon.

Res 271 (Sep 15, 69): Condemned Israel's failure to comply with UN resolutions on Jerusalem.

Res 279 (May 12, 70): Demanded withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanon.

Res 280 (May 19, 70): Condemned Israeli attacks against Lebanon.

Res 285 (Sep 5, 70): Demanded immediate Israeli troop withdrawal from Lebanon.

Res 298 (Sep 25, 71): Deplored Israel's change of status of Jerusalem.

Res 313 (Aug 8, 72): Demanded Israel stop attacks against Lebanon.

Res 316 (June 26, 72): Condemned Israel for repeated attacks on Lebanon.

Res 317 (July 21, 72): Deplored Israel's refusal to release Arabs abducted from Lebanon.

Res 332 (Apr 21, 73): Condemned Israel's repeated attacks against Lebanon.

Res 337 (Aug 15, 73): Condemned Israel for violating Lebanon's sovereignty.

Res 347 (Apr 24, 74): Condemned Israeli attacks on Lebanon.

Res 425 (Mar 19, 78): Called on Israel to withdraw its forces unconditionally from Lebanon.

Res 427 (May 3, 78): Called on Israel to complete its withdrawal from Lebanon.

Res 444 (Jan 19, 79): Deplored Israel's lack of cooperation with UN peace forces.

Res 446 (Mar 22, 79): Determined Israeli settlements as a 'serious obstruction' to peace, and called on Israel to abide by the Geneva Conventions.

Res 450 (June 14, 79): Called on Israel to stop attacking Lebanon.

Res 452 (July 20, 79): Called on Israel to cease building settlements in occupied territories.

Res 465 (Mar 1, 80): Deplored Israel's settlements and asked all member States not to assist Israel's settlement programme.

Res 467 (Apr 24, 80): Condemned Israel's military intervention in Lebanon.

Res 468 (May 8, 80): Called on Israel to rescind illegal expulsion of two Palestinian Mayors and a Judge, and to facilitate their return.

Res 469 (May 20, 80): Strongly deplored Israel's failure to observe the Council's order not to deport Palestinians.

Res 471 (June 5, 80): Expressed deep concern at Israel's failure to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention.

Res 476 (June 30, 80): Reiterated that Israel's claims to Jerusalem are 'null and void'.

Res 478 (Aug 20, 80): 'Censured in the strongest terms' Israel for its claim to Jerusalem in its 'basic law'.

Res 484 (Dec 19, 80): Declared it imperative Israel re-admit two Palestinian mayors.

Res 487 (June 19, 81): Strongly condemns Israel for its attack on Iraq's nuclear facility.

Res 497 (Dec 17, 81): Decided Israel's annexation of Syria's Golan Heights is 'null and void' and demanded that Israel rescind its decision forthwith.

Res 498 (Dec 18, 81): Called on Israel to withdraw from Lebanon.

Res 501 (Feb 25, 82): Called on Israel to stop attacks against Lebanon and withdraw its troops.

Res 508 (June 6, 82): Demanded Israel withdraw its forces forthwith and un-conditionally from Lebanon.

Res 515 (July 29, 82): Demanded Israel lift its siege of Beirut and allow in food.

Res 517 (Aug 4, 82): Censured Israel for failing to obey UN resolutions and demanded Israel withdraw its forces from Lebanon.

Res 518 (Aug 12, 82): Demanded Israel cooperate fully with UN forces in Lebanon.

Res 520 (Sep 17, 82): Condemned Israel's attack into West Beirut.

Res 573 (Oct 4, 85): Condemned Israel vigorously for bombing Tunisia in attack on PLO Headquarters.

Res 587 (Sep 23, 86): Took note of previous calls on Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon and urged all parties to withdraw.

Res 592 (Dec 8, 86): Strongly deplored the killing of Palestinian students at Bir Zeit University by Israeli troops.

Res 605 (Dec 22, 87): Strongly deplored Israel's policies and practices denying human rights of Palestinians.

Res 607 (Jan 5, 88): Called on Israel not to deport Palestinians and strongly requested it to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention.

Res 608 (Jan 14, 88): Deeply regretted that Israel had defied the UN and deported Palestinian civilians.

Res 636 (July 6, 89): Deeply regretted the Israeli deportation of Palestinians.

Res 641 (Aug 30, 89): Deplored Israel's continuous deportation of Palestinians.

Res 672 (Oct 12, 90): Condemned Israel for violence against Palestinians at Jerusalem's Haram Al-Sharif.

Res 673 (Oct 24, 90): Deplored Israel's refusal to cooperate with the UN.

Res 681 (Dec 20, 90): Deplored Israel's resumption of deportation of Palestinians.

Res 694 (May 24, 91): Deplored Israel's deportation of Palestinians and called on it to ensure their safe and immediate return.

Res 726 (Jan 1, 92): 'Strongly condemned' Israel's decision to resume deportation of Palestinians from 'Palestinian territories... including Jerusalem.'

Res 799 (Dec 19, 92): Deplored Israel's mass deportation of some 400 Palestinians and called for their immediate return.

Many more since, and not including the thirty or more resolutions condemning Israel vetoed by the US.

Look, the only way for you to argue that Israel isn't a criminal regime is for you to reject international law.

Insofar as you reject international law, we have no common foundation upon which to discuss this matter.

Insofar as you and I have no common foundation upon which to build a discussion to a fruitful end, I see no further use in discussing the matter with you.

The land transferred to the Zionists by the UN was fine since it was under British authority at the time.

The land was never "transferred" to the Zionists by the UN. That is a myth. The state of Israel was declared unilaterally by the Zionists led by David Ben Gurion.

David Lyle Segal

11-10-2007, 06:53 AM

Originally Posted by David
If you can't respond other than to repeat your unsupported claim, then shame on you.

Y> Do you deny that Israel is occupying the West Bank? Do you deny that Israel has an ongoing policy of expanding settlements within the West Bank? If not, I rest my case. Actions speak louder than words. The ongoing occupation and settlement activity are attestation to the fact that Israel rejects the right to self-determination of the Palestinian people.

Israel is on record that her 'occupation' of the Palestinian people will end according to UNSC242: upon the execution of a binding peace agreement that gives satisfactory assurance of Israel's security. Israel will withdraw to that border that is drawn as a result of the same agreement. The Jewish communities in the disputed territories will either be part of the Palestinian state or part of Israel accordingly.

You don't have a case to rest, Y; all you have is an aversion to making a peace agreement according to the 1949 armistice and UNSC 242. It's not Israel that has held up the self-determination of the Palestinian people. Until 1967, it was the Jordanians. From 1967 until 1993, it was the Three Noes resolution. Since 1993, it has been the Palestinians' leaders, who don't think that they can keep their positions if they make peace with ISrael. There has always been a chair at the table, all the Palestinians have to do is check their guns at the door and take a seat.

You just want Israel out of the West Bank. You seem to think that withdrawal stands alone; it doesn't and it never did. 242 tells you otherwise and the Gaza experience tells you what to expect if you fail to follow 242. You're damned right Israel will remain in control so long as the danger continues.

Originally Posted by David
Let's talk facts, Y, not slogans. The fact is that Israel isn't going to sue the Palestinians for peace. The Palestinians have twice tried by all-out war to wipe out Israel. They have continued to attack where and when they could. Israel's control of the West Bank will last only so long as the threat from the Palestinians continues. They have the keys to their own independence, not Israel. Israel is committed to their independence; the Palestinians are, unfortunately, still committed to jihad.

Y> Israel's existence has never been threatened by the Palestinians (unless we discuss demographics, in which case we see the reason for Israel's racist policy of ethnic cleansing, settlement expansion, and land-grabbing).

Israel's existence is threatened by those who act to destroy her and to kill her citizens. Her "existence" is hardly a standard for you to be proud of. The Palestinians exist, too, Y, and their state owes its chances for existence to Israel's cooperation. So cooperate back. Is the prospect of Israel's continuation really so offensive that they can't help trying to kill the Jews?

Y> The existence of any future Palestinian state has long been threatened by Israel. Israel has committed aggression against its neighbors many times, from the initial '48 war in which hundreds of thousands were driven or fled in fear from their homes (never allowed to return, in violation of their rights recognized under international law) to the '67 war that began with a surprise Israeli attack upon Egypt that destroyed Egypt's air force while most its planes were still on the ground to the '81 airstrike against Iraq, the '82 invasion of Lebanon in which hundreds of men, women, and children were brutally slaughtered at the refugee camps of Sabra and Shatila, the '06 invasion of Lebanon, the '07 bombing of Syria, etc., not to mention the countless, constant aggression against the Palestinian people within the occupied territories themselves.

Yeah, Israel is such an aggressor. Even if your list had any whiff of reality (which it doesn't), that suggests that the neighbors stop poking sticks in Israel's cage. In 1948, Israel begged the Arabs not to attack; they attacked; with the Mufti's forces, fellahin militias, and foreign armies and tanks and warplanes from all sides invading to wipe out the Jewish state. They ambushed Jews on the roads and on their farms. They bombed Tel Aviv and Ashdod. They wiped out Jewish communities and massacred their residents. They bombarded Jews in Jerusalem and Petach Tikvah with cannon. And the Jews fought back. Foolish Jews; they didn't follow the script and just lie down and die. According to you, they should have let the Arabs back, to continue their attacks and keep the war going. That's nonsense.

Your 1967 complaint is even more ludicrous. According to you, Israel was required to wait for the thousands of tanks and hundreds of thousands of soldiers from Egypt and Syria to invade before moving to head them off. You're in good company; President deGaulle said the same thing to Israel. And you're both wrong; Jewish lives won't be sacrificed to satisfy your aesthetic sensibilities; war is a dirty business. Get used to it or don't start it.

Y> There is no justification for Israel's illegal occupation and illegal settlement activity.

Israel's control of the disputed territories is not an occupation, since Israel's claims are no less valid than anyone else who claims the territory. Likewise, Israel's permission for Jews to live there is not illegal "settlement activity" (whatever that is supposed to be). It doesn't remove Palestinians from their homes or do anything else more offensive than having Jews move in next door. Who's the racist, Y? The Jews who desire to live among Arabs or you, who insists that all Jews get out?

Originally Posted by Yirmeyahu
2+2=5 WAR IS PEACE FREEDOM IS SLAVERY Etc., etc. Please explain to me how the party responsible for committing the injustice I was referring to be with me in
condemning itself and seeking to right the wrongs it is itself responsible for.

DLS> I already answered this, too. In detail.

Y> No you didn't. It's impossible to do so, being a paradox. It's a nonsensical argument.

I'm sure that it irritates you to see the details of murderous Hamas and Islamic Jihad terror and jihadist rejection from the Palestinian side whenever there's a chance for peace, but it's hardly 'nonsensical'. It's reality, Y. They want the fighting to continue until victory; they don't want peace at all.

Originally Posted by David
Every time Israel has relented in her security vigilance in hopes of making progress towards peace, the Palestinians have instead taken advantage of the lowered guard to kill more Jews. Wake the hell up.

Y> Let's talk about a specific example. I'll let you choose it. Give me an example of a time
Israel "relented" its "security vigilance".

I already gave you several; your avoidance of the history isn't my responsibility. The most obvious is Shimon Peres' assumption of the Prime Minister's office following the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin. Even before Rabin was killed, Israel and the Palestinians completed a 400-page agreement, spelling out

"...in detail, step by step and town by town, the withdrawal of Israeli forces from much of the territory Israel has occupied since the 1967 war and the transfer of extensive governing authority to an elected Palestinian Council until a final separation is negotiated by the turn of the century." http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=990CE2DC113AF936A1575AC0A9639582 60&n=Top/Reference/Times%20Topics/Organizations/P/Palestine%20Liberation%20Organization

Rais Arafat pushed through the changes to the PLO Charter called for in the Declaration of Principles and both he and Peres went to Washington to negotiate more with the mediation of President Clinton. The permanent status talks were scheduled to begin in early May. The Labor Party cancelled its official opposition to a Palestinian state. Warren Christopher brokered a ceasefire between Israel and Lebanon.

Instead of running with the momentum towards peace that this presented, Hamas began a campaign of outrageous terror, including (but by any count, not limited to)

02/25/96 - 27 bombed to death in a Jerusalem bus
03/03/96 - 18 more bombed to death in another Jerusalem bus
03/04/96 - 13 more killed the next day in a bus in Tel Aviv

in just one week. And those were only three of dozens that went on between November, 1995 and the election that brought Hamas whom they wanted to see replace him, Binyamin Netanyahu, who they saw more ready to fight than was Peres.

David Segal

David Lyle Segal

11-10-2007, 07:21 AM

Y> There's a very simple solution to the problem. Israel could comply with international law and withdrawal completely from the illegally occupied territories. Israel's violation of international law has no justification.

I've already answered you on the question of the legality of Israeli control, so I won't repeat it again. Instead, let's deal with why you think that withdrawal from any of the West Bank --without a peace agreement -- would lead to peace. Didn't you learn anything from what happened (and is still happening) in Gaza? Or perhaps peace isn't your objective, Y. Instead, you want to see the Palestinians' ability to make war improved.

Originally Posted by David
1. Of course more Palestinians have died. Israel is better equipped to fight. Israel takes the fight to the Palestinians' areas of concentration. That hardly demonstrates criminality on the part of Israel.

Y> Of course it doesn't, in your paradigm, which relies upon rejection of international law and internationally accepted human rights standards. The murder of Palestinians as the result of an ongoing illegal occupation is one of the inherent evils of the greater crime. There is no justification for Israel's crimes. Nor are her crimes controversial. You may not like the law, you may not agree with it, but Israel is a criminal regime nonetheless.

What is criminal, Y, is your recklessness with the lives of others. Israel won't lift her restrictions on Palestinian life until it's safe to do so. Do you think that it's safe today?

Originally Posted by David
2. Are you able to distinguish between Palestinian fighters killed and innocent civilians? I can give you the Israeli body count, broken down between military and civilian. For every Israeli soldier killed, four Israeli civilians have died, in most cases by ambush or by suicide bomb, not in the course of active fighting, as when IDF is attacked while trying to apprehend terrorists. That's an unambiguous indicator that the great weight of criminality is on the Palestinians, not on Israel.

Y> It's intersting how you draw your conclusion before also looking at the ratio of militants and civilians killed on the Palestinian side. That's quite instructive, and I hope other readers here take note. Let's look at some statistics that lead us to another unambiguous conclusion.

Since September 29, 200, 119 Israeli children have been killed by Palestinians, compared to 971 Palestinian children killed by Israelis. http://www.rememberthesechildren.org/remember2007.html

Why don't you go into the details of these Palestinian children's deaths, Y? They were killed in the course of fighting started by Palestinian militants. They were in the line of fire while the fighting was raging. Their deaths weren't Israel's objective; the militant jihadists' were. Contrast with the Palestinians' killing of Jewish children: the children are the target from the beginning.

Y> Since that time, 1,027 Israelis have been killed, compared with 4, 345 Palestinians (not including the numbers of Palestinians who died as a result of not receiving medical care due to Israeli roadblocks, ect.) http://www.btselem.org/English/Stati...Casualties.asp

80% of the Jews killed were civilians. They were the targets, proving that terror was the strategic objective. Do you have anything useful to offer in connection with the Palestinian deaths?

David Segal

Independent Harry

11-10-2007, 10:19 AM

I've already answered you on the question of the legality of Israeli control, so I won't repeat it again. Instead, let's deal with why you think that withdrawal from any of the West Bank --without a peace agreement -- would lead to peace. Didn't you learn anything from what happened (and is still happening) in Gaza? Or perhaps peace isn't your objective, Y. Instead, you want to see the Palestinians' ability to make war improved.

What is criminal, Y, is your recklessness with the lives of others. Israel won't lift her restrictions on Palestinian life until it's safe to do so. Do you think that it's safe today?

Why don't you go into the details of these Palestinian children's deaths, Y? They were killed in the course of fighting started by Palestinian militants. They were in the line of fire while the fighting was raging. Their deaths weren't Israel's objective; the militant jihadists' were. Contrast with the Palestinians' killing of Jewish children: the children are the target from the beginning.

80% of the Jews killed were civilians. They were the targets, proving that terror was the strategic objective. Do you have anything useful to offer in connection with the Palestinian deaths?

David Segal

It doesn't make it right, but look at the two sides. Israel is a war power, they have advanced smart bombs, advanced weaponry, a navy an airforce, a specially trained ground combat force. Palestine has fuck all for weapons. Some mortars and ak 47s, maybe an RPG or two. You're asking a country under oppression to fight head to head with Israel in a fair fight with those weapons. They would loose in a heartbeat. They know that, so they fight the only way they can. I'm not saying its right. But the point is, Israel started the fight, not the Palestinians. Thats like saying the people who fought against Britain here in america were terrorists. Utilizing guerilla warfare and other tactics the British didn't consider fair.

If someone invaded my country, I would fight with everything I had to expel them. That's what they are doing. Israel has expanded its borders quite a bit over the last 50 years, in the guise of security. Ulitmately they just wanted more land. The actions they are taking and lobbying america to take are probably going to start WWIII.

Besides Israel doesn't just target palestinian fighters they buldoze children and americans too. It's well documented, you just refues to look at the evidence, because its not on CNN or Fox

David Lyle Segal

11-10-2007, 01:00 PM

IH> It doesn't make it right, but look at the two sides. Israel is a war power, they have advanced smart bombs, advanced weaponry, a navy an airforce, a specially trained ground combat force. Palestine has fuck all for weapons. Some mortars and ak 47s, maybe an RPG or two. You're asking a country under oppression to fight head to head with Israel in a fair fight with those weapons.

Hey, Harry. I don't want them to fight at all. I'm not looking for an equal match between two champions. I'm looking for an end to the fighting altogether. That will only happen when one side -- the one who also wants the fighting to stop -- is far more capable of making war than the other.

The Palestinians aren't a "country under oppression". They're a country that wants to come into being. And they can come into being by accepting a state of peace with their neighbor, Israel. It's entirely up to them.

IH> They would loose in a heartbeat. They know that, so they fight the only way they can. I'm not saying its right. But the point is, Israel started the fight, not the Palestinians.

I beg to differ, Harry. The Palestinians started the fight twice -- in 1947 and in 1967. In both cases, Israel begged them not to attack, yet they did. And they attacked for the explicit purpose of wiping Israel out. I don't know about you, but I would certainly take that attitude seriously. If they want out from under Israel's boot, they will have to show that they aren't getting ready for a third round. So far, they haven't.

IH> Thats like saying the people who fought against Britain here in america were terrorists. Utilizing guerilla warfare and other tactics the British didn't consider fair.

Haven't we progressed since 1776? There are other means to resolve conflict than war, such as negotiation. The UN says so. Don't you?

If someone invaded my country, I would fight with everything I had to expel them. That's what they are doing. Israel has expanded its borders quite a bit over the last 50 years, in the guise of security. Ulitmately they just wanted more land. The actions they are taking and lobbying america to take are probably going to start WWIII.

Israel didn't expand her borders 'in the guise of security', but in the defense of her people from attack. Did the 1948 and 1967 wars somehow go through without your noticing? Israel didn't start those conflicts; the Palestinians did.

Besides Israel doesn't just target palestinian fighters they buldoze children and americans too. It's well documented, you just refues to look at the evidence, because its not on CNN or Fox

You seem to have lost the thread, Harry. I know that you don't like what Israel does in order to suppress the intifada, but that doesn't take away from the legitimacy of Israeli control of the disputed territory. Every time Israel has withdrawn, the Palestinians have filled the vacuum with war against the Jews. IMV, they have little to complain about if they find themselves with more on their hands than they bargained for. Even in today's newspaper, Rais Abbas' reported agreement to disarm the jihadists has been disavowed by his Information Minister, Riad Malki. Is there something wrong with the Palestinians putting down their weapons and giving peace a chance?

David Segal

Americanadian

11-10-2007, 05:22 PM

The land was never "transferred" to the Zionists by the UN. That is a myth. The state of Israel was declared unilaterally by the Zionists led by David Ben Gurion.

If not recognized by the United States or the UN, the state of Israel holds no legitmacy. Resolution 181 acknowledges the State of Israel, does it not? It also served as the definable parameters of Israel's borders. In addition, the land in question which I would consider to be "transferrable" would be the "Crown Land". In most countries, there is always barren/reserve land which would be considered under ownership of the government, or Britain in this case. Britain did agree to give land to the Zionists under the Balfour Declaration. However, they also promised the same land in question to the Arabs and also the French if I recall correctly. In theory and principle, no private land owner should be subjected to surrendering their land to the government unless they choose to do so. Therefore, which land was in question as directed by the Balfour Declaration and UN Resolution 181? Surely not privately owned land?

Once the British acquiesced, the State of Israel declared by Gurion and recognized by the Truman Administration and the UN, any title to Crown land would have been transferred to Zionist control.

That is my understanding of things presently. However, I am also willing to learn varying perspectives. Please submit some background for your assertions if you feel the above is incorrect. Thanks.

Americanadian

11-10-2007, 06:01 PM

Hey, Harry. I don't want them to fight at all. I'm not looking for an equal match between two champions. I'm looking for an end to the fighting altogether. That will only happen when one side -- the one who also wants the fighting to stop -- is far more capable of making war than the other.

The Palestinians aren't a "country under oppression". They're a country that wants to come into being. And they can come into being by accepting a state of peace with their neighbor, Israel. It's entirely up to them.

I beg to differ, Harry. The Palestinians started the fight twice -- in 1947 and in 1967. In both cases, Israel begged them not to attack, yet they did. And they attacked for the explicit purpose of wiping Israel out. I don't know about you, but I would certainly take that attitude seriously. If they want out from under Israel's boot, they will have to show that they aren't getting ready for a third round. So far, they haven't.

Haven't we progressed since 1776? There are other means to resolve conflict than war, such as negotiation. The UN says so. Don't you?

Israel didn't expand her borders 'in the guise of security', but in the defense of her people from attack. Did the 1948 and 1967 wars somehow go through without your noticing? Israel didn't start those conflicts; the Palestinians did.

You seem to have lost the thread, Harry. I know that you don't like what Israel does in order to suppress the intifada, but that doesn't take away from the legitimacy of Israeli control of the disputed territory. Every time Israel has withdrawn, the Palestinians have filled the vacuum with war against the Jews. IMV, they have little to complain about if they find themselves with more on their hands than they bargained for. Even in today's newspaper, Rais Abbas' reported agreement to disarm the jihadists has been disavowed by his Information Minister, Riad Malki. Is there something wrong with the Palestinians putting down their weapons and giving peace a chance?

David Segal

With all due respect David, I believe you feel the conflagration is one sided. If you refuse to see that the Zionist movement started this reign of tyranny, there is little to debate. Of course it isn't right that violence continues to foment in Palestine. I believe this is due to an absence of International intervention. Spewing Resolutions from the UN without the clout of military enforcement will do nothing to stem the flow of blood betwixt the two sides.

David Lyle Segal

11-10-2007, 07:26 PM

`With all due respect David, I believe you feel the conflagration is one sided. If you refuse to see that the Zionist movement started this reign of tyranny, there is little to debate. Of course it isn't right that violence continues to foment in Palestine. I believe this is due to an absence of International intervention. Spewing Resolutions from the UN without the clout of military enforcement will do nothing to stem the flow of blood betwixt the two sides.
I really can't follow your logic, AI. All the Palestinians have ever had to do was acknowledge Israel's presence, not as a matter of power but as a matter of right. You may be happier to see the Zionist movement as some sort of invasion, but, with all due respect, that's Horseshit. The San Remo declaration tells you so; you may want to argue with the Allies' wisdom in adopting the resolution, but you can't legitimately argue with their authority to decide as they did.

Do you consider the 600,000 Jews who immigrated on the strength of the Allies' invitation an'invasion' that "started this reign of tyranny"? Are you really all so willing to deny the Allies' authority to make such a decision? Start there, AI. Did the Allies have the authority to make the decision or not? If they did, then the Zionists didn't invade, but immigrated according to law. If they didn't have the authority, what're you gonna do wid all dem Jews?

Since (and including) the Declaration of the Independence of the State of Israel, the Jewish state has sought nothing more than peace. Read it for yourself:

WE APPEAL to the United Nations to assist the Jewish people in the building-up of its State and to receive the State of Israel into the comity of nations.

WE APPEAL - in the very midst of the onslaught launched against us now for months - to the Arab inhabitants of the State of Israel to preserve peace and participate in the upbuilding of the State on the basis of full and equal citizenship and due representation in all its provisional and permanent institutions.

Do you have lingering doubts about this? If so, please explain how you come to that conclusion. So far, you have offered no explanation at all, just your post hac preferences, not informed by actual historical events.

David Segal

Yirmeyahu

11-10-2007, 09:40 PM

Do you deny that Israel is occupying the West Bank? Do you deny that Israel has an ongoing policy of expanding settlements within the West Bank? If not, I rest my case. Actions speak louder than words. The ongoing occupation and settlement activity are attestation to the fact that Israel rejects the right to self-determination of the Palestinian people.

Israel is on record that her 'occupation' of the Palestinian people will end according to UNSC242...

How very kind of them. And you no doubt expect the Palestinians to take their word for that and shut up.

Look, David. The fact that you even propose that as an argument in justification just stands as an indicator of the vast open ground between us on this one.

We simply have no similar foundation upon which to discuss this matter and, at this point, it's completely fruitless for either of us to continue.

Let's find some common ground to build upon.

Let's begin with international law. Should or should not nations respect international law? If not, in what cases should nations be allowed to disregard international law?

David Lyle Segal

11-11-2007, 06:29 AM

Originally Posted by Yirmeyahu
Do you deny that Israel is occupying the West Bank? Do you deny that Israel has an ongoing policy of expanding settlements within the West Bank? If not, I rest my case. Actions speak louder than words. The ongoing occupation and settlement activity are attestation to the fact that Israel rejects the right to self-determination of the Palestinian people.

DLS> Israel is on record that her 'occupation' of the Palestinian people will end according to UNSC242...

Y> How very kind of them. And you no doubt expect the Palestinians to take their word for that and shut up.

Why not? Are they so afraid that Israel won't do it that they'd rather continue to lose wars than test the Jews? For years, I have suggested that they adopt nonviolent civil disobedience as their primary response to Israel's control over their lives. Israel caves in quickly to unarmed people, as was demonstrated last year when the women rescued Palestinian terrorists who had been cornered in some buildings.

Y> Look, David. The fact that you even propose that as an argument in justification just stands as an indicator of the vast open ground between us on this one.

I'd certainly like to understand why you think that 242 isn't sitting on the couch next to you.

Quite frankly, I think that the Palestinians' reluctance to engage in negotiations arises from at least two principle circumstances:

1. the competition between the worst of them for leadership, in which they have settled on the idea that their appeal to the masses varies in direct proportion to their ferocity towards Israel.

2. the insecurity among the best of them that they'd be at a bargaining disadvantage unless they can make Israel fear them. In short, they want more than they think that they can possibly gain in negotiations.

Y> Let's find some common ground to build upon. Let's begin with international law. Should or should not nations respect international law? If not, in what cases should nations be allowed to disregard international law?

If we're to find common ground, Y, let's start with the definition of international law's jurisdiction over the actions of sovereign nations before assuming that nations are bound by its dictates. There's no world government passing laws that inform nations how to behave; there is the sense that agreements made by nations should be honored by them, both within their national self-interest and because of it. There are customs and relationships between particular nations that affect their respective freedom of action. And there is the desire of nations to be respected by other nations in their dealings. But there is no 'international law' in the sense that you are using the term.

David Segal

Yirmeyahu

11-11-2007, 12:31 PM

For years, I have suggested that they adopt nonviolent civil disobedience as their primary response to Israel's control over their lives.

As have I. You and I have much common ground, but we need to step back and assess what that commonality is in order to construct a framework upon which to continue this discussion in a fruitful manner.

Quite frankly, I think that the Palestinians' reluctance to engage in negotiations arises from at least two principle circumstances:

1. the competition between the worst of them for leadership, in which they have settled on the idea that their appeal to the masses varies in direct proportion to their ferocity towards Israel.

2. the insecurity among the best of them that they'd be at a bargaining disadvantage unless they can make Israel fear them. In short, they want more than they think that they can possibly gain in negotiations.

Again, we aren't in disagreement.

If we're to find common ground, Y, let's start with the definition of international law's jurisdiction over the actions of sovereign nations before assuming that nations are bound by its dictates. There's no world government passing laws that inform nations how to behave; there is the sense that agreements made by nations should be honored by them, both within their national self-interest and because of it. There are customs and relationships between particular nations that affect their respective freedom of action. And there is the desire of nations to be respected by other nations in their dealings. But there is no 'international law' in the sense that you are using the term.

David, this is a moot line of reasoning. Israel is signatory of both the Geneva Conventions and the UN Charter. Hence, it's actions fall under the jurisdiction of said international law. That's what it means to sign and ratify an international treaty.

Your line of reasoning is asking whether, given that I agreed to do some service for you in fair exchange for some monetary compensation, either one of us is really obligated to carry out the terms of our contract. It's a rhetorical, philosophical, subjective question that has no use for our purposes.

I'll rephrase:

Do you agree or disagree that Israel should meet its obligations under treaties to which it is a party? If you disagree, why and under what conditions should Israel be allowed to disregard those obligations?

David Lyle Segal

11-11-2007, 05:18 PM

Originally Posted by David
For years, I have suggested that they adopt nonviolent civil disobedience as their primary response to Israel's control over their lives.

Y> As have I. You and I have much common ground, but we need to step back and assess what that commonality is in order to construct a framework upon which to continue this discussion in a fruitful manner.

I really hate to break it to you, Y, but I'm really not interested in your approval or in continuing this discussion on your terms. I don't like how you avoid dealing with the facts and instead stay in the weeds of calumny. If anything is un-fruitful, it's faithless, reckless claims that have nothing in their support but propaganda and self-delusion.

Originally Posted by David
Quite frankly, I think that the Palestinians' reluctance to engage in negotiations arises from at least two principle circumstances:

1. the competition between the worst of them for leadership, in which they have settled on the idea that their appeal to the masses varies in direct proportion to their ferocity towards Israel.

2. the insecurity among the best of them that they'd be at a bargaining disadvantage unless they can make Israel fear them. In short, they want more than they think that they can possibly gain in negotiations.

Y> Again, we aren't in disagreement.

Then why do you insist that Israel let down her guard?

Originally Posted by David
If we're to find common ground, Y, let's start with the definition of international law's jurisdiction over the actions of sovereign nations before assuming that nations are bound by its dictates. There's no world government passing laws that inform nations how to behave; there is the sense that agreements made by nations should be honored by them, both within their national self-interest and because of it. There are customs and relationships between particular nations that affect their respective freedom of action. And there is the desire of nations to be respected by other nations in their dealings. But there is no 'international law' in the sense that you are using the term.

Y> David, this is a moot line of reasoning. Israel is signatory of both the Geneva Conventions and the UN Charter. Hence, it's actions fall under the jurisdiction of said international law. That's what it means to sign and ratify an international treaty.

Who is the ultimate decider of Israel's compliance with the Geneva Conventions, Y? Israel or someone else? So far as I know, there is no super-national court or other authority to make that judgment. My reasoning stands.

Y> Your line of reasoning is asking whether, given that I agreed to do some service for you in fair exchange for some monetary compensation, either one of us is really obligated to carry out the terms of our contract. It's a rhetorical, philosophical, subjective question that has no use for our purposes.

Actually, Y, I was talking about the independence still exerted by sovereign nations. You and I would be subject to the judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction of the strength of your or my case; Israel is not similarly subject to any such authority.

Y> I'll rephrase: Do you agree or disagree that Israel should meet its obligations under treaties to which it is a party? If you disagree, why and under what conditions should Israel be allowed to disregard those obligations?

I disagree when Israel's security is at stake. I won't gainsay Israel's decision on it. Israel disagrees that the territories are 'occupied' in the sense of the Geneva Convention. According to the foreign ministry,

"Israel rejects applying the Fourth Geneva Convention to Israeli settlements in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, stating that those territories were captured in 1967 as a result of a defensive war against Jordan and Egypt, countries which had illegally occupied them since 1948. Furthermore, it is Article 49 that is commonly cited to accuse Israel of violating the Fourth Geneva Convention. But a close reading of Article 49 reveals that it prohibits "individual or mass forcible transfers" which are not happening in the territories under Israeli administration. Further, the Occupying Power is obliged not to "deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population" to territories under its control. The use of "deport" and "transfer" indicate that the Convention prohibits the Occupying Power from the active or forcible transfer of its own civilians. Article 49 does not oblige Israel to prevent voluntary settlement by its civilian population just because Arabs don't like it."

And frankly, Y, that's as far as you can go on this question, given Israel's sovereignty.

Moreover, Israel has voluntarily (thereby avoiding the question of coverage) assumed the responsibility to treat the Palestinians as if they were a 'protected' population under the Geneva Convention. IMV, Israel complies with the GC standards in regard to the Palestinian population.

David Segal

Americanadian

11-11-2007, 07:47 PM

I really can't follow your logic, AI. All the Palestinians have ever had to do was acknowledge Israel's presence, not as a matter of power but as a matter of right. You may be happier to see the Zionist movement as some sort of invasion, but, with all due respect, that's Horseshit. The San Remo declaration tells you so; you may want to argue with the Allies' wisdom in adopting the resolution, but you can't legitimately argue with their authority to decide as they did.

Well, all the Palestinians ever wanted was justice levied on those who perpetrated mass murder and land annexation. Who gave the Zionists the authority to steal privately owned land?

Do you consider the 600,000 Jews who immigrated on the strength of the Allies' invitation an'invasion' that "started this reign of tyranny"? Are you really all so willing to deny the Allies' authority to make such a decision? Start there, AI. Did the Allies have the authority to make the decision or not? If they did, then the Zionists didn't invade, but immigrated according to law. If they didn't have the authority, what're you gonna do wid all dem Jews?

I consider the Zionist terrorist groups such as the Stern Gang, Irgun and Haganah, 'the invasion' which started the reign of tyranny.

Since (and including) the Declaration of the Independence of the State of Israel, the Jewish state has sought nothing more than peace. Read it for yourself:

WE APPEAL to the United Nations to assist the Jewish people in the building-up of its State and to receive the State of Israel into the comity of nations.

WE APPEAL - in the very midst of the onslaught launched against us now for months - to the Arab inhabitants of the State of Israel to preserve peace and participate in the upbuilding of the State on the basis of full and equal citizenship and due representation in all its provisional and permanent institutions.

Do you have lingering doubts about this? If so, please explain how you come to that conclusion. So far, you have offered no explanation at all, just your post hac preferences, not informed by actual historical events.

David Segal

What did the Zionist movement do to achieve the Balfour Declaration Dave? In order to entice the British War cabinet to refrain from surrendering to Germany in 1916, what did the Zionists offer the British in return for Palestine?

Yirmeyahu

11-12-2007, 12:39 AM

I really hate to break it to you, Y, but I'm really not interested in your approval or in continuing this discussion on your terms.

If you think it unreasonable to seek common ground upon which to construct a framework to continue this discussion, then let's just end it now, because I'm not interested in continuing the discussion unless we have such a framework.

Then why do you insist that Israel let down her guard?

I've never insisted that Israel "let down her guard".

I simply don't equate the illegal occupation and settlement activity with "keeping her guard up". It has nothing to do with security and everything to do with annexing territory.

Who is the ultimate decider of Israel's compliance with the Geneva Conventions, Y? Israel or someone else? So far as I know, there is no super-national court or other authority to make that judgment. My reasoning stands.

Israel is a signatory of the UN Charter, David, as you well know, which means that Israel has voluntarily placed itself under the jurisdiction of the UN when it comes to an international concensus on matters of compliance or non-compliance with whatever other treaties Israel happens to be a party to, such as the Geneva Conventions.

Actually, Y, I was talking about the independence still exerted by sovereign nations.

It's not a matter of "independence". It's a matter of living up to treaty obligations.

I'll rephrase: Do you agree or disagree that Israel should meet its obligations under treaties to which it is a party? If you disagree, why and under what conditions should Israel be allowed to disregard those obligations?

I disagree when Israel's security is at stake. I won't gainsay Israel's decision on it. Israel disagrees that the territories are 'occupied' in the sense of the Geneva Convention.

Of course Israel disagrees. Like I said, Israel wants the land and rejects the right of self-determination for the Palestinian people.

It's an absurd standard to argue that each individual nation is the sole judge and arbiter of whether it is living up to its own treaty obligations or not. Every violation of international law under the sun may be justified by such logic.

Take Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait. Naturally, the Iraqi government rejected that it had violated international law. By your standard, that means, on account if Iraq's "independence" as a "soverign" nation, Iraq did not violate international law. It's an absurd argument and a ridiculous standard that makes international law totally irrelevent and meaningless.

And every oppressive regime in the world justifies its own oppression by saying its violations are necessary for "security". Again, it's a pathetic argument which must be dismissed for absurdity.

The fact that Israel "disagrees" with the international concensus reflected by scores of UN Security Council resolutions finding Israel in violation of its treaty obligations is irrelevent. This is a meaningless line of reasoning.

Let's examine the facts.

A) The UN has codified as international law that it is inadmissable for territory to be acquired by means of war, meaning that the acquisition of territory by means of war is a violation of international law, illegal.

B) UN Res 242 and others have repeatedly expressed the inadmissability under international law of Israel's occupation of the territories beyond the Green Line that it occupied in the June '67 war.

C) The Geneva Conventions state explicitly that:

Protected persons who are in occupied territory shall not be deprived, in any case or in any manner whatsoever, of the benefits of the present Convention by any change introduced, as the result of the occupation of a territory, into the institutions or government of the said territory, nor by any agreement concluded between the authorities of the occupied territories and the Occupying Power, nor by any annexation by the latter of the whole or part of the occupied territory. - Geneva Convention IV, Article 47

D) The Geneva Conventions also state explicitly that:

The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies. -- Geneva Convention IV, Article 49

E) These provisions are without exception.

F) Israel is a party to both the UN Charter and the Geneva Conventions.

G) Therefore, Israel's occupation and settlement activity are illegal.

That is the unequivocal conclusion, which is why there is an international concensus on the matter.

The fact that Israel rejects its responsibility to respect its obligations under international law is irrelevent. Its duty to respect and uphold its treaty obligations is not considered quaint or irrelevent by the other contracting parties.

So let's talk about "security". What do the illegal settlements have to do with "security"?

Israel complies with the GC standards in regard to the Palestinian population.

That's an absurd statement. Shall I list provisions of just GCIV that Israel is in continuous violation of? I listed two above. There are many others.

When you get down to it, your argument depends upon rejecting international law and universally accepted legal and moral standards.

David Lyle Segal

11-12-2007, 06:05 AM

Originally Posted by David Lyle Segal
I really can't follow your logic, AI. All the Palestinians have ever had to do was acknowledge Israel's presence, not as a matter of power but as a matter of right. You may be happier to see the Zionist movement as some sort of invasion, but, with all due respect, that's Horseshit. The San Remo declaration tells you so; you may want to argue with the Allies' wisdom in adopting the resolution, but you can't legitimately argue with their authority to decide as they did.

AI> Well, all the Palestinians ever wanted was justice levied on those who perpetrated mass murder and land annexation. Who gave the Zionists the authority to steal privately owned land?

Well, so much for your interest in peace, eh? By all means, let's make JUSTICE our watchword as we see our children killed off. Get real. Justice is your excuse for not making peace.

Originally Posted by David Lyle Segal
Do you consider the 600,000 Jews who immigrated on the strength of the Allies' invitation an'invasion' that "started this reign of tyranny"? Are you really all so willing to deny the Allies' authority to make such a decision? Start there, AI. Did the Allies have the authority to make the decision or not? If they did, then the Zionists didn't invade, but immigrated according to law. If they didn't have the authority, what're you gonna do wid all dem Jews?

AI> I consider the Zionist terrorist groups such as the Stern Gang, Irgun and Haganah, 'the invasion' which started the reign of tyranny.

Oh, you must have missed what went on before the Stern Gang and Irgun and Haganah, when the Mufti's mobs were massacring Jews in the streets. The Irgun wasn't founded until the Great Arab Revolt in 1936; the Stern Gang came even later. Try reading about the Nebi Musa riots in 1920 and the Hebron Massacre of 1929 and then get back to me about tyranny. While founded earlier, the Haganah confined its activities strictly to protecting Jewish farmsteads from raids by their Arab neighbors until Hebron. Here's a taste from the testimony of the British police commissioner in Hebron:

"On hearing screams in a room I went up a sort of tunnel passage and saw an Arab in the act of cutting off a child's head with a sword. He had already hit him and was having another cut, but on seeing me he tried to aim the stroke at me, but missed; he was practically on the muzzle of my rifle. I shot him low in the groin. Behind him was a Jewish woman smothered in blood with a man I recognized as an Arab police constable named Issa Sherif from Jaffa. He was standing over the woman with a dagger in his hand. He saw me and bolted into a room close by and tried to shut me out, shouting in Arabic, "Your Honor, I am a policeman!" I got into the room and shot him."

Originally Posted by David Lyle Segal
Since (and including) the Declaration of the Independence of the State of Israel, the Jewish state has sought nothing more than peace. Read it for yourself:

WE APPEAL to the United Nations to assist the Jewish people in the building-up of its State and to receive the State of Israel into the comity of nations.

WE APPEAL - in the very midst of the onslaught launched against us now for months - to the Arab inhabitants of the State of Israel to preserve peace and participate in the upbuilding of the State on the basis of full and equal citizenship and due representation in all its provisional and permanent institutions.
Do you have lingering doubts about this? If so, please explain how you come to that conclusion. So far, you have offered no explanation at all, just your post hac preferences, not informed by actual historical events.

AI> What did the Zionist movement do to achieve the Balfour Declaration Dave? In order to entice the British War cabinet to refrain from surrendering to Germany in 1916, what did the Zionists offer the British in return for Palestine?

Your phrasing only proves how little you know about this, much less care. Like other ideologues, you seem to think that the Zionists were some wealthy, all-powerful group, that spoke for all Jews. The Zionists' actual poverty and weakness (they were by far a minority among the Jews) were not understood by the powerful of the day.

Truthfully, the Zionists didn't offer anything to the British "in return for Palestine". They didn't have to. Britain was being flooded with Jewish refugees from the Russian pogroms that they didn't want. The Germans were rumored to be preparing a similar declaration of their own, and the British brought out theirs first. But I'm not relying on the Balfour Declaration in any event, AI. I'm relying on the San Remo Declaration, which had, after all, the benefit of Emir Feisal's testimony at Paris:

"DEAR MR. FRANKFURTER: I want to take this opportunity of my first contact with American Zionists to tell you what I have often been able to say to Dr. Weizmann in Arabia and Europe.

We feel that the Arabs and Jews are cousins in having suffered similar oppressions at the hands of powers stronger than themselves, and by a happy coincidence have been able to take the first step towards the attainment of their national ideals together.

We Arabs, especially the educated among us look with the deepest sympathy on the Zionist movement. Our deputation here in Paris is fully acquainted with the proposals submitted yesterday by the Zionist Organisation to Peace Conference, and we regard them as moderate proper. We will do our best, in so far as we are concerned, to help them through: we will wish the Jews a most hearty welcome home.

With the chiefs of your movement, especially with Dr. Weizmann, we have had and continue to have the closest relations. He has been a great helper of our cause, and I hope the Arabs may soon be in a position to make the Jews some return for their kindness. We are working together for a reformed and revived Near East, and our two movements complete one another. The Jewish movement is national and not imperialist. Our movement is national and not imperialist, and there is room in Syria for us both. Indeed I think that neither can be a real success without the other.

I have to say how much I appreciate your giving me the opportunity to sweep back the BS about Zionism and Israel, AI. Keep it up.

David Segal

David Lyle Segal

11-12-2007, 02:26 PM

Y> If you think it unreasonable to seek common ground upon which to construct a framework to continue this discussion, then let's just end it now, because I'm not interested in continuing the discussion unless we have such a framework.

I have no problem finding common ground, Y. I just won't buy your terms of reference in order to find it. For instance, you use the term, "international law", as if there was some super-government dictating it to sovereign nations. As explained before, you're wrong. Likewise your use of the term, "West Bank". The term has no legal significance; it is just a phrase adopted by the Transjordanian government when it referred to the part of Mandatory Palestine that fell under its control as a result of its having invaded in 1948. You treat it as if the Green Line were a de jure border; it isn't. The guys who wrote the agreement that drew the line say so. So does the UN.

Originally Posted by David
Then why do you insist that Israel let down her guard?

Y> I've never insisted that Israel "let down her guard".

Your insistence that Israel withdraw from the West Bank, besides its indifference to past agreements and history, does precisely that, Y. You, without first securing a peace agreement that acknowledges Israel as a de jure state, would leave the disputed territories in the hands of people who are committed to Israel's destruction, including giving them firing platforms looking down from the heights just eight miles from about half of Israel's population.

Y> I simply don't equate the illegal occupation and settlement activity with "keeping her guard up". It has nothing to do with security and everything to do with annexing territory.

There's one way to find out which of us is right, Y: ask the Palestinians to negotiate for peace, rather than just demand land. Besides the unquestionable example of Gaza, this morning's Jerusalem Post tells us from the mouth of Saeb Erekat, the Palestinian Authority's primary negotiator with Israel, that the Palestinians refuse to recognize Israel as a Jewish state. Interestingly, the draft Palestinian constitution states that "Arabic and Islam are the official Palestinian language and religion," but consistency was never their strong suit.

Originally Posted by David
Who is the ultimate decider of Israel's compliance with the Geneva Conventions, Y? Israel or someone else? So far as I know, there is no super-national court or other authority to make that judgment. My reasoning stands.

Y> Israel is a signatory of the UN Charter, David, as you well know, which means that Israel has voluntarily placed itself under the jurisdiction of the UN when it comes to an international concensus on matters of compliance or non-compliance with whatever other treaties Israel happens to be a party to, such as the Geneva Conventions.

Actually, no I don't know that at all. Certainly you are able to point to the provisions that back you up, together with evidence that other countries have been brought to compliance on the strength of your interpretation. For example, I can't think of any other country that has been brought to heel by reason of Article 25, have you?

Originally Posted by David
Actually, Y, I was talking about the independence still exerted by sovereign nations.

Y> It's not a matter of "independence". It's a matter of living up to treaty obligations.

IMV, Israel does.

Originally Posted by Yirmeyahu
I'll rephrase: Do you agree or disagree that Israel should meet its obligations under treaties to which it is a party? If you disagree, why and under what conditions should Israel be allowed to disregard those obligations?

DLS> I disagree when Israel's security is at stake. I won't gainsay Israel's decision on it. Israel disagrees that the territories are 'occupied' in the sense of the Geneva Convention.

Y> Of course Israel disagrees. Like I said, Israel wants the land and rejects the right of self-determination for the Palestinian people. It's an absurd standard to argue that each individual nation is the sole judge and arbiter of whether it is living up to its own treaty obligations or not. Every violation of international law under the sun may be justified by such logic.

What does "self-determination" have to do with this argument, or did you just change horses in the middle of your thinking? Insofar as sovereigns making up their own minds, that's nothing more than a comment on the state of the tension between sovereignty and the international system. At least we have Chapter 7 of the UN Charter to override sovereign independence, but I'm not aware of anything less than that.

Y> Take Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait. Naturally, the Iraqi government rejected that it had violated international law. By your standard, that means, on account if Iraq's "independence" as a "soverign" nation, Iraq did not violate international law. It's an absurd argument and a ridiculous standard that makes international law totally irrelevent and meaningless.

And every oppressive regime in the world justifies its own oppression by saying its violations are necessary for "security". Again, it's a pathetic argument which must be dismissed for absurdity.

Hurry up and get a large coalition together to force Israel out of the disputed territories, Y. That's what happened with Hussein. IMV, you're not in as good a position as I am to adequately judge Israel's security needs.

Y> The fact that Israel "disagrees" with the international concensus reflected by scores of UN Security Council resolutions finding Israel in violation of its treaty obligations is irrelevent. This is a meaningless line of reasoning.

Not at all. Israel has her own counsel to keep.

Y> Let's examine the facts.

A) The UN has codified as international law that it is inadmissable for territory to be acquired by means of war, meaning that the acquisition of territory by means of war is a violation of international law, illegal.

1. 242 was not directed to the West Bank, but to the Golan Heights and the Sinai. The UN understood, even if you don't, that the West Bank's borders are undetermined. Besides, Israel hasn't annexed the WB, and has therefore not 'acquired' them.

2. 242's statement is not a legal finding, but a part of a preamble. What are the action words of 242, Y? If the UN wanted what you say it wanted, it would have told Israel to get out of the WB. Where does it tell Israel to get out, Y?

Y> B) UN Res 242 and others have repeatedly expressed the inadmissability under international law of Israel's occupation of the territories beyond the Green Line that it occupied in the June '67 war.

Really? Give me the words, Y. Tell me where 242 says any such thing.

Y> C) The Geneva Conventions state explicitly that:

Protected persons who are in occupied territory shall not be deprived, in any case or in any manner whatsoever, of the benefits of the present Convention by any change introduced, as the result of the occupation of a territory, into the institutions or government of the said territory, nor by any agreement concluded between the authorities of the occupied territories and the Occupying Power, nor by any annexation by the latter of the whole or part of the occupied territory. - Geneva Convention IV, Article 47

Would you care to elaborate? What benefits of the GC have they been deprived of? And who else but the Palestinians are you expecting Israel to negotiate with? Israel, of course, hasn't annexed any part of the WB.

Y> D) The Geneva Conventions also state explicitly that:

The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies. -- Geneva Convention IV, Article 49

Israel hasn't. The WB isn't 'occupied' in the sense of the GC, because ownership has never been determined. As you said before, the UN didn't create Israel nor her boundaries. By the same token, the UN didn't create the Arab State of Palestine. Instead, the Arab side set the stakes by dint of the outcome of the war. Now we're stuck with having to negotiate the border, and until then, Israel has every bit as much claim to the land you call 'occupied' as do the Arabs.

Y< E) These provisions are without exception.

That would be great if their words meant what you seem to think they do. They don't.

Y> F) Israel is a party to both the UN Charter and the Geneva Conventions.

G) Therefore, Israel's occupation and settlement activity are illegal.

The UN is not a judicial body capable of making the determination that Israel's control of the West Bank is illegal. And in any case, the UNSC hasn't said that it is illegal. The UNSC has complaints about how Israel had treated the population in the West Bank, but it doesn't quarrel with the legality of Israel's control. That control was legally assumed in the aftermath of the 1967 war and nothing since has operated to change its legality.

Y> That is the unequivocal conclusion, which is why there is an international concensus on the matter.

No, that's your unequivocal conclusion. The history and the texts say differently.

Y> The fact that Israel rejects its responsibility to respect its obligations under international law is irrelevent. Its duty to respect and uphold its treaty obligations is not considered quaint or irrelevent by the other contracting parties.

What other 'contracting parties' are you talking about? Israel has settled with Egypt and Jordan. I'm unaware of other 'contracting parties', unless you are again trying to elevate the Geneva Conventions and the UN Charter to a world government.

Y> So let's talk about "security". What do the illegal settlements have to do with "security"?

They interfere with armies invading. They provide eyes and ears for Israel as to what is going on in the territories. They contribute to preventing the buildup of weapons and troop concentrations. And Israel thinks that they help in assuring her security. That would be enough in and of itself, but there's more: Israelis have the right to live in the part of the West Bank that becomes Israel in the negotiations. Until the negotiations are completed, Israelis are not restricted from living anywhere in the WB any more than are the Arabs.

Originally Posted by David
Israel complies with the GC standards in regard to the Palestinian population.

Y> That's an absurd statement. Shall I list provisions of just GCIV that Israel is in continuous violation of? I listed two above. There are many others. When you get down to it, your argument depends upon rejecting international law and universally accepted legal and moral standards.

This isn't a popularity contest, Y. Israel isn't about to put her head on the block to satisfy your sense of what is right; she's going to satisfy her own sense of what is needed. The Middle East is filled with people who want to kill all the Jews of Israel. Alot of them live right next door. Israel is going to protect herself and her people so long as the danger persists. Grow up.

David Segal

Yirmeyahu

11-12-2007, 11:18 PM

Look, David, since I believe that nations should respect and uphold their treaty obligations, and furthermore that said international law is founded upon universal moral principles, and since you reject this position, we therefore have no common ground upon which to continue this discussion in any sort of fruitful manner and I don't wish to waste any more time going around in circles with you.

David Lyle Segal

11-13-2007, 06:29 AM

You and I disagree on the question of whether or not Israel is in violation of treaty obligations. We also disagree on whether sovereign states ultimately judge themselves in this regard. Just for your edification,

On August 9, 1941, President Franklin D Roosevelt proclaimed that the International Load Lines Convention of 1930 was no longer binding on the United States "for the duration of the present emergency". He based his unilateral suspension of the treaty on "changed conditions" which, he said, had conferred upon the United States "an unquestioned right and privilege under approved principles of international law" to declare the treaty inoperative. ... http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-9300%28194201%2936%3A1%3C89%3ATAGIRS%3E2.0.CO%3B2-G&size=LARGE&origin=JSTOR-enlargePage

On December 15, 1978, the United States of America and the People's Republic of China announced jointly, in Washington and Peking, that normal diplomatic relations would be established between them, as of January 1, 1979 ... The United States issued a separate statement concerning termination of its diplomatic relations with Taiwan ... http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-9300%28197904%2973%3A2%3C277%3ACPOTUS%3E2.0.CO%3B2 -W&size=LARGE&origin=JSTOR-enlargePage

10 March 2006, Geneva Switzerland. Today, in an historic and strongly worded decision by the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) the United States was urged to "freeze", "desist" and "stop" actions being taken or threatened to be taken against the Western Shoshone Peoples of the Western Shoshone Nation.

In its decision, CERD stressed the "nature and urgency" of the Shoshone situation informing the U.S. that it goes "well beyond" the normal reporting process and warrants immediate attention under the Committee's Early Warning and Urgent Action Procedure.

This monumental action challenges the US government's assertion of federal ownership of nearly 90% of Western Shoshone lands. The land base covers approximately 60 million acres,stretching across what is now referred to as the states of Nevada, Idaho, Utah and California.Western Shoshone rights to the land - which they continue to use, care for, and occupy today - were recognized by the United States in 1863 by the Treaty of Ruby Valley. The U.S. now claims these same lands as "public" or federal lands through an agency process and has denied Western Shoshone fair access to U.S. courts through that same process. http://www.treatycouncil.org/section_2114421411.htm

David Segal

Yirmeyahu

11-13-2007, 07:20 AM

You and I disagree on the question of whether or not Israel is in violation of treaty obligations.

You and I disagree about a great deal more than that.

You deny that it is a principle of international law that it is inadmissable to acquire territory through force.

You deny that UN resolution 242 and others have expressed the inadmissability under international law of the acquisition of territory by war.

You deny that the Israeli occupation violates Geneva Convention IV, Article 47, which forbids the acquisition of territory by war.

You deny that Israeli settlements are a violation of Geneva Convention IV Article 49, which forbids countries from building settlements outside of its own recognized borders.

You deny that Israel is even occupying any territory whatsoever.

Inasmuch as you and I live in an alternate realities, I do not think it possible for us to have any kind of fruitful discussion on the matter.

We also disagree on whether sovereign states ultimately judge themselves in this regard.

Law is made meaningless if we argue that every individual may decide for his or herself whether any particular law may or may not apply and/or whether he or she is in violation of any particular law.

Such an interpretation of law is nonsense. That's the law of the jungle. That's no law at all.

Law is contract.

David Lyle Segal

11-13-2007, 08:04 AM

Y> Law is made meaningless if we argue that every individual may decide for his or herself whether any particular law may or may not apply and/or whether he or she is in violation of any particular law.

Such an interpretation of law is nonsense. That's the law of the jungle. That's no law at all.

We're not talking about individuals, but about sovereign states, Y. There's a difference on the order of more than one magnitude. Somehow you haven't yet learned to open your eyes. You hold Israel to a standard that few if any other countries would abide. I showed you the first three that I found with little effort, but you still ignore reality. I don't fault you for your idealism, but please don't confuse it with how the real world operates. Were you this upset when you learned that your mother wasn't a virgin?

David Segal

Yirmeyahu

11-13-2007, 09:25 AM

We're not talking about individuals, but about sovereign states, Y.

I'm speaking about the principle of law, which is the same whether we are speaking of individuals or of nations.

You hold Israel to a standard that few if any other countries would abide.

The standard I hold Israel to is the standard it agreed to uphold when it signed the UN Charter and Geneva Conventions.

I don't fault you for your idealism, but please don't confuse it with how the real world operates.

We aren't having a philosophical discussion. The fact that nations violate international law doesn't justify their violations of international law.

Americanadian

11-13-2007, 02:46 PM

Well, so much for your interest in peace, eh? By all means, let's make JUSTICE our watchword as we see our children killed off. Get real. Justice is your excuse for not making peace.

Nice side step on the land issue Davie. You don't like the word "Justice"?
I believe the Zionists didn't want peace to begin with Dave. They had the choice of more peaceful land to settle in and they refused both. Which leads us to the next question; Why Palestine? If they endeavored to live in peace and the Arabs, by your statements, were already engaged in murdering innocent Jews in Palestine, why all the fuss about settling in Palestine? Why endanger the lives of so many innocents on either side?

Oh, you must have missed what went on before the Stern Gang and Irgun and Haganah, when the Mufti's mobs were massacring Jews in the streets. The Irgun wasn't founded until the Great Arab Revolt in 1936; the Stern Gang came even later. Try reading about the Nebi Musa riots in 1920 and the Hebron Massacre of 1929 and then get back to me about tyranny. While founded earlier, the Haganah confined its activities strictly to protecting Jewish farmsteads from raids by their Arab neighbors until Hebron. Here's a taste from the testimony of the British police commissioner in Hebron:

"On hearing screams in a room I went up a sort of tunnel passage and saw an Arab in the act of cutting off a child's head with a sword. He had already hit him and was having another cut, but on seeing me he tried to aim the stroke at me, but missed; he was practically on the muzzle of my rifle. I shot him low in the groin. Behind him was a Jewish woman smothered in blood with a man I recognized as an Arab police constable named Issa Sherif from Jaffa. He was standing over the woman with a dagger in his hand. He saw me and bolted into a room close by and tried to shut me out, shouting in Arabic, "Your Honor, I am a policeman!" I got into the room and shot him."

I don't condone any such violence Dave, and you'll never see me support such atrocities on either side. I wish there to be peace for all. However, this act alone doesn't justify retaliatory violence which the Zionist terrorist gangs enacted upon innocent civilians themselves. How about the Butcher of Beirut? What did the Lebanese do to deserve such demonic depravity imposed on them?

You appear to think that every act of Arab violence means the Zionists have some Divine justification to eradicate every Arab with an elevated measure of violence and force. Since the Zionists are the foreigners, wouldn't it make more sense to leave the area to secure peace?

Your phrasing only proves how little you know about this, much less care. Like other ideologues, you seem to think that the Zionists were some wealthy, all-powerful group, that spoke for all Jews. The Zionists' actual poverty and weakness (they were by far a minority among the Jews) were not understood by the powerful of the day.

Well, I'm not exactly a scholar on the subject Dave, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that Israel is violating International Law and the Geneva Conventions. If Israel is a signatory to both they are compelled to adhere to the treaties. Simple as that.

The Zionists were a minority? How could that be when a Religious Jew would not defy the Torah to return to the land which they were instructed to avoid? The Torah instructed the Jews to await the return of the Messiah before returning to the Holy Land.

Truthfully, the Zionists didn't offer anything to the British "in return for Palestine". They didn't have to. Britain was being flooded with Jewish refugees from the Russian pogroms that they didn't want. The Germans were rumored to be preparing a similar declaration of their own, and the British brought out theirs first. But I'm not relying on the Balfour Declaration in any event, AI. I'm relying on the San Remo Declaration, which had, after all, the benefit of Emir Feisal's testimony at Paris:

"DEAR MR. FRANKFURTER: I want to take this opportunity of my first contact with American Zionists to tell you what I have often been able to say to Dr. Weizmann in Arabia and Europe.

We feel that the Arabs and Jews are cousins in having suffered similar oppressions at the hands of powers stronger than themselves, and by a happy coincidence have been able to take the first step towards the attainment of their national ideals together.

We Arabs, especially the educated among us look with the deepest sympathy on the Zionist movement. Our deputation here in Paris is fully acquainted with the proposals submitted yesterday by the Zionist Organisation to Peace Conference, and we regard them as moderate proper. We will do our best, in so far as we are concerned, to help them through: we will wish the Jews a most hearty welcome home.

With the chiefs of your movement, especially with Dr. Weizmann, we have had and continue to have the closest relations. He has been a great helper of our cause, and I hope the Arabs may soon be in a position to make the Jews some return for their kindness. We are working together for a reformed and revived Near East, and our two movements complete one another. The Jewish movement is national and not imperialist. Our movement is national and not imperialist, and there is room in Syria for us both. Indeed I think that neither can be a real success without the other.

I have to say how much I appreciate your giving me the opportunity to sweep back the BS about Zionism and Israel, AI. Keep it up.

David Segal[/QUOTE]

Israel lives in flagrant disregard to International Law Dave. If the International Community refuses to hold Israel liable to the treaties which she signed, then may the UN levy economic sanctions against Israel until she wises up and adheres to the laws which every other member has to abide by. Either that or may the UN be dissolved and rendered impotent as it most assuredly is regarding Israel.

Americanadian

11-13-2007, 02:49 PM

Yirmeyahu,

I would like your opinion on the definition of a Jew. Do you believe they comprise a race, or an adherent to a religion?

Thanks.

David Lyle Segal

11-13-2007, 03:31 PM

Originally Posted by David Lyle Segal
Well, so much for your interest in peace, eh? By all means, let's make JUSTICE our watchword as we see our children killed off. Get real. Justice is your excuse for not making peace.

AI> Nice side step on the land issue Davie. You don't like the word "Justice"?

I'm all for justice, AI, but I know who slippery a concept it is. All too often, both sides have their own definitions, leading only to stalemate (or war). I prefer finality to justice when the two sides can't agree on a definition, but I despair of your even wanting to understand me.

AI> I believe the Zionists didn't want peace to begin with Dave. They had the choice of more peaceful land to settle in and they refused both.

What are you talking about now?

AI> Which leads us to the next question; Why Palestine? If they endeavored to live in peace and the Arabs, by your statements, were already engaged in murdering innocent Jews in Palestine, why all the fuss about settling in Palestine? Why endanger the lives of so many innocents on either side?

There are many reasons, AI, not all of which applied to all Jewish immigrants. Here are a few that come immediately to mind:

1. They had the permission of the sovereign to live there and had the right to rely on the sovereign to assure them protection from killers.

2. They had been taught since childhood to want to live in Israel's ancient land.

3. They were under threat of death where they were living and had nowhere else to go.

4. There were other Jews who encouraged them and helped them to immigrate.

5. They had relatives already living there.

6. They wanted to live where Jews were in control.

7. Israeli socialism appealed to them.

Originally Posted by David Lyle Segal
Oh, you must have missed what went on before the Stern Gang and Irgun and Haganah, when the Mufti's mobs were massacring Jews in the streets. The Irgun wasn't founded until the Great Arab Revolt in 1936; the Stern Gang came even later. Try reading about the Nebi Musa riots in 1920 and the Hebron Massacre of 1929 and then get back to me about tyranny. While founded earlier, the Haganah confined its activities strictly to protecting Jewish farmsteads from raids by their Arab neighbors until Hebron. Here's a taste from the testimony of the British police commissioner in Hebron:

"On hearing screams in a room I went up a sort of tunnel passage and saw an Arab in the act of cutting off a child's head with a sword. He had already hit him and was having another cut, but on seeing me he tried to aim the stroke at me, but missed; he was practically on the muzzle of my rifle. I shot him low in the groin. Behind him was a Jewish woman smothered in blood with a man I recognized as an Arab police constable named Issa Sherif from Jaffa. He was standing over the woman with a dagger in his hand. He saw me and bolted into a room close by and tried to shut me out, shouting in Arabic, "Your Honor, I am a policeman!" I got into the room and shot him."

AI> I don't condone any such violence Dave, and you'll never see me support such atrocities on either side. I wish there to be peace for all. However, this act alone doesn't justify retaliatory violence which the Zionist terrorist gangs enacted upon innocent civilians themselves. How about the Butcher of Beirut? What did the Lebanese do to deserve such demonic depravity imposed on them?

You'll have to ask Elias Hobeika, AI. He was the one who led the Lebanese Christians into the camps to kill the Palestinians. No Israeli troops took part in the massacre.

AI> You appear to think that every act of Arab violence means the Zionists have some Divine justification to eradicate every Arab with an elevated measure of violence and force. Since the Zionists are the foreigners, wouldn't it make more sense to leave the area to secure peace?

Not to me, but then again, I live in Philadelphia.

Originally Posted by David Lyle Segal
Your phrasing only proves how little you know about this, much less care. Like other ideologues, you seem to think that the Zionists were some wealthy, all-powerful group, that spoke for all Jews. The Zionists' actual poverty and weakness (they were by far a minority among the Jews) were not understood by the powerful of the day.

AI> Well, I'm not exactly a scholar on the subject Dave, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that Israel is violating International Law and the Geneva Conventions. If Israel is a signatory to both they are compelled to adhere to the treaties. Simple as that.

You can sit over there with Y on this subject.

AI> The Zionists were a minority? How could that be when a Religious Jew would not defy the Torah to return to the land which they were instructed to avoid? The Torah instructed the Jews to await the return of the Messiah before returning to the Holy Land.

Thank you for the lesson in Judaism, AI.

Originally Posted by David Lyle Segal
Truthfully, the Zionists didn't offer anything to the British "in return for Palestine". They didn't have to. Britain was being flooded with Jewish refugees from the Russian pogroms that they didn't want. The Germans were rumored to be preparing a similar declaration of their own, and the British brought out theirs first. But I'm not relying on the Balfour Declaration in any event, AI. I'm relying on the San Remo Declaration, which had, after all, the benefit of Emir Feisal's testimony at Paris:

"DEAR MR. FRANKFURTER: I want to take this opportunity of my first contact with American Zionists to tell you what I have often been able to say to Dr. Weizmann in Arabia and Europe.

We feel that the Arabs and Jews are cousins in having suffered similar oppressions at the hands of powers stronger than themselves, and by a happy coincidence have been able to take the first step towards the attainment of their national ideals together.

We Arabs, especially the educated among us look with the deepest sympathy on the Zionist movement. Our deputation here in Paris is fully acquainted with the proposals submitted yesterday by the Zionist Organisation to Peace Conference, and we regard them as moderate proper. We will do our best, in so far as we are concerned, to help them through: we will wish the Jews a most hearty welcome home.

With the chiefs of your movement, especially with Dr. Weizmann, we have had and continue to have the closest relations. He has been a great helper of our cause, and I hope the Arabs may soon be in a position to make the Jews some return for their kindness. We are working together for a reformed and revived Near East, and our two movements complete one another. The Jewish movement is national and not imperialist. Our movement is national and not imperialist, and there is room in Syria for us both. Indeed I think that neither can be a real success without the other. "

I have to say how much I appreciate your giving me the opportunity to sweep back the BS about Zionism and Israel, AI. Keep it up.

AI> Israel lives in flagrant disregard to International Law Dave. If the International Community refuses to hold Israel liable to the treaties which she signed, then may the UN levy economic sanctions against Israel until she wises up and adheres to the laws which every other member has to abide by. Either that or may the UN be dissolved and rendered impotent as it most assuredly is regarding Israel.
From your lips ..., AI. As you may have noticed, there are differences of opinion on this.

David Segal

Americanadian

11-13-2007, 05:07 PM

I'm all for justice, AI, but I know who slippery a concept it is. All too often, both sides have their own definitions, leading only to stalemate (or war). I prefer finality to justice when the two sides can't agree on a definition, but I despair of your even wanting to understand me.

Justice is (supposed to be) lawfulness and righteousness. I am aware there are a few definitions of "justice". I like to think of it as applicable in the context of law particularly. When one entity commits a greivance against another, there are laws enacted to impose a penalty upon the transgressor(s). That is what is absent in the Middle East presently and for quite some time; an absence of justice and law despite our "enlightened" stature as an International community.

I fear you misunderstand my motives or intentions. I am not interested in fomenting hatred against the Jews. I find it appalling that some people can hate a group of people just because of the color of their skin or religious beliefs. If their beliefs are being imposed upon others or attempting to influence the laws of a nation to their benefit, I have a problem with that. Such is the case with the Roman Catholic church, but that is another topic.

I am interested in the truth. However, as you are well aware, for the truth seeker, there are many articles and historic contributions written with obfuscated ulterior motives. Some are biased of course, and therefore we are relegated to form an opinion or opinions based on what we have to draw from in history. Consider how much information regarding WWII hasn't been released for public knowledge as of yet. In the meantime, how many history textbooks and historians have emerged that were educated with the little information released to the public? Then, if the newly released information contradicts the accepted knowledge that has been regurgitated for decades, it will be accepted by some and rejected by others. Hence, a conflagration of historic events ensues and the result is exacerbated confusion. That is my opinion anyhow.

Obviously, you have a strong attachment to Israel and see it as the "underdog" of the Middle East. Am I correct?

What are you talking about now?

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Zionism/Uganda.html

Uganda, Canada, Australia (all part of the British Empire) were discussed. It was called The Uganda Proposal. Ultimately, the Zionists rejected the offer in 1905. Canada and Australia were withdrawn due to protest from "local residents" which is odd.

There are many reasons, AI, not all of which applied to all Jewish immigrants. Here are a few that come immediately to mind:

1. They had the permission of the sovereign to live there and had the right to rely on the sovereign to assure them protection from killers.

Obviously the sovereign failed to protect them. Now, the "sovereign" continues to permit bloodshed on both sides of the turmoil.

2. They had been taught since childhood to want to live in Israel's ancient land.

This is what I question. According to the Religious Jews, they are taught to await the return of the Messiah before laying claim to the land. Perhaps some grew impatient and took matters into their own hands ?

3. They were under threat of death where they were living and had nowhere else to go.

Are you referring to WWII only?

Which leads me to another question for you. Was there any act other than the Judea declaration of war against Germany which would indicate of any sort of betrayal by the Zionists? Bismarck gave all Jews safe haven in Germany since 1871, if I recall correctly. WWI was the turning point. Did not the revealing of the Balfour Declaration at the Treaty of Versailles indicate to the Germans that the Zionists collaborated with the British in some manner?

4. There were other Jews who encouraged them and helped them to immigrate.

Why would they do so if the Arabs were as hostile as you outlined previously? Without any military or protection, it would be a fruitless venture.

5. They had relatives already living there.

If they were still living there, that must indicate that the Arabs were not as hostile as you previously asserted, yes?

6. They wanted to live where Jews were in control.

Not until after 1948 though. Why would they risk jeopardizing things prior to Israel's inception?

7. Israeli socialism appealed to them.

Sure.

You'll have to ask Elias Hobeika, AI. He was the one who led the Lebanese Christians into the camps to kill the Palestinians. No Israeli troops took part in the massacre.

However, Ariel Sharon permitted it to transpire, which is why he was forced to resign. Why he is permitted to be the Prime Minister is beyond comprehension. Convenient that the IDF permitted the Militiamen to enter an area under their control for the purpose of slaughtering some more of the very people the Zionists wish to remove from Palestine.

Not to me, but then again, I live in Philadelphia.

And yet you defend Israel moreso than your own country. Or do you hold Israeli citizenship as well?

You can sit over there with Y on this subject.

Fine by me. Although, I must proclaim an interesting development in my view of the UN. On the surface, the UN represents the endeavors to unite the world and bring peace, hopefully, in a world filled with strife. However, upon learning more of the Vatican's agenda, I am now beginning to oppose the UN as an infringement of individual sovereign nations. As has been demonstrated, the UN is essentially rendered impotent if the US doesn't support one of its Resolutions. Ironically, the UN HQ is in New York.

Thank you for the lesson in Judaism, AI.

Whether you wish to acknowledge Judaism or not, that is where the Jew originates.

From your lips ..., AI. As you may have noticed, there are differences of opinion on this.

David Segal

Of course. I prefer to attempt to understand differing opinions for the sake of learning. As much as it is or isn't relevant, Israel isn't exactly an exemplary nation to embody.

It all boiled down to choice. The Zionists wanted Palestine no matter the consequences. They refused other lands, and as you stated, the Arabs were murdering Jews all over Palestine. Why relocate to Palestine when it would have been a more frugal fiscal decision to relocate any Jews from Palestine to a safe haven? As you stated, the Zionists weren't the rich elite. ALthough there were the land purchases in Palestine occurring. I'm sure those living there may have refused, but at least give them a choice if the violence was that apparent.

Yirmeyahu

11-13-2007, 09:57 PM

Yirmeyahu,

I would like your opinion on the definition of a Jew. Do you believe they comprise a race, or an adherent to a religion?

Thanks.

Both. A Jew is a member of the tribe of Judah, a descendent of the son of Israel. The word is also used to describe any person who practices Judaism. In the book of Romans, Paul explains how gentiles are "grafted" into the tree by accepting the Jewish Messiah Yeshua, and in that sense become Jews. But that's metaphorically speaking.

Yirmeyahu

11-13-2007, 10:00 PM

Israel lives in flagrant disregard to International Law Dave.

You won't convince David of that, because David doesn't believe Israel has any obligation to honor the treaties it is a signatory to.

Ergo, David rejects the fundamental principles of morality upon which said international law has been founded.

David Lyle Segal

11-13-2007, 10:00 PM

Justice is (supposed to be) lawfulness and righteousness. I am aware there are a few definitions of "justice". I like to think of it as applicable in the context of law particularly. When one entity commits a greivance against another, there are laws enacted to impose a penalty upon the transgressor(s). That is what is absent in the Middle East presently and for quite some time; an absence of justice and law despite our "enlightened" stature as an International community.

I make no claims to philosophy, AI, but IMV, those who seek 'Justice' in the Israel/Palestinian context aren't looking for a peaceful solution at all; they want a fight. Instead of looking forward to peace, they look backwards to right what they consider to be past wrongs. They use what you call 'our enlightened stature as an international community' to judge the actions of people who were not blessed (if you must) with such perfect knowledge, but were groping in the darkness of their supposed ignorance. That approach not only denies the humanity of the people under your microscope, but exaggerates the god-like wisdom of the viewer. In other words, it's self-aggrandizing nonsense.

Worse, it blinds us to our own fallibility, as seen a hundred years from now. Are you and I so narcissistic as to think that our great grandchildren won't think of us as heartless brutes in the way we treat our own parents, or our homeless and hungry, or those who are desperate to save their lives by finding jobs and safety from oppression inside our borders?

We in America are pretty much accustomed to turning our heads away from the displacement and genocide of the native Americans with the explanation that "that was then; this is now; we've got to go forward", or even "Hey, my grandfather didn't come over until 1902, well after all that went down". We really don't do much about their destruction and only very little more about the enslavement of the Africans. If you really want a mother lode of injustice to mine, it's right here, all around you.

Ninety years ago, the people who won the authority to decide what to do with the Vilayets of Damascus, Mosul, Basra, and Beirut and the Sanjaks of Nablus and Acre thought that their actions were the height of enlightened wisdom. Having witnessed all around them the vast, wasteful expenditure of men and treasure that simply destroyed some of the most powerful civilizations in the Great War, they were determined not to repeat the historical errors that would permit a return to such horrors on the then-emerging industrial scale. They were men of their time, however. Most of them had been born well back in the prior century and were quite comfortable with their view of a world of advanced civilizations and empires leading those less powerful that you or I might consider to be unacceptable today.

If you've studied the history, AI, you will recognize that I am not just talking about the corrupt imperialist Europeans whom Woodrow Wilson lectured on the concept of self-determination, but the Arab chieftans as well. Sherif Husayn of the Hejaz (the father of Emir Feisal and Emir Abdullah) fully expected that his dynasty would rule all of the Arab lands from Beirut to Mosul to Basra to Sana'a. From his perspective, turning over the sliver of Palestine to the Zionists was a brilliant idea, since it would bring capital and technology to empower his empire. He could count on the Jews to be friendly and helpful. Feisal's agreement of January 3, 1919 with Chaim Weizmann is full of these sentiments:

"Article I - The Arab State and Palestine in all their relations and undertakings shall be controlled by the most cordial goodwill and understanding, and to this end Arab and Jewish duly accredited agents shall be established and maintained in the respective territories.

"Article II - Immediately following the completion of the deliberations of the Peace Conference, the definite boundaries between the Arab State and Palestine shall be determined by a Commission to be agreed upon by the parties hereto.

"Article III - In the establishment of the Constitution and Administration of Palestine, all such measures shall be adopted as will afford the fullest guarantees for carrying into effect the British Government's Declaration of the 2nd of November, 1917 [i.e., the Balfour Declaration].

"Article IV - All necessary measures shall be taken to encourage and stimulate immigration of Jews into Palestine on a large scale, and as quickly as possible to settle Jewish immigrants upon the land through closer settlement and intensive cultivation of the soil. In taking such measures the Arab peasant and tenant farmers shall be protected in their rights and shall be assisted in forwarding their economic development. ...

"Article VIII - The parties hereto agree to act in complete accord and harmony on all matters embraced herein before the Peace Congress.

"Article IX - Any matters of dispute which may arise between the contracting parties hall be referred to the British Government for arbitration. ..."

Did this agreement deny the Palestinian Arabs their due? Was it unjust to them? Doesn't your answer depend on where (and when) you are sitting? Feisal certainly thought it was just what they needed; he was going to be the king of the Arabs (he eventually wound up with Iraq and his brother with Transjordan). His letter to the American Zionist, Felix Frankfurter, tells us in his own words:

"We feel that the Arabs and Jews are cousins in having suffered similar oppressions at the hands of powers stronger than themselves, and by a happy coincidence have been able to take the first step towards the attainment of their national ideals together.

We Arabs, especially the educated among us look with the deepest sympathy on the Zionist movement. Our deputation here in Paris is fully acquainted with the proposals submitted yesterday by the Zionist Organisation to Peace Conference, and we regard them as moderate proper. We will do our best, in so far as we are concerned, to help them through: we will wish the Jews a most hearty welcome home.

With the chiefs of your movement, especially with Dr. Weizmann, we have had and continue to have the closest relations. He has been a great helper of our cause, and I hope the Arabs may soon be in a position to make the Jews some return for their kindness. We are working together for a reformed and revived Near East, and our two movements complete one another. The Jewish movement is national and not imperialist. Our movement is national and not imperialist, and there is room in Syria for us both. Indeed I think that neither can be a real success without the other. ...

"I look forward, and my people with me look forward, to a future in which we will help you and you will help us, so that the countries in which we are mutually interested may once again take their places in the community of civilised peoples of the world. "

Now, today, we don't look over such a vast landscape as presented itself in 1919. We look at just the fifty miles from the sea to the Jordan River and wonder how to fit two countries into the space. In 1919, they didn't know whether enough Jews would ever come to make the question interesting. Likewise, they didn't know whether there would be one country or two. In their enlightened view, they decided to let the Jews and the Arabs sort out those questions over the period of the British Mandate, and the issue remained open until the 1936-39 Arab Revolt, when it became inescapable that partition would be required.

By then, despite the Arabs' two decades of violence against the Jews and the British for permitting them entry, there was a country's-worth of Jews who might get from Safad to Tel Aviv (where they were in the majority) and the rest would go to the Arabs. That's what the Peel Commission recommended in the aftermath of the 'troubles'. But the British were listening more to the Arab side in 1939, with the oncoming German crisis and the perceived need to maintain Britain's hold on India and access to Arab oil for her navy. Britain's own needs had shouldered aside her obligations under the mandate, and she decided that the Jews were more trouble than she needed at that time. Was this volte-face 'just' to the Jews who came in reliance on the promise of the Allies?

Well, the Jews certainly didn't take kindly to seeing the dreams woven at Paris discarded so blithely. They started to do more than merely hold off the Arab marauders that were plaguing their farms and towns; they took the battle to the Arabs themselves, with reprisal raids and even terror in some instances. Those were the same tactics practiced on the Jews by the Mufti's forces, not an escalation (unless you subscribe to the view of the Jews as always/everywhere an unarmed, despised population always ripe for a pogrom when you were bored). Was the Jewish self-defense 'unjust'? Should they have realized that they weren't wanted and therefore packed up and left (no one ever says where)?

During WWII, the Jews (except for occasional violations by the hotheads of the Irgun) adopted the policy of 'fight[ing] the Germans as if there were no White Paper [the British decision to ignore the Peel Commission's report and give the Mufti the veto over future Jewish immigration], and the British as if there were no war'. Even though they were only about a third of Palestine's population, more Palestinian Jews volunteered for the British army than did Arabs from Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Transjordan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Egypt, and Palestine combined. The Mufti, as you may know, spent the war as a guest of Herr Hitler in Berlin. While there, he also broadcast regularly pro-Nazi propaganda, urging the Arabs to rise up against the British and was instrumental in assembling the 13th SS division of Moslem soldiers in the Balkans (the 21,000 strong Handschar Division) that was assigned anti-partisan duties in Bosnia (against Tito).

And after the war, the UNGA endorsed the Jews' right of self-determination where they were in the majority. The UN's announcement in November, 1947, brought an immediate Arab response: general attack against all Jews. Was this 'just'? The attacks soon attracted the intervention of the Arab Liberation Army, volunteers assembled in Damascus under the leadership of Fawzi al-Qawuqji, who entered (with British acquiescence) Palestine and invested Samaria, the Galilee, Haifa, and other sectors, from which they attacked Jews on the roads and in their homes with murderous abandon for the entire six months before the British left. Was this 'justice' to the Jews, in your view?

What this entire historical review is intended to show, AI, is that justice is a seemingly attractive concept that has little to no application to the Israel/Palestinian conflict. It's too easy to make a case for either side. What we're left with is merely disagreement, not a solution. If it's a solution that we actually want, we should look ahead to a means of accommodation between the Jews of today and the Arabs of today. "Justice" in this context, is simply overrated and unattainable. It's a sideshow that looks great and tastes terrible. Worse, it's a tool for those who want to see the fighting continue, rather than end.

David Segal

David Lyle Segal

11-13-2007, 10:15 PM

AI> Obviously, you have a strong attachment to Israel and see it as the "underdog" of the Middle East. Am I correct?

You're right on my attachment to Israel, and wrong on my view of Israel as the 'underdog'. However beleaguered, Israel has demonstrated her ability to hold her own against attack.

If anyone is an underdog, it is the Palestinians. They have been mis-served by their leadership, abused by their Arab bretheren in other countries, and exploited by the United Nations for its own purposes. I have great respect for the Palestinian Arabs. Those I have met have been thoughtful, caring people who opened their homes and their arms to me. Their compatriots have achieved the highest level of literacy and education in the entire Arab world. Their energy and devotion to achieving their goals is admirable, at least in the abstract.

What they lack is hope and a clear vision of what they want as an outcome to the conflict. They've been fed on a romantic fantasy of some Palestinian Salah-a-din riding to their rescue and driving out the infidel Jews. They've been sold a juvenile fantasy that defines personal honor in terms of their willingness to die to destroy the 'invaders'. They deserve to be told the truth. Israel is there by right and she is strong enough that they aren't going to dislodge her. Israel offers them an open invitation to make peace, if only they would take Israel's hand. I despair for the Palestinians; they're good people who have been misled, betrayed, and propagandized to such a horrible extent that it may well take two or three generations for them to recover their good sense.

David Segal

David Lyle Segal

11-13-2007, 10:38 PM

Originally Posted by David Lyle Segal
What are you talking about now?

AI> http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/...sm/Uganda.html Uganda, Canada, Australia (all part of the British Empire) were discussed. It was called The Uganda Proposal. Ultimately, the Zionists rejected the offer in 1905. Canada and Australia were withdrawn due to protest from "local residents" which is odd.

You really need to work from closer -- and more detailed -- sources, AI, before settling on your judgments. Of these ideas, only Uganda (you left out the Sinai Peninsula, which was another suggestion) ever got past the British Colonial Office's veto. In fact, Herzl won a majority vote in favor of Uganda (295 in favor vs 175 against). And Uganda fell of its own weight:

"So far as the [Zionist] commission dispatched to Uganda is concerned, it presented its findings at the 1905 [after Herzl had died] Zionist Congress ... and reported that the territory could accommodate no more than twenty thousand settlers, and that to relocate even this number would be extremely expensive and difficult." Mark Tessler, A History of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, p. 57.

Uganda doesn't even tickle the solution, AI. 20,000 Jews weren't going to make even a dent in the problem. There were millions at risk in the Pale of Settlement in 1905 (Google "Kishinev Pogrom" if you aren't content to believe me). You can't make any headway with Uganda (or anywhere else but Palestine). Sorry.

David Segal

David Lyle Segal

11-13-2007, 10:44 PM

Originally Posted by David Lyle Segal
There are many reasons, AI, not all of which applied to all Jewish immigrants. Here are a few that come immediately to mind:

1. They had the permission of the sovereign to live there and had the right to rely on the sovereign to assure them protection from killers.

AI> Obviously the sovereign failed to protect them. Now, the "sovereign" continues to permit bloodshed on both sides of the turmoil.

Israel is quite capable of guaranteeing that NO more Jewish blood will be shed, AI. Is that what you are asking for? Somehow, I don't think so. Instead, you're happier with an Israel that still accepts Jewish 'martyrs for peace'. Make up your mind.

David Segal

David Lyle Segal

11-13-2007, 10:49 PM

Originally Posted by David Lyle Segal
2. They had been taught since childhood to want to live in Israel's ancient land.

AI> This is what I question. According to the Religious Jews, they are taught to await the return of the Messiah before laying claim to the land. Perhaps some grew impatient and took matters into their own hands ?

I tried to avoid this in your earlier statement on the subject. You're wrong on the Judaism part. Don't cross swords with me on this. Rebuilding the Temple is not the same thing as the Ingathering of the Jews. You are simply un-prepared to debate this (and I don't want to open another front for the anti-Semites to attack from). Give it up. Israel is a secular state in any case, where all religions are respected and protected. None of the many rabbinical interpretations of Judaism are part of her law or her national policy. You're barking up the wrong tree.

David Segal

David Lyle Segal

11-13-2007, 10:53 PM

Originally Posted by David Lyle Segal
3. They were under threat of death where they were living and had nowhere else to go.

AI> Are you referring to WWII only?

Of course not. Please refer to my earlier answers, to avoid needless repetition.

AI> Which leads me to another question for you. Was there any act other than the Judea declaration of war against Germany

What the hell is the "Judea declaration of war against Israel"? You've already lost me, AI.

.. which would indicate of any sort of betrayal by the Zionists? Bismarck gave all Jews safe haven in Germany since 1871, if I recall correctly. WWI was the turning point. Did not the revealing of the Balfour Declaration at the Treaty of Versailles indicate to the Germans that the Zionists collaborated with the British in some manner?

All I can do, AI, is suggest that you hit the legitimate history books. Your website informants are clearly leading you down the garden path. Some of the assumptions that underly your phrasing is beyond my ability to re-construct, and I'm not about to become your only teacher. You've entered the land of fantasy; come back before you lose your soul <g>.

David Segal

David Lyle Segal

11-13-2007, 11:06 PM

Originally Posted by David Lyle Segal
4. There were other Jews who encouraged them and helped them to immigrate.

AI> Why would they do so if the Arabs were as hostile as you outlined previously? Without any military or protection, it would be a fruitless venture.

I'm sorry, AI, if my short synopses of the history have confused you on the order of how events unfolded. Rather than relying on me (or whatever other websites you have been drawing on), please take my suggestion that you spend time with reliable historians' writings on the subject. It's not my job to convert you to my view; do your own research. With respect for the humility before coming to ultimate judgments that the history deserves.

Originally Posted by David Lyle Segal
5. They had relatives already living there.

AI> If they were still living there, that must indicate that the Arabs were not as hostile as you previously asserted, yes?

As with everything else involved in this discussion, Yes and No. Some of the previous residents were religious Jews who accustomed themselves to living as dhimmis in Muslim society; others were early (e.g., First and Second Aliyah) Socialist idealists who were toiling away at their idealistic vision. I can't transfer all of the history to you by mind-beam, AI. You're just going to have to read the history books and make your choices by yourself.

Originally Posted by David Lyle Segal
6. They wanted to live where Jews were in control.

AI> Not until after 1948 though. Why would they risk jeopardizing things prior to Israel's inception?

Do you want me to think that you think before you write, or are you willing to withdraw the above?

David Segal

David Lyle Segal

11-13-2007, 11:37 PM

AI> However, Ariel Sharon permitted it [the Sabra and Shatila massacres] to transpire, which is why he was forced to resign. Why he is permitted to be the Prime Minister is beyond comprehension. Convenient that the IDF permitted the Militiamen to enter an area under their control for the purpose of slaughtering some more of the very people the Zionists wish to remove from Palestine.

I never realized that you considered Jews to be ubermenschen, AI, always able to predict the future with perfect clarity. Sharon was removed as Defense Minister for negligence: not anticipating what Hobeika had in mind. That's a high enough standard, but you want to make him out as the guy pulling the trigger, too. Give me a break. Jews, even Ariel Sharon, put their pants on one leg at a time, just like white folks.

Your description of what you think was in the Israelis' minds is beneath contempt. The Palestinian victims weren't in Palestine. In case your websites didn't tell you, they were in UNRWA camps in Lebanon. Did Sharon err in his decision: the Kahane Commission says he did and I won't disagree. Did he intend that hundreds of Palestinian women and children be massacred? Only a rabid Jew-hater could come to that conclusion without better evidence than you have at hand. Re-consider your judgment. Please. I want to be able to communicate with you on a civil level; don't convince me that you are no less ideologically driven than the obvious anti-Semites in this thread.

Originally Posted by David Lyle Segal
Not to me, but then again, I live in Philadelphia.

AI> And yet you defend Israel moreso than your own country. Or do you hold Israeli citizenship as well?

I'm not sure how you come to the conclusion of your first sentence; perhaps you'll be kind enough to point out the basis for your statement. As to the second, the answer is no. I am a US citizen only. My wife and daughter live in Jerusalem, however, and have dual citizenship. They didn't move there, however, to 'steal land' from the Arabs (although my daughter served honorably in the IDF, maintaining F-16s for the Israeli Air Force). Their reasons were probably more than you are prepared to accept: it's easy to live as a Jew in Israel, much easier than in even the US.

Originally Posted by David Lyle Segal
You can sit over there with Y on this subject.

AI> Fine by me. Although, I must proclaim an interesting development in my view of the UN. On the surface, the UN represents the endeavors to unite the world and bring peace, hopefully, in a world filled with strife. However, upon learning more of the Vatican's agenda, I am now beginning to oppose the UN as an infringement of individual sovereign nations. As has been demonstrated, the UN is essentially rendered impotent if the US doesn't support one of its Resolutions. Ironically, the UN HQ is in New York.
We obviously have different views of the US' intentions with regard to the UN (I haven't the slightest idea of what you are talking about in regard to the Vatican). IMV, the US was happy to see the UN as a forum, but not as some sort of world government. That's why the US (as well as the other four 'permanent members' of the UNSC) holds an absolute veto over UNSC decisions and the UNGA is little more than a Greek chorus. Wake up, AI. The UN ain't the world government and it never was. It was even designed to be nothing of the sort.

Originally Posted by David Lyle Segal
Thank you for the lesson in Judaism, AI.

AI> Whether you wish to acknowledge Judaism or not, that is where the Jew originates.

As the past president of a Lubavitcher shul in Philadelphia, I am happy to advise you that you're talking out your ass. I really don't want to debate Judaism with you, AI. Leave it alone, especially in light of the fact that we're talking about the policies of the State of Israel, not some Jewish sect's views on which you have latched. You're 'way out of your depth here; leave it alone.

Originally Posted by David Lyle Segal
From your lips ..., AI. As you may have noticed, there are differences of opinion on this.

AI> Of course. I prefer to attempt to understand differing opinions for the sake of learning. As much as it is or isn't relevant, Israel isn't exactly an exemplary nation to embody. It all boiled down to choice. The Zionists wanted Palestine no matter the consequences. They refused other lands, and as you stated, the Arabs were murdering Jews all over Palestine. Why relocate to Palestine when it would have been a more frugal fiscal decision to relocate any Jews from Palestine to a safe haven? As you stated, the Zionists weren't the rich elite. ALthough there were the land purchases in Palestine occurring. I'm sure those living there may have refused, but at least give them a choice if the violence was that apparent.

Congratulations, AI. You have finally achieved the ultimate level of cluelessness on the history of Palestine as well as the beliefs of the Jews. I can't possibly answer any of this nonsense without giving you pain for your chauvinistic ignorance. Please, please, please, read the history, and stop relying on soundbites for your information. We're talking about real people in real places with real lives in the balance. Doesn't that warrant your careful study and modest self-restraint before judging others?

David Segal