Israeli - Palestinian Conflict *Threadbans in OP*

Timberrrrrrrr

[Deleted User] wrote: »

We must find out who is responsible for this, and charge them accordingly with the crimes they have committed.

Yeah, as if that's gonna happen :rolleyes:

Timberrrrrrrr

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I disagree.

Israel exists as a Jewish state. That in itself doesn't make it racist.

For instance, if Ireland permitted open borders to the world population, free from all checks, and hundreds of thousands of migrants landed to Ireland - that would affect the demographics, culture, and ultimately - the history and composition of the nation. It wouldn't make Ireland "racist" to try and ensure the composition of the country remained somewhat intact.

A nation is more than its political borders. Would you support 3 million migrants moving to Ireland? Quite clearly not. You can appreciate the long-term consequences for the people who already live here. That wouldn't make you a racist, and neither is Israel racist for pursuing the same kind of policy.

Similarly, Israel wants to ensure that it's culture and tradition and existence is fundamentally Jewish. Clearly, they cannot agree to the idea of millions of Palestinians moving into Israel. It would, like the Irish example above, mean that the concept of the country disappeared entirely. Again, there is nothing racist about this at all.

The Palestinians don't want to move to Israel, they want thier own country, unfortunate for the Palestinian people israel wants that same land so keeps using force to steal it.

Timberrrrrrrr

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

The Palestinians don't want to move to Israel, they want thier own country, unfortunate for the Palestinian people israel wants that same land so keeps using force to steal it.

Again, that misrepresents the situation.

On five separate occasions, the Palestinians have refused statehood.

thomas 123

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I disagree.

Israel exists as a Jewish state. That in itself doesn't make it racist.

For instance, if Ireland permitted open borders to the world population, free from all checks, and hundreds of thousands of migrants landed to Ireland - that would affect the demographics, culture, and ultimately - the history and composition of the nation. It wouldn't make Ireland "racist" to try and ensure the composition of the country remained somewhat intact.

A nation is more than its political borders. Would you support 3 million migrants moving to Ireland? Quite clearly not. You can appreciate the long-term consequences for the people who already live here. That wouldn't make you a racist, and neither is Israel racist for pursuing the same kind of policy.

Similarly, Israel wants to ensure that it's culture and tradition and existence is fundamentally Jewish. Clearly, they cannot agree to the idea of millions of Palestinians moving into Israel. It would, like the Irish example above, mean that the concept of the country disappeared entirely. Again, there is nothing racist about this at all.

No no, you can’t compare a countries borders to annexed/occupied territory. You don’t get to do that.

Israel controls the West Bank, Israel treats people in the West Bank differently solely based on ethnicity, that is racist.

“ It wouldn't make Ireland "racist" to try and ensure the composition of the country remained somewhat intact.”

if we omitted people based on race it absolutely would.

The phrase "free Palestine " , the people who call it may have different ideas as to what a free Palestine would look like.

What would a free Palestine look like to you?

Timberrrrrrrr

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Again, that misrepresents the situation.

On five separate occasions, the Palestinians have refused statehood.

Israel keeps illegally building settlements, they illegally evict Palestinian families, they illegally blockade Palestinians from fishing, they illegally block vaccines from entering Gaza. Israel illegally forced long term contraception onto Ethiopian Jews.

Stop trying to make them out to be the good guys.

Overheal

Deleted User wrote: »

What would a free Palestine look like to you?

Has its own port, border, and sovereignty. Right now, it's not unlike an open-air prison. The Palestinians must be free to self-determine. At the moment, they are being expected to idly accept being ethnically cleansed at worst or to embrace apartheid subjugation at best.

thomas 123

thomas 123 wrote: »

No no, you can’t compare a countries borders to annexed/occupied territory. You don’t get to do that.

Israel controls the West Bank, Israel treats people in the West Bank differently solely based on ethnicity, that is racist.

Five countries attacked Israel in June 1967, including Jordan - who, at that time, controlled the West Bank.

Jordan lost the war and, with it, the West Bank.

Israel, under international law, is permitted to occupy that zone until a 'meaningful peace' has been achieved.

When Israel relinquished control of the Gaza Strip in 2005, it became a launch pad for missiles and a nest for Hamas.

Israel understands the risks attacked to relinquishing yet more control to the West Bank. What happened in the Gaza Strip has now offered a precedent, and understandably, Israel is sceptical.

Overheal

eskimohunt wrote: »

Israel, under international law, is permitted to occupy that zone until a 'meaningful peace' has been achieved.

International law says their settlements are legal? That's not what I've heard.

Overheal

"Sources tell me that much of what we’re seeing and not seeing from the White House has to do with lessons learned by Biden and his team from the tense relationship between then-President Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the belief that having a public spat with Netanyahu actually would mean reducing American influence with him, particularly since Netanyahu is in the middle of a domestic political crisis and would in all likelihood welcome any opportunity to portray himself as defending his people from both Hamas rockets and international scolding, showing that toughness and independence from American meddling just reinforces his brand domestically. That’s the theory. And White House officials believe, my sources tell me, that poking Netanyahu with congressional floor speeches or U.N. Security Council resolutions will not move Netanyahu at all." - Jake Tapper, CNN

https://www.mediaite.com/tv/jake-tapper-reports-biden-admin-wants-to-avoid-public-spat-with-netanyahu-they-believe-it-would-reduce-american-influence/

Overheal

Overheal wrote: »

International law says their settlements are legal? That's not what I've heard.

Settlements are illegal under international law, yes - that's absolutely true.

I'm not the biggest fan of settlements. But if the PLO can come to terms with Israel over a meaningful peace, as was offered during the Camp David Summit, then I am confident that Israel will withdraw settlements as and when is required.

This is what happened with Gaza, incidentally.

Israel pulled all settlements - but Gaza still metamorphosed into a zone that became a launchpad for unguided rockets into Israel.

Israel doesn't want to make the same mistake again.

Dyr

eskimohunt wrote: »

I disagree.

Israel exists as a Jewish state. That in itself doesn't make it racist. Saudi Arabia is a Sunni state, and that isn't a racist country either. Countries are very often defined by their faith/culture.
.

Germany is a German state.

Timberrrrrrrr

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Five countries attacked Israel in June 1967, including Jordan - who, at that time, controlled the West Bank.

Jordan lost the war and, with it, the West Bank.

Israel, under international law, is permitted to occupy that zone until a 'meaningful peace' has been achieved.

When Israel relinquished control of the Gaza Strip in 2005, it became a launch pad for missiles and a nest for Hamas.

Israel understands the risks attacked to relinquishing yet more control to the West Bank. What happened in the Gaza Strip has now offered a precedent, and understandably, Israel is sceptical.

Oh look, another lie!

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_law_and_Israeli_settlements

The international community considers the establishment of Israeli settlements in the Israeli-occupied territories illegal on one of two bases: that they are in violation of Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, or that they are in breach of international declarations

Numerous UN resolutions and prevailing international opinion hold that Israeli settlements in the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights are a violation of international law, including UN Security Council resolutions in 1979, 1980,[8][9][10] and 2016.[11][12] UN Security Council Resolution 446 refers to the Fourth Geneva Convention as the applicable international legal instrument, and calls upon Israel to desist from transferring its own population into the territories or changing their demographic makeup. 

Overheal

eskimohunt wrote: »

Settlements are illegal under international law, yes - that's absolutely true.

I'm not the biggest fan of settlements. But if the PLO can come to terms with Israel over a meaningful peace, as was offered during the Camp David Summit, then I am confident that Israel will withdraw settlements as and when is required.

This is what happened with Gaza, incidentally.

Israel pulled all settlements - but Gaza still metamorphosed into a zone that became a launchpad for unguided rockets into Israel.

Israel doesn't want to make the same mistake again.

Still, this hardly justifies the continuation of settlements, we both seem to agree. It's "2 wrongs make a right" fallacy. The settlement is illegal, period. That Hamas may have used a plot of land to attack from does not alleviate this fact of law.

Overheal

Bambi wrote: »

Germany is a German state.

Germany is not an ethno state for a religious tribe. German citizens of all races ethnicities and creed are afforded the same rights as one another, regardless of whether they are Pastafarian, Muslim or Jewish, have French or Swahili heritage. Such is not the case in the self-codified Nation-State of the Jewish People, Israel

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_Law:_Israel_as_the_Nation-State_of_the_Jewish_People

Timberrrrrrrr

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Oh look, another lie!

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_law_and_Israeli_settlements

Wikipedia articles are cool.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_community

The international community, is a vague and subjective phrase used in geopolitics and international relations to refer to a nebulous group of people and governments of the world. It does not literally refer to all peoples or states in the world. Activists, politicians and commentators often use the term in calling for action to be taken; e.g., action against what is in their opinion political repression in a target country.[1] Critics hold that the term asserts the existence of an international consensus on matters such as human rights which may not in fact exist.

The term is commonly used to claim, often without evidence, legitimacy and consensus for a point of view on a disputed issue

lulublue22

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The phrase "free Palestine " , the people who call it may have different ideas as to what a free Palestine would look like.

What would a free Palestine look like to you?

What does it matter what a free Palestine looks like to any of us- surely what matters is a political process that forages a long term sustainable solution to the issue. That will take considerable movement from both Israel and Palestine. For a start though Israel could stop forced evictions / resettlement.

thomas 123

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Settlements are illegal under international law, yes - that's absolutely true.

I'm not the biggest fan of settlements. But if the PLO can come to terms with Israel over a meaningful peace, as was offered during the Camp David Summit, then I am confident that Israel will withdraw settlements as and when is required.

This is what happened with Gaza, incidentally.

Israel pulled all settlements - but Gaza still metamorphosed into a zone that became a launchpad for unguided rockets into Israel.

Israel doesn't want to make the same mistake again.

Do you think Gaza has been afforded the same opportunities as Israel in terms of land, resources and right to self determination?

Overheal

Overheal wrote: »

Still, this hardly justifies the continuation of settlements, we both seem to agree. It's "2 wrongs make a right" fallacy. The settlement is illegal, period. That Hamas may have used a plot of land to attack from does not alleviate this fact of law.

Settlements are illegal.

However, as the Camp David summit showed, that Israel is willing to withdraw settlements. So, even though this is a hostile gesture, the existence of settlements is not necessarily permanent. We have seen that with Gaza, and I have no doubt we will see this with the West Bank, in time.

If we take three steps back, both sides engage in hostile actions.

But a peaceful solution is possible.

Such a solution must be conditional that terrorist organizations, such as Hamas, do not fire indiscriminate rockets into Israeli territory.

This is the same solution we would demand if Gaza were controlled by Al Qaeda or ISIS.

Timberrrrrrrr

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Wikipedia articles are cool.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_community

They sure are

The transfer by an occupying power of its civilian population into the territory it occupies is a war crime,

irishproduce

Why isn't Ireland and other EU states offering fast track refugee status to the Palestinians. Children being killed there and we know it's happening.
To my mind, the trump the chancers we get coming here for refugee status all day and so we should be affording the Palestinians safe refuge

end of the road

eskimohunt wrote: »

Marine Le Pen changed the charter of the Front Nationale in France, which was overtly racist, so would you argue that that's a positive reason to vote for Marine Le Pen now?

Or can you see the deeper point I'm making - namely, that leopards seldom change their spots. They do politically - but that's for political reasons alone.

your point ultimately doesn't work, because what is said in a charter or was said in a charter once, is not justification for committing genocide.

eskimohunt wrote: »

From 2008 to 2015, the number of Ethiopian Jews in Israel increased from 106,000 to 133,200.

Given that Israel has a modest population of 9 million, the idea that Ethiopian Jews (1.5%) already in Israel are somehow in terminal decline is patently absurd.

In fact, the share of Jews with heritage from Iran, India, Pakistan, and other smaller African nations, increased over the same period too. Jews with heritage from Libya, Egypt, and Morocco remain static.

14% of Israel's population is Arab - who enjoy more rights, including democratic rights, than their heritage country.

Yes - I'm aware of the reported stories about birth control and Ethiopian Jewry. If that's true, it should obviously stop. I cannot verify the story or what has happened in actual practice.

No country is perfect. Every government deserves criticism of some kind, and that includes Israel. Many Zionists criticize Israel, too. There's nothing controversial about admitting that fact.

nobody mentioned terminal decline, they mentioned being sterilized, which is or at least has happened.

non-jewish arabs don't enjoy the same rights in israel as jewish arabs, and in fact even some jewish groups don't enjoy the same rights as other groups.
no country is perfect certainly, but most countries don't engage in what israel engages in, so therefore the criticism israel receives is going to be more then other countries and i'm afraid that is deserveably so.

eskimohunt wrote: »

I disagree.

Israel exists as a Jewish state. That in itself doesn't make it racist. Saudi Arabia is a Sunni state, and that isn't a racist country either. Countries are very often defined by their faith/culture.

For instance, if Ireland permitted open borders to the world population, free from all checks, and hundreds of thousands of migrants landed to Ireland - that would affect the demographics, culture, and ultimately - the history and composition of the nation. It wouldn't make Ireland "racist" to try and ensure the composition of the country remained somewhat intact.

A nation is more than its political borders. Would you support 3 million migrants moving to Ireland? Quite clearly not. You can appreciate the long-term consequences for the people who already live here. That wouldn't make you a racist, and neither is Israel racist for pursuing the same kind of policy.

Similarly, Israel wants to ensure that it's culture and tradition and existence is fundamentally Jewish. Clearly, they cannot agree to the idea of millions of Palestinians moving into Israel. It would, like the Irish example above, mean that the concept of the country disappeared entirely. Again, there is nothing racist about this at all.

One in seven Israelis is Arab, let's not forget.

a state having a national religion isn't racist, however stating that only those of that religion can have rights most certainly is racist.
israel has such a rule, so is therefore a racist state.
israel wants to insure that only 1 part of their population has rights so as to justify ethnic cleansing and genocide in the territories they occupy and within their actual borders, they are not doing this to protect culture or any other nonsense, ergo it is a racist state.

Sadler Peak

irishproduce wrote: »

Why isn't Ireland and other EU states offering fast track refugee status to the Palestinians. Children being killed there and we know it's happening.
To my mind, the trump the chancers we get coming here for refugee status all day and so we should be affording the Palestinians safe refuge

You serious ? Thought they wanted their own country. Why bring them here ?

Timberrrrrrrr

irishproduce wrote: »

Why isn't Ireland and other EU states offering fast track refugee status to the Palestinians. Children being killed there and we know it's happening.
To my mind, the trump the chancers we get coming here for refugee status all day and so we should be affording the Palestinians safe refuge

What makes you think they want to leave thier home and mover to Ireland? Why should they leave?

Overheal

irishproduce wrote: »

Why isn't Ireland and other EU states offering fast track refugee status to the Palestinians. Children being killed there and we know it's happening.
To my mind, the trump the chancers we get coming here for refugee status all day and so we should be affording the Palestinians safe refuge

Is that what the Palestinians want? They don't seem to want to leave or dissolve as a people.

Housefree

Good interview with Gideon Levy, from his perspective things have never been as bad and the Palestinians never so alone

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4pPP0wVFnY

In Israel, Nobody Opposes the War

https://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium.HIGHLIGHT-in-israel-nobody-opposes-the-war-1.9811686

Ultimately, my central - indeed, core question, has gone unanswered.

If Israel were, for the sake of argument, an exclusively Shia nation that was disputing territorial rights with a dispossessed Sunni population, would the same people be reacting in the same way, and with the same hostility and obsession, against the hypothetical Shia nation?

I posit no.

That's because Muslim military disputes already take place around the world. But the same people interested in the Israeli question have next to no interest in these other conflicts or situations in which Muslim minorities are somehow dispossessed.

And yes, you've thought of the reason why - the fact Israel is a "Jewish" nation.

That's the only difference. And it's a significant difference, too.

But I am as yet unconvinced of those who argue that Judaism has nothing to do with it. The evidence is strong, too strong, to abandon the very real association between the obsession with this conflict versus what would have happened if you replaced "Jewish" with "Hindu" or "Shia" or any other ethnic or religious group.

thomas 123

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Ultimately, my central - indeed, core question, has gone unanswered.

If Israel were, for the sake of argument, an exclusively Shia nation that was disputing territorial rights with a dispossessed Sunni population, would the same people be reacting in the same way, and with the same hostility and obsession, against the hypothetical Shia nation?

I posit no.

That's because Muslim military disputes already take place around the world. But the same people interested in the Israeli question have next to no interest in these other conflicts or situations in which Muslim minorities are somehow dispossessed.

And yes, you've thought of the reason why - the fact Israel is a "Jewish" nation.

That's the only difference. And it's a significant difference, too.

But I am as yet unconvinced of those who argue that Judaism has nothing to do with it. The evidence is strong, too strong, to abandon the very real association between the obsession with this conflict versus what would have happened if you replaced "Jewish" with "Hindu" or "Shia" or any other ethnic or religious group.

This thread is about Israel and its current acts against palastinians.

Fuascailteoir

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Ultimately, my central - indeed, core question, has gone unanswered.

If Israel were, for the sake of argument, an exclusively Shia nation that was disputing territorial rights with a dispossessed Sunni population, would the same people be reacting in the same way, and with the same hostility and obsession, against the hypothetical Shia nation?

I posit no.

That's because Muslim military disputes already take place around the world. But the same people interested in the Israeli question have next to no interest in these other conflicts or situations in which Muslim minorities are somehow dispossessed.

And yes, you've thought of the reason why - the fact Israel is a "Jewish" nation.

That's the only difference. And it's a significant difference, too.

But I am as yet unconvinced of those who argue that Judaism has nothing to do with it. The evidence is strong, too strong, to abandon the very real association between the obsession with this conflict versus what would have happened if you replaced "Jewish" with "Hindu" or "Shia" or any other ethnic or religious group.

Simple answer is that what is happening in Palestine is a modern day colonial adventure, with all of the racism, dispossession and savagery that goes with that. Most countries left that overt form of colonial exploitation behind at least half a century ago. Granted many countries still have forms of colonies but what is happening in Palestine belongs long ago in the last century.

jam_mac_jam

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Ultimately, my central - indeed, core question, has gone unanswered.

If Israel were, for the sake of argument, an exclusively Shia nation that was disputing territorial rights with a dispossessed Sunni population, would the same people be reacting in the same way, and with the same hostility and obsession, against the hypothetical Shia nation?

I posit no.

That's because Muslim military disputes already take place around the world. But the same people interested in the Israeli question have next to no interest in these other conflicts or situations in which Muslim minorities are somehow dispossessed.

And yes, you've thought of the reason why - the fact Israel is a "Jewish" nation.

That's the only difference. And it's a significant difference, too.

But I am as yet unconvinced of those who argue that Judaism has nothing to do with it. The evidence is strong, too strong, to abandon the very real association between the obsession with this conflict versus what would have happened if you replaced "Jewish" with "Hindu" or "Shia" or any other ethnic or religious group.

Whatever answer anyone gives to this question you are going to dismiss it and just go back to accusations of antisemitism.

What exactly do you expect people to say.

There are ex soldiers in Isreal who call for peace. There are Isrealis who were protesting recently for peace. Critical voices within Isreal of the treatment. Jewish people calling for reform.

It's not all driven by antisemitism. In the same way support of Isreal is not all driven by anti Arab sentiment.