Israel rightly builds fence to save its citizens' lives

[Herschel]

LIFE IN the suburbs can be difficult. Nice neighborhoods often find themselves abutting busy expressways. Noise pollution and gas fumes disturb day-to-day life. Serene communities become prey to criminal intruders.
Fortunately, society finds solutions to these problems. Governments appropriate land to build walls alongside highways to shield nearby homes. Communities put themselves behind gates to stave off criminal elements. In the American Southwest, the government has erected hundreds of miles of fence, patrolled regularly by federal agents, in an effort to prevent infiltrators from committing unlawful acts in this country.

Nobody challenges their right to do these things.

The need for such walls and barriers is readily understood, accepted and sanctioned by governments and citizens alike, wherever they are built. Everywhere, it seems, except when a fence is built in Israel to protect Israeli citizens.

For Israelis, pollution, stolen bicycles and broken car windows are the least of their worries. Their real and ever-present fears are that terrorists will burst into their bedrooms and spray their children with machine-gun fire, that a suicide bomber will set off explosives in a restaurant they are patronizing, or that a sniper will line them up in his scope as they drive to work and pick them off from a nearby Arab town. That is why Israelis build fences.

cut

http://www.sunspot.net/news/opinion/oped/bal-op.fence11nov11,0,1497196.story?coll=bal-oped-headlines

==========================

It seems some feel fences can be built except for the saving of Israeli lives. Oh, my.

[denverbill]

1. Bull.

If Israel wants to build a fence to protect it's citizens, why don't they build it in Israel? Hell no. They are building fences all over the occupied West Bank, protecting illegal settlements, and stealing land from Palestinians.

[dmkinsey]

2. Maybe

Maybe if the Israelis hadn't stolen the Palestinians land and homes they wouldn't be targeted by angry homeless Palestinians.
DMK

[forgethell]

13. maybe if the Arabs

had not launched numerous unprovoked wars against Israel's very existence, they wouldn't have lost their land to begin with.

[MrSoundAndVision]

3. Congratulations, you are the first Lieberman supporter I've ...

seen here. And the UN released a report today stating that the WALL (I capitalize because it's a big wall) happens to be taking 14% of the West Bank with it. And I've heard the WALL is separating Palestinian farmers from their land, so that they have to camp out to farm in their fields, so they can't be cut off from their livelihoods by Israeli soldiers with suspicions that they want to kill children on the other side of the WALL.

I understand the need for security, but that's theft. That's opportunism without regards to the dignity of these people. Palestine is a prison which contains both criminals and an innocent people. Such may be the world one day.

[Darranar]

4. "Security" has nothing to do with it...

it is a land-grab. And it greatly worsens the already horrible domestic situation of the Palestinians.

[Herschel]

6. You four

The wall certainly provides security. It need not be a permanent border, yet settlements must be secure. Borders will be negotiated. Terror must not be rewarded.

[Darranar]

10. Not to the Palestinians...

It could well become a permanent border - and Sharon is trying to make it so.

The only legitimate border is the Green Line; anything else is a land-grab.

I agree that terror should not be rewarded; what that has to do with the current debate is beyond me, however.

[MrSoundAndVision]

11. These are your bold moral imperatives huh?

We can't reward terrorism: agreed. But we can't subvert a NATION. Doing so doesn't recognize the inalienable rights, the NATURAL rights, that the innocent people have, such as a right to happiness, a right to breath the fresh air of freedom. Don't you think that Palestineans are people too? How would Israel like it if the world decided Israel's militants' (which actually get to wear uniforms) influence over the Palestinean population created a threat to global security, and then the UN rolled in and pushed the Israeli population back into a prison the size of the West Bank and put up a wall?

Perhaps hatred of Israel by Palestinean militants could be dealt with by diplomacy instead of forcing a nation into a prison. Just a recommendation, it's just the first thing that came to my mind.

[mmm]

12. I have to wonder:

do you really believe the plonk you spew on a regular basis
or are you just having fun with us. I truly cannot tell.

[TolstoyAndy]

17. Settlers have no right to security

If people build houses in other people's yards, and then claim God told them 3000 years ago that it was actually their yard, there's gonna be a fight.

Put the settlers back behind the green line.

[Darranar]

19. Yes they do...

settlers have a right to survive, just like any other noncombatant.

That does not make the settlements right, nor does it make the wall right.

[newyorican]

28. settlers are not "non-combatants"

The very act of colonization is one of aggression and an act of war.

[Gimel]

29. Sanction for violence

This line of reasoning only sanctions Palestinian violence. Colonization is rather far-fetched. Is Nazareth a colony of Palestine? If so, does that make it an act of war?

[newyorican]

31. Settlers are colonists

That's not farfetched, it's fact. Don't want to get shot at? Don't colonize. Seems fairly straightforward and uncomplicated to comprehend by most reasonable people.

What is really stupid is to bring your children on this type of misadventure and then shed crocodile tears when someone gets hurt or killed. That silliness borders on child abuse.

Probably really ticks these colonists off, bringing in children to hide behind, only to have the militants give the same "respect" they get from the IDF (none). Oh well, live and learn, or not...

[The Magistrate]

33. Still, Sir

It is not an act of war. To be a colonist is certainly not to be defined as a combatant under the Geneva accords.

[ThorsteinVeblen]

36. Respectfully I would like to point out

that "settling" terriotry occupied in a war IS against the Geneva accords.

That may not make the settlers themselves "combatants" but the Geneva convention does not denote torturers combatants either. But certainly you have to admit that torture of POW's violates the Geneva convention.

Once the convention is violated, choas reigns. Once you throw out the rules by torturing (as Israel does) and settling occupied territories (which Israel does) and collective punishment (which Amnesty International has documented Israel does) all bets are off.

The Israeli govenment underwrites and encourages the settlement of the occupied territories and uses the settlers as an offensive weapon. Creating "facts on the ground" that would prevent the possibility of any Palestinian State has been the overt policy of Likud since the early 1970's - at least 15 years BEFORE THE FIRST suicide bomber.

[GabysPoppy]

39. Respectfully I would like to point out

Suicide bombers were NOT the first act of terrorism or means of aggression. You are wrong to imply that idea.


That is not meant as an excuse for creating settlements which I am against.

[newyorican]

41. He didn't imply anything of that sort...

that much is clear...as to your reasons for inserting words in his mouth, that is not so clear. I opt for a mistake in comprehension on your part, unless you have a better explanation.

[GabysPoppy]

45. Then why is the need for caps in his last paragraph?

[newyorican]

47. I guess you don't have...

better explanation. :shrug:

[GabysPoppy]

48. None needed - that says it all

:shrug:

[Forkboy]

78. Geez GP

I'm impressed by your mind reading skills...sound familiar?

[GabysPoppy]

79. If I see you crossing the street

I assume you have the light with you.

When you capitalize to make a point I assume you mean to emphasize that point.

That's not mind reading that is assuming common sense. Let yourself claim that you crossed against the light and prove my assumptions wrong.

In which case my assumption of common sense is indeed wrong and I apologize for making that claim.

[Forkboy]

80. You obviously never witnessed my walking habits

I've already been run over once :D

[The Magistrate]

51. The Violation, Mr. Veblen

Is committed by the government forcing a portion of its population, or enticing a portion of its population, to move into such territory. It is not a crime by the individual civilians, and the criminal action of their government does not render them subject to summary execution by any party.

Similarly, the torture of prisonners is routine on both sides of this conflict. The military activities of the various irregular bodies of Arab Palestine, being chiefly attacks aimed solely at killing enemy civilians, are egregious and routine violations of the laws of war, and unargueably so. If your claim that the violation of the accords by one party can be held to suspend them, essentially, then beware its application in the opposite direction: by the principle you suggest, these attacks against Israeli civilians would remove any obligation on the part of Israel to heed the laws of war. Why, then, should Israel not simply simply level the Arab Palestinian towns with area bombardment, and herd the survivors east and have done with it, if the principle you suggest holds, Sir? If, "once the convention is violated...all bets are off," where is there grounds for complaint, when the stronger simply uses its strength to the full?

[newyorican]

53. Good question...

as the convention is already in tatters, why does not Israel flatten the Arab sections? I don't know. It may have something to do with the end of the gravy-train from the US treasury if the conflict is resolved, one way or the other.

[The Magistrate]

54. It Strike Me, Sir

As if the political and diplomatic costs would outweigh the benefits of such an action. Possibly that is just a two-dollar way to express your own sentiments....

[newyorican]

55. Citing diplomatic and political costs is confusing...

and contradictory given that the GOI has repeatedly stated that they don't care what anyone else says.

[bluesoul]

56. I think even they are aware

what would happen if they chose such path. No sensible person on earth would even think about it. Or help him god

[The Magistrate]

58. People Say A Lot Of Things, Sir

Particularly "tough" things: they rather like the sound; like a whistler past a graveyard, it cheers the blood....

[sushi]

84. They say that they don't care

what anyone else says, but of course they do. If they didn't they would just ignore criticisms and what they consider anti-Jew statements by outsiders.

[The Magistrate]

85. A Subtle Point, Ms. Sushi

And an excellent one. People who do not care do not even bother to argue. As old Mr. Shaw put it some years ago: "The most perfect expression of scorn is silence."

[ThorsteinVeblen]

59. Point well taken

I will agree to give Israel moral credit for not leveling the complete swath of indigenous non-Israeli Arab land and occupying it. A true Nazi state would have butched the Arab popluation and moved in on top of the bodies a long time ago.

But, I also recognize the fact that the body of international law, including the Geneva convention, along with the price Israel would pay as a pariah in the international community if it were to murder 2 million people, also play a part in keeping Sharon "chained" as it were.

My concern is that with legitimate governments like Israel and US tearing down international laws and rules of war, what laws are left at the end of the day? For every Gitmo prisoner held sans habeus corpus and tortured, for every Canadian Muslim transfered on a private US government jet to Syria for torture, for every olive grove raized by the Israeli government, for every square mile of land annexed by the Israeli government, there is a price. Decadance, cynicism, hypocrisy rotting our minds, our souls, our belief in the good. Blood on the Stars and Stripes, blood on the Star of David. Blood that won't wash off. "Justice" is the cry of the weak. That, my friend, is how Rome fell.

There is such a thing as justice. If the most powerful among us ruthlessly violate that ideal, over and over again, with no regard to the lip service they pay towards "creator endowed liberties", the asymetrical warfare we see now will continue. For what other option is there, but to struggle against injustice?

[The Magistrate]

60. Have Not Seen The Fall Of Rome Much Invoked Lately, My Friend

The inability of political institutions to cope with expanded resposibilities, that exceeeded technological grasp, and a number of demographic factors, including some originating far beyond that imperium's ken, in Central Asia, seem to have played more substantive roles than any moral factor.

Still, Sir, there is much to what you say. Your list of horribles, though they vary greatly in weight, are all violations, and when law is defied with impunity, it will not be respected, and the cry of "selective prosecution" will arise to impugn the justice of any attempt to apply it at all, even though that attempt might be a good first step. Two points seem worth mention in this regard.

First, it should not be supposed that there ever was a time when international law and the laws of war enjoyed a greater respect than they do now, as a check in any degree on ruthless action by state power. The antique rules, though obeyed, provided little check: it was lawful, for instance, to summarily execute civilians taken in arms, and that law was complied with by most uniformed soldiery. It would make rather a hash of any modern resistance or guerrilla movement. Similarly, the annexation of conquored terrritory, and the subjugation, or expulsion or even extirmination of the populace there, was lawful, as a customary usage. For all the repute it enjoys as a toothless tiger, international law probably in the present day exerts more force as a check on the behavior of states than at any other time in history.

Second, the violation of the laws of war by various irregular groups exerts a similarly corrosive effect as the violations of it by states. The most important way these do so is by luring many progressives into service as apologists for these violations, because they are in sympathy with the cause in which they are carried out. When persons who excuse the crimes of the irregulars simultaneously denounce the crimes of the states opposing them, most people confronted by the spectacle detect the hollow ring of hypocrisy, and come to view the concept of "war crimes" as nothing more than a rhetorical club radicals are wont to wield against those they disagree with, and not as an objective standard that all ought to subscribe to. Since the reactionaries, who wish no check whatever on state power, may be relied on to oppose the imposition of international law as a check to state action, this weakening of the progressive witness in its favor has the consequence of ceding the field to the enemy, where the great mass of the people, who must be won to the concept if it is to gain greater political weight, are concerned.

[ThorsteinVeblen]

61. Your ability to see the entire picture and perform magnificent

feats of balance in your own mind constantly astonishes me.

If only this quandry could be resolved by intellectual discourse and comprehension, there would be no better nominee, in my mind, than your personage.

Your use of the word "antique" alone qualifies you above all others.

But in all seriousness - Emotion, and the black logic inspired by it, are unfortunately the rulers of this current locus of the "terror of history". As I, and most others on this board and elsewhere, have amply exemplified.

[jplawne]

63. Various points to various postings

Various comments and questions: you know who you are

Geneva accords: can someone please state the section of the Geneva Convention on which someone has apparently adjudicated on the settlements issue. I am not aware of any such rules that would prohibit Israelis from purchasing land in the West Bank or Gaza. Is there a carve out for Arab Israelis if they want to move to the West Bank? One may think it is not a good idea, but one should not invoke the law unless you can actually provide evidence

There are various suggestions that settlements are THE issue: I disagree.
-Settlements were not the issue when Arab militias murdered 600 Jews and 3-4k Arab ‘collarberators’ in the 1920’s and 30’s.
-Settlements were not the issue when the Arab nations and Arabs (as ALL Arabs that lived in Palestine were called) refused the UN offer of a state.
- Settlements were not the issue when Jordan illegally occupied Jerusalem and threw out the Jews that lived there and burned over 50 synagogues.
- Settlements were not the issue when the Arab nations voted AGAINST the UN unbinding resolution 194 which called for peace as well as the conditions under which refugees could return (not a ‘right to return’)—the most important being a desire to live in peace.
- Settlements were not the issue when the Arab nations forced 500k Jews to leave their countries without their possessions to be absorbed by Israel and Arab nations refused to absorb the same number of Arab refugees (the only ethnic group in history to not have done this)
-Settlements were not the issue in 1964 with the terrorist organization, the PLO, was formed when the West Bank was illegally annexed by Jordan and Gaza illegally occupied by Egypt
-Settlements were not the issue when Egypt accepted Israel’s peace offer and received the Sinai back, which was cleared of the Israeli immigrants.
-Settlements were not the issue at Camp David when the last Israeli plan offered 97% of the territories, land swaps, East Jerusalem sovereignty and co-capitals. How do I know? Because there was no counter proposal from Arafat. If settlements were the issue, he would have made such a proposal at that time.

So you see this ‘chaos’ existed before settlements and continue regardless of the settlements. The issue for the Arabs is the existence of an independent, non-Muslim/non-Arab nationality entity on what they consider Arab lands. All that has changed is the propaganda.

As for the ‘what keeps Israel from not being a Nazi state’: it is not external pressures from the US or International documents. It is Israeli culture and society which is closer to the liberal and progressive ideas reflected on DU that you unfortunately will ever know. It is a multi-cultural, multi-ethnic democratic state with diverse political opinion that has faced the collective hatred, vilification and violence of its neighbourhoods since before Independence. Many people do not like Sharon, and that is understandable. If you want to get rid of him, then the Intentional Community needs to put tremendous pressure of the Palestinians to remove Arafat (the parasitic dictator that he is) and put forward a real peacemaker. Will Sharon make peace? My prediction is that he will be voted out. Israeli’s have always voted in the Left when they thought they could make peace with Arabs and votes in Likud when defence was the priority. Sharon is not the cause of the violence. The recent attacks and bombings started during the peace process in 1994. He was voted in after Labor, precisely because the PA rejected peace.

I would like to reply to the person who thinks Israelis buying land in the West Bank or Gaza is colonialism, but this strikes me as reactionary Neo-Marxist, ideological propaganda. So as to not misconstrue the the true thinking on behind this inflamatory statement I would invite Newyoircan to actual provide the logic and definitions that he/she uses to deduce this idea of Jew as colonist.

[GabysPoppy]

64. I've never ass-kissed a post before

This one I will.

Great post

:thumbsup:

[newyorican]

65. nice speech...

wrong on many levels, but you put your heart into it and for that you deserve some cudos.

Geneva accords: can someone please state the section of the Geneva Convention on which someone has apparently adjudicated on the settlements issue.

The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.

http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/History/Human_Rights/geneva1.html

You can argue this to death if you want to, but that fact that settlers are part of Israels population that move into occupied territory as part of a govt. sponsored program leaves you with scant ammo.

There are various suggestions that settlements are THE issue: I disagree.

Here we agree with each other completely. Anyone that thinks they can solve any single problem (Terrorism, Jerusalem, Settlements, RoR, etc.) and walk away claiming victory is quite off the mark. As for Settlements not being the burning issue in the past, I'd suspect the rapid growth of said enclaves have something to do with the relatively recent interest.

So you see this ‘chaos’ existed before settlements and continue regardless of the settlements. The issue for the Arabs is the existence of an independent, non-Muslim/non-Arab nationality entity on what they consider Arab lands. All that has changed is the propaganda.

You state the painfully obvious. "Chaos" existed before Israel. I really miss your point here. Unless you mean to suggest that aggravating "chaos" isn't just plain dumb. Especially when said "chaos" is in your own back yard. Note: I define your "chaos" as warfare of some level (guerilla or hot).

As for the ‘what keeps Israel from not being a Nazi state’: it is not external pressures from the US or International documents.

Ah, you must be addressing someone else. I don't refer to IDF or Likkud in that manner as they are bad enough on their own, with no need to overstate the matter.

I would like to reply to the person who thinks Israelis buying land in the West Bank or Gaza is colonialism, but this strikes me as reactionary Neo-Marxist, ideological propaganda. So as to not misconstrue the the true thinking on behind this inflamatory statement I would invite Newyoircan to actual provide the logic and definitions that he/she uses to deduce this idea of Jew as colonist.

Main Entry: col·o·nist
Pronunciation: 'kä-l&-nist
Function: noun
Date: 1701
1 : a member or inhabitant of a colony
2 : one that colonizes or settles in a new country

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary

Here again, you can argue the point, but it might be a bit much for everyone to simultaneously take leave of their senses to take such arguements seriously. Coupla' points, 1) I probably wouldn't recognize a reactionary neo-marxist if I tripped over one, 2) I never said, "Jew as colonist", you did.

:hi:

[tinnypriv]

68. Forget it

The "information" within this post is a result of professional googling.

:D :hi:

[jplawne]

73. Perhaps were are on different levels?

Settlements: 
You write that I am wrong on many levels, but all you do is
quote part of article of the 4 Geneva Convention out of any
context and pass judgment. Applying even minimal critical
anaylsis leads to a more competent understanding of the 4th
Geneva Convention than one gets from quoting 19 out of 230
words in a single article.  

-There is nothing about the Geneva Convention that prohibits
Jews from moving to areas where they have lived for thousands
of years and into recent times under the Ottoman Empire and
the British Empire.  The only reason it was Jew free before
1967 was that the Jews there were ethnically cleansed and
prohibited from living there after 1947 and also in certain
areas under the British Mandate.
-First assuming that the Convention does apply to this
situation, the claim that prohibition of ‘transfer’ includes
people freely moving and buying property, sometimes with
government assistance, is not supported by the text of the
document.  You may be making your own legal interpretation,
but it is ambiguous at best and can’t really support a
layman’s claim of violation of international law.
-But how does the Convention actually apply
1)	It is an agreement between High Contracting Powers, which
in many articles extends to non-High Contracting Parties. 
Palestinians are not a ‘Party’ according to this Convention
because they have never been a Party that has controlled this
or any other sovereign territory.  
2)	Perhaps it applies even if there is no international
dispute (ie; a dispute between two sovereign parties).  In
fact the Convention carves out minimal protection and conduct
for domestic issues occurring within the territory of one
Contracting Party which does not include article 49.  In other
words it explicitly does not give a domestic party the right
to prohibit people moving into their territory for a very
fundamental reason: it would license ethnic groups to prohibit
citizens of the contracting party to live in their
self-declared area: clearly a racist and dangerous idea.
3)	But how did Israel secure sovereign rights? Is this not an
international dispute?: The territories may be disputed (as
there are between Greece and Turkey or China and Tiawan and
China for example), but they are under the sovereignty control
of the Israel and before then it was illegally
annexed/occupied by Jordan/ Egypt and before then Britain and
the Ottoman Empire.  Israel occupied these lands after wars
with Jordan and Egypt who have since denounced any claim to
this land.  
4)	Now what about other aspects of International law that
might at least theoretically require Israel to treat this land
as foreign occupied territory?  Resolution 242 passed after
the 1967 war does not recognize any political, sovereign or
territorial rights of the Palestinian people because they have
never existed as a sovereign, independent ethnic group or
people up to that time.  The resolution actually recognizes
Israel’s (temporary) rights over captured territories (hence
legitimizing their sovereignty over this land) as a basic
tenant that land captured in a defensive war is never given
back without a peace agreement.   This is what the resolution
calls for: Israel to return captured land to Arab states once
those states agree to a peace treaty.  This is exactly what
Israel has done with Egypt and Jordan (who renounced some of
their claims) and tried to do with Syria.  

Thus: 1) not clear that transfer includes this issue, 2) but
it is clear that the convention does not apply generally to a
domestic territorial dispute and 3) this is a domestic dispute
as defined by the Convention, historical claims and UN
Resolution 242.

So what you said I could argue to death, I actually argued
with facts, anaylsis and discipline.  Only terrorists argue to
death.

Other comments: As I wrote in my subject heading I was
referring to various issues from various post: Someone wrote
that the current chaos was caused by the settlements.  I
obviously disagreed.  Ditto for the Nazi comparison that
someone else made.  

Colonizers: As for post 31 where you called people colonist,
it is my interpretation that you are referring to any Jews
that live in Gaza or the West Bank colonist.  If you disagree
fine, but then back it up.  I was seeking to understanding for
example why Arafat, like many other Palestinians, who were
born in Egypt have the right to live in Gaza and not someone
who was born there?  Don’t provide a weak answer and then say
it shouldn’t be discussed.  Stand behind your words and be
specific or withdraw your comment.  As for the response, you
basically proved my point: Colonist: one that settles a new
country-- clearly not relevant on this issue.

I wonder why if the morality of idea that Jews cannot live in
territories deemed Arab, is so clear (a racial and political
idea I do not think exists anywhere else in the world), then
why do people try so hard to incorrectly apply International
Law to this moral certainty.  Perhaps an indication of the
weakness of the whole position? Jewish right to live in these
territories can only be negotiated at the table and the 'Juden
free' right has no foundation in any civilized idea of human
and civil rights.

[jplawne]

74. Perhaps were are on different levels?

Settlements:
You write that I am wrong on many levels, but all you do is quote part of article of the 4 Geneva Convention out of any context and pass judgment. Applying even minimal critical anaylsis leads to a more competent understanding of the 4th Geneva Convention than one gets from quoting 19 out of 230 words in a single article.

-There is nothing about the Geneva Convention that prohibits Jews from moving to areas where they have lived for thousands of years and into recent times under the Ottoman Empire and the British Empire. The only reason it was Jew free before 1967 was that the Jews there were ethnically cleansed and prohibited from living there after 1947 and also in certain areas under the British Mandate.
-First assuming that the Convention does apply to this situation, the claim that prohibition of ‘transfer’ includes people freely moving and buying property, sometimes with government assistance, is not supported by the text of the document. You may be making your own legal interpretation, but it is ambiguous at best and can’t really support a layman’s claim of violation of international law.
-But how does the Convention actually apply
1) It is an agreement between High Contracting Powers, which in many articles extends to non-High Contracting Parties. Palestinians are not a ‘Party’ according to this Convention because they have never been a Party that has controlled this or any other sovereign territory.
2) Perhaps it applies even if there is no international dispute (ie; a dispute between two sovereign parties). In fact the Convention carves out minimal protection and conduct for domestic issues occurring within the territory of one Contracting Party which does not include article 49. In other words it explicitly does not give a domestic party the right to prohibit people moving into their territory for a very fundamental reason: it would license ethnic groups to prohibit citizens of the contracting party to live in their self-declared area: clearly a racist and dangerous idea.
3) But how did Israel secure sovereign rights? Is this not an international dispute?: The territories may be disputed (as there are between Greece and Turkey or China and Tiawan and China for example), but they are under the sovereignty control of the Israel and before then it was illegally annexed/occupied by Jordan/ Egypt and before then Britain and the Ottoman Empire. Israel occupied these lands after wars with Jordan and Egypt who have since denounced any claim to this land.
4) Now what about other aspects of International law that might at least theoretically require Israel to treat this land as foreign occupied territory? Resolution 242 passed after the 1967 war does not recognize any political, sovereign or territorial rights of the Palestinian people because they have never existed as a sovereign, independent ethnic group or people up to that time. The resolution actually recognizes Israel’s (temporary) rights over captured territories (hence legitimizing their sovereignty over this land) as a basic tenant that land captured in a defensive war is never given back without a peace agreement. This is what the resolution calls for: Israel to return captured land to Arab states once those states agree to a peace treaty. This is exactly what Israel has done with Egypt and Jordan (who renounced some of their claims) and tried to do with Syria.

Thus: 1) not clear that transfer includes this issue, 2) but it is clear that the convention does not apply generally to a domestic territorial dispute and 3) this is a domestic dispute as defined by the Convention, historical claims and UN Resolution 242.

So what you said I could argue to death, I actually argued with facts, anaylsis and discipline. Only terrorists argue to death.

Other comments: As I wrote in my subject heading I was referring to various issues from various post: Someone wrote that the current chaos was caused by the settlements. I obviously disagreed. Ditto for the Nazi comparison that someone else made.

Colonizers: As for post 31 where you called people colonist, it is my interpretation that you are referring to any Jews that live in Gaza or the West Bank colonist. If you disagree fine, but then back it up. I was seeking to understanding for example why Arafat, like many other Palestinians, who were born in Egypt have the right to live in Gaza and not someone who was born there? Don’t provide a weak answer and then say it shouldn’t be discussed. Stand behind your words and be specific or withdraw your comment. As for the response, you basically proved my point: Colonist: one that settles a new country-- clearly not relevant on this issue.

I wonder why if the morality of idea that Jews cannot live in territories deemed Arab, is so clear (a racial and political idea I do not think exists anywhere else in the world), then why do people try so hard to incorrectly apply International Law to this moral certainty. Perhaps an indication of the weakness of the whole position? Jewish right to live in these territories can only be negotiated at the table and the 'Juden free' right has no foundation in any civilized idea of human and civil rights.

[newyorican]

76. Without a doubt

You write that I am wrong on many levels, but all you do is quote part of article of the 4 Geneva Convention out of any context and pass judgment. Applying even minimal critical anaylsis leads to a more competent understanding of the 4th Geneva Convention than one gets from quoting 19 out of 230 words in a single article.

My post consists of 461 words, so I am wondering at the rationale for such an obvious mis-statement. Putting that aside, *you* requested the passage that addressed the settler issue. I was nice enough to provide it and rather than attempt to tell someone what to think, I also provided a link to the document.

-There is nothing about the Geneva Convention that prohibits Jews from moving to areas where they have lived for thousands of years and into recent times under the Ottoman Empire and the British Empire. The only reason it was Jew free before 1967 was that the Jews there were ethnically cleansed and prohibited from living there after 1947 and also in certain areas under the British Mandate.
-First assuming that the Convention does apply to this situation, the claim that prohibition of ‘transfer’ includes people freely moving and buying property, sometimes with government assistance, is not supported by the text of the document. You may be making your own legal interpretation, but it is ambiguous at best and can’t really support a layman’s claim of violation of international law.
-But how does the Convention actually apply
1) It is an agreement between High Contracting Powers, which in many articles extends to non-High Contracting Parties. Palestinians are not a ‘Party’ according to this Convention because they have never been a Party that has controlled this or any other sovereign territory.
2) Perhaps it applies even if there is no international dispute (ie; a dispute between two sovereign parties). In fact the Convention carves out minimal protection and conduct for domestic issues occurring within the territory of one Contracting Party which does not include article 49. In other words it explicitly does not give a domestic party the right to prohibit people moving into their territory for a very fundamental reason: it would license ethnic groups to prohibit citizens of the contracting party to live in their self-declared area: clearly a racist and dangerous idea.
3) But how did Israel secure sovereign rights? Is this not an international dispute?: The territories may be disputed (as there are between Greece and Turkey or China and Tiawan and China for example), but they are under the sovereignty control of the Israel and before then it was illegally annexed/occupied by Jordan/ Egypt and before then Britain and the Ottoman Empire. Israel occupied these lands after wars with Jordan and Egypt who have since denounced any claim to this land.
4) Now what about other aspects of International law that might at least theoretically require Israel to treat this land as foreign occupied territory? Resolution 242 passed after the 1967 war does not recognize any political, sovereign or territorial rights of the Palestinian people because they have never existed as a sovereign, independent ethnic group or people up to that time. The resolution actually recognizes Israel’s (temporary) rights over captured territories (hence legitimizing their sovereignty over this land) as a basic tenant that land captured in a defensive war is never given back without a peace agreement. This is what the resolution calls for: Israel to return captured land to Arab states once those states agree to a peace treaty. This is exactly what Israel has done with Egypt and Jordan (who renounced some of their claims) and tried to do with Syria.

Thus: 1) not clear that transfer includes this issue, 2) but it is clear that the convention does not apply generally to a domestic territorial dispute and 3) this is a domestic dispute as defined by the Convention, historical claims and UN Resolution 242.

So what you said I could argue to death, I actually argued with facts, anaylsis and discipline. Only terrorists argue to death.

Like I said, scant ammo. Let's walk through this slowly:

1. Settlers are Israeli citizens before the get to the WB and Gaza. Yes or No.

2. Settlers are financially assisted by a government sponsored program to move outside of the armistice line (green line). Yes or No.

3. Settlers move into an area described by the GOI, UN, US, EU and most sane people as the nascent Palestinian State. Yes or No.

The GOI isn't referring to Jordan when they state the desire for a 2-state solution so you'll have to work on Sharon to move further to right.

BTW - I don't know for a certainty that all settlers are Jewish. I'd expect a vast majority of them to be, of course. The 4thGC only addresses this issue in terms of citizenship and territory, not religion. Your misrepresentation of this aspect could be an innocent blunder, or it may be that you've some ax to grind. Either way, it's an incorrect interpretation.

Since we are on documents of international law this might be a good read also: ROME STATUTE OF THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT

Neither US or Israel is a signitory, so it's only for reference. It is interesting, however.

In summary, I think most of your post that I bolded is bullshit. The only concept I agree with is 4thGC doesn't matter. Not because of any of the one-sided history you've regurgitated. The 4thGC doesn't matter because no one pays attention to it.

Colonizers: As for post 31 where you called people colonist, it is my interpretation that you are referring to any Jews that live in Gaza or the West Bank colonist. If you disagree fine, but then back it up. I was seeking to understanding for example why Arafat, like many other Palestinians, who were born in Egypt have the right to live in Gaza and not someone who was born there? Don’t provide a weak answer and then say it shouldn’t be discussed. Stand behind your words and be specific or withdraw your comment. As for the response, you basically proved my point: Colonist: one that settles a new country-- clearly not relevant on this issue.

I wonder why if the morality of idea that Jews cannot live in territories deemed Arab, is so clear (a racial and political idea I do not think exists anywhere else in the world), then why do people try so hard to incorrectly apply International Law to this moral certainty. Perhaps an indication of the weakness of the whole position? Jewish right to live in these territories can only be negotiated at the table and the 'Juden free' right has no foundation in any civilized idea of human and civil rights.

Hmmm..I revise my earlier position (re: innocent blunder or ax to grind). This sounds like a compilation of blurred facts and misconceptions culled from little green forkups and similar bloggery. Your insistence of looking for places in international law where "Jews cannot live in territories deemed Arab", is rather transparent demagoguery and a tiresome restatement of the common bleat, "woe is us...". Your position is to the right of the current GOI, hence your arguement is with them. That should be interesting, preztel logic vs. pretzel logic.

[jplawne]

81. Doubtless in New York

My post consists of 461 words, so I am wondering at the rationale for such an obvious mis-statement. Putting that aside, *you* requested the passage that addressed the settler issue. I was nice enough to provide it and rather than attempt to tell someone what to think, I also provided a link to the document

My point was that you quoted only a few words on the article and provided absolutely no context, legal or historical anaylsis, but did clearly pass on your opinion. As for providing my ‘opinion’, I see nothing wrong with providing a well articulated, factually based anaylsis of the issue surrounding who is protected and under what circumstances in the Geneva Convention. The fact that you consider this in a negative light is telling regarding the way you form your arguments and why you do not actually share any of you own anaylsis on uou opinions.

As for your response to my anaylsis of the Geneva Convention, you seem to arguing something I did not even comment on. I was referring to the repeatedly made charge that Israel is violating International Law. I think integrity is important, so even if I think settlements are wrong (in the political sense, not moral) it is still important to understand why. Many people rest their sole opinion on the forgone conclusion that this a violation of international law and hence some kind of act of war by which Palestinians have the right to respond with violence and that the violence should stop only when the settlements are withdrawn.

Regardless, your logic is fine, and I appreciate you sharing your thinking. You know where we all want to be in 5 years, so you back up to what OUGHT to happen now. Of course this has no baring on what IS the international law. It is not some document that you invoke when you feel you are right about an issue. Furthermore, I am not further right than the GOI, because I agree in a 2-state solution. Interesting how arguing against the logic that it is ok to kill civlians in their beds is now somehow right wing. My issue again is with the idea that Palestinians have a greater Right (as in capital R) to live in the territories than Jews. Again I ask why do people who were born in Lebanon or Jordan have a greater right to live in the West Bank than a Jew born in the West Bank, or a Jewish family who lived in the West bank until thrown out by Jordan in 1947? Why does Palestine have to be Juden Free and Israel should maintain Arab population? Now we all know why Palestine needs to be Jew free; because Arabs would not be able to treat Jews like they treat all their other minorities throughout the Middle East: Christian, Druze, Burber etc. But instead we cloak the discussion in terms like illegal and colonists to hide the reality of Palestinian and Arab civic culture—and simultaneously give rise to the belief that Jews are all combatants and viable targets.

In summary, I think most of your post that I bolded is bullshit. The only concept I agree with is 4thGC doesn't matter. Not because of any of the one-sided history you've regurgitated. The 4thGC doesn't matter because no one pays attention to it: What can I say: I provide a rather thorough, legal anaylsis and your response is to not respond to any of the points, call it one sided and bullshit. My mentor once told me that the first person that calls names looses. One could say how can you persuade in that debate, but I like to think that the other person simply abdicats their position. In other words, if your argument boils down to I have my opinions and yours are bullshit than there really is nothing to discuss.

[Darranar]

82. Uh...

Again I ask why do people who were born in Lebanon or Jordan have a greater right to live in the West Bank than a Jew born in the West Bank, or a Jewish family who lived in the West bank until thrown out by Jordan in 1947?

In regard to your first point: One is on stolen land, the other one isn't. Very little of the land for the settlements was bought at a fair price. Also, the idea that a large portiom of Palestinians do not have strong ties tto the land through ancestry is junk.

As for your second point, I assume you believe in the right of return for Palestinians? Otherwise, you would contradict yourself...

And newyorican's right about international law, btw. If you look at the "pro-Israel" propaganda sights, they don't justify the settlements beyond justifying the occupation, which is a different matter...

[jplawne]

86. Uh... nothing

Most of the land where Israelis built their towns is on what was called Crown Land. Individuals did not own them. This is the status of most land in many nations, including the US. These public Crown lands (i.e.; where people did not live) passed from the Ottoman Empire, to the British, to the Jordanians and finally to the Israelis. My basic argument remains, support you opinions with fact. Calling the land stolen is inaccurate. As for land that was purchased, 1) I fail to understand the logic that the price paid implies if it was stolen and 2) I am not sure how you could ever know what was a fair price in 1898, 1925, or 1981.

Most authorities that have studied the records (ie; not Israeli or Palestinians partisans) estimate that 100k Arabs moved to the Palestine mandate between 1922-1947. Records are not clear for the same time period before then, but similar numbers arrived. This was mainly because of increased economic prospects with the Jewish migration, British policy and rapidly expanding Egyptian population. Despite this you again twisted my words I did not say anything about ancestry. Nevertheless, 10-16% strikes me as a significant portion of the 1.2m Arabs that lived in the area in 1948. This is really not an issue for me, but you brought it up.

Right of Return: I do not believe in the RIGHT of return. I believe it is something that can be negotiated by Israelis and Palestinians as was tried at Camp David II. I believe Palestinian-Arabs have won consideration for this idea through their use of violence and cynical support of the Arab block.

Reason:
Theory: I am not a Rights expert, but I would say they should somehow by embedded in human thinking, values, judgement and historical development. Yes they can be codified, but not sure this makes something a Right. I scan the history of the modern world until today and see the creation of a national state is predicated on creating some type of homogeneity. This has been practiced by almost every ethnic group (no just the West or whites as some would believe). It is not usually done with malice, or intent, but is more often the natural outcome of war that comes with the proximity of ethnic groups. This is an historical fact that no one ever attempts to reverse, because there is no such right to reclaim what one lost in war (wars of independence are different as the ethnic group still occupies the land of contention).

Practical: a Palestinian refugee is defined as anyone who lost their home who lived in the Palestine mandate between 1946-48. Edward Said and Arafat fit this description. They both were born and educated in Egypt. It also covers the descendants of these refugees. You do need to live in a refugee camp to be one: Only 1/3 (1.3m) actually live in refugee camps. Meaning the majority of Palestinians have lived in towns in the Middle East and throughout the world and are considered refugees despite their re-settlement. If two Palestinians or a Palestinian and a non-Palestinian have children they can be registered as refugees and live anywhere in the world. The articulate English speaking Palestinian activist attending Berkley and whose parents are business people in Jordan is a refugee. Of the 222k Palestinians in Lebanon, 119k in Syria, and 304k in Jordan, most were born there and the rest have been there for 40-55 years. By historical and contemporary definitions these people are NOT refugees. We seem to forget that the 20th century has been a century of refugees and populations shifts. The Sudentland and Polish Germans, the Pakistanian Hindus and Indian Muslims, the Taiwanese and Hong Kongese, the Baltic Turks and Turkish Greeks, Middle Eastern Sephardic Jews and their children have no Rights to property or compensation from their historic country. Being a refugee at one time does not imply you are a refugee until you can return. The intent of refugee status was to provide care, not generations of stewardship. Arabs are the only group that has NOT absorbed a refugee population of their own ethnic identity that lives among them. The creation of ~700k refugees was the result of the war, the existence of a permanent 4m refugee population is the result of UN and Arab abuse and cynicism. The main reason why Camp David II feel apart is Arafat could not give up on the issue of refugees, because the refugees insist on going to Israel because 1) they are kept in destitution and denied citizenship by Arab governments, 2) West Bank and Gaza can not possibly absorb them. The existence of refugee problems outside of Gaza and West Bank is an historical anomaly of tragic proportions.

As for being 'right about international law you 1) said almost nothing about interational law in any meaningful way which I have already addressed, 2) I presented a rather thorough anaylsis of such law and your articulate and thoughtful response was 'bullshit.' I have requested that you elaborate, and you have chosen not to.

[bluesoul]

87. So might makes right

no matter all the UN conventions, resolutions and the international law that Israel continues to defy... Nice

[The Magistrate]

88. In Effect, Mr. Soul, It Does

At least until a greater might happens along.

This is not a comfortable realization, certainly, but it needs to be looked on with open eyes. Even law, after all, depends for its application on superior might wielded by those charged with enforcing it, and tends to fail of aplication where the authorities charged with this are incapable of over-mastering those who violate it.

[jplawne]

89. Ml last go around

Since my last posting was on the right of return I have to assume this is what your response is about.
1) the Right of Return as defined by you is not supported by any convention, resolution or international law.
2) The most important UN resolutions often cited (there are many on Israel which I do not know) are passed by the General Assembly are non-binding so 'defying' votes of ambassadors is of little consequence under International Law. Only Security Council votes are binding. As far as I know, most resolutions are not addressing any unilateral action that Israel must take regarding withdrawal from territories. They all propose what should be the basis of mutually agreed upon, peaceful dialogue. This is exemplified by the peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan which followed the formula; cease fire, declarations of peaceful intent, negotiations, return of land, end of the condition of war. The Palestinians at Camp David II refused this path.

As for our ability to identify a given action that Israel does that my be in violation of International law (destruction of a home for example) why is this important in a conflict in which the other side is neither a signatory to such law and abuses our basic beliefs on the rules of conflict and in a world where so many nations (including the US and much of Europe) violate some aspect of International Law. This accusation is more about demonizing Israel than resolving the conflict.

[Darranar]

90. LOL...

Right of Return: I do not believe in the RIGHT of return. I believe it is something that can be negotiated by Israelis and Palestinians as was tried at Camp David II. I believe Palestinian-Arabs have won consideration for this idea through their use of violence and cynical support of the Arab block.

So why do you believe in the right of settlers to return to where they were born?

I don't really disagree with you on the right of return (though my stance is such for different reasons) but it is simply hypocritical for you to support the right of return for the settlers and not for the Palestinians...

Most of the Arab population increase in Palestine was due to natural growth, not immigration - that is my point. Now, as for yuor 1/3 claim, back it up with a link to your "authorities". I certainly hope that this is not more junk from, say, us-israel.org or such sites.

A very simple fact with international law: The encouragement of colinization within the occupied territories is illegal. I will not argue with you on this - ny knowledge on such matters is not tremendous - but that I do know.

Since the territory is occupied, ownership of the land does not go to Israel. Hence, most of your entire first paragraph is junk. The settlements built interfere greatly with Palestinian life and greatly hurt the welfare of the Palestinian people.

Scraps thrown to owners for propaganda purposes is not fair compensation; that is my point dealing with fair prices.

[The Magistrate]

92. A Reasonable Point, Mr. Darranar

The concept cannot be invoked for one, without it being accorded the other. Accepting an outcome that is the result of force does not validate it in any serious sense.

Data does not really support that immigration made up a great proportion of the increase of Arab population under the English Mandate. This about doubled in that period, largely as a result of improved sanitation and other public health measures of the Mandate's authorities. Most immigration from adjoining Arab regions was seasonal and temporary, making it even harder to strictly assess the available figures, which often themselves do not pretend to precision.

[Violet_Crumble]

91. The Geneva Conventions aren't law??

As for your (Newyorican's) response to my anaylsis of the Geneva Convention, you seem to arguing something I did not even comment on. I was referring to the repeatedly made charge that Israel is violating International Law.

On the matter of settlements in occupied territory, Israel is violating the Geneva Conventions and hence international law. Are you under some mistaken belief that the Occupied Territories are part of Israel and so not covered by the Fourth Geneva Convention? That is the only argument one could use against the Convention applying to this situation. The Convention clearly states that it makes no distinction based on a person's race, colour, religion, sex, birth or wealth. I think that's something you should take note of, because yr comment in an earlier post "There is nothing about the Geneva Convention that prohibits Jews from moving to areas where they have lived for thousands of years and into recent times under the Ottoman Empire and the British Empire." explains why there's nothing mentioned. The Geneva Convention applies to the legal obligations of occupying powers, not to individuals who want to legally migrate elsewhere, regardless of what their ethnic or religious background is...

Article 2 explains what situations the Conventions apply to. Is there some reason the Convention doesn't apply to the I/P conflict?

And while a reading of the 4th Geneva Convention does show quite a few instances of Israel violating international law, the specific part of the Convention dealing with the settlements is in Article 49, where it says: 'The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.' Given the encouragement and financial enticements of the Israeli government to get its own population to move to the Occupied Territories, which does not fall under Israeli sovereignty, the govt is transferring its own population. This was included in the Geneva Convention because of the way the German population was moved into occupied territory during WWII. Whether they went willingly or not isn't an issue. They can only be transferred there if their government is encouraging the move, and to not be violating this Article means that the Israeli government should be taking all steps available to not allow Israeli citizens to settle in the Occupied Territories....

Violet...

[The Magistrate]

93. Mr. Lawnes' Argument, Ma'am

Would seem to sum to this: the conventions do not apply because Arab Palestine, never having exercised soveriegnty, is not a party to the conventions; further, the conventions being held to apply only in disputes between sovereign parties, since Arab Palestine is not a sovereign actor, and no sovereign actor holds the lawful title to the lands overrun in '67, then actions taken upon them are not covered by the conventions, being rather more domestic than international in character.

A similar argument on this "not really sovereign" line is sometimes raised by persons who wish to claim the accords do not apply to groups like Hamas, urging that since these are not a state force, therefore their acts cannot violate laws of war binding on states.

The first thing a good attorney does is try and get the case out of court altogether....

[jplawne]

75. How do you

How do you bold and use other formatting. I type my postings in Word (need that spell check), but then my formatting is lost when I post. Iw as fooling around and checked the plain text box which did not do any good.

JP

[newyorican]

77. There's a link on the posting page...

HTML lookup table

All of the instructions for formatting text are there.

[newyorican]

40. as I said...

live and learn...or not...

[TolstoyAndy]

94. Settlers have no right to security ...

Settlers have no right to security on Palestinian land, just like my neighbor has no right to security if he puts up a house in my back yard. If that happens, I'm doing everything I can to make sure it comes down and e gets back in his own yard.

The settlers should be put back behind the green line.

Settlers are combatants. They wouldn't be there if their government's army didn't enforce their security (which US taxes pay for).

Settlers are engaging in ethnic cleansing on the very flimsy basis of a book written by people which they claim was written by god.

This of course, does not make the bombings morally right or acceptable. I am not advocating that settlers be killed, only pointing out something that motivates people to engage in it.

[arcane1]

18. we build walls around prisons, too

and they look a lot different to those inside, than those outside

[brainshrub]

23. Your right. Terrorism must not be rewarded

And neither must theft. The WALL is a land-grab.

The Goys are getting wise to what the government of Israel is doing to the Palestinians.

[MrSoundAndVision]

5. And!

The Israeli's have NO RIGHT living in suburbs next to the human injustice of forcing so many people to live in refugee camps.

I saw a picture this summer of Israeli children swimming in a large refreshing swimming pool outside of someone's condo. The story was about a water shortage in the West Bank, which could be seen in the background of this picture.

[Gimel]

46. typical propaganda

The rainfall last year was enough to fill every resevoir. That includes the Palestinian's. No shortage this year, unless it is neglegence of the government. Look to the PA for that, and misappropriation of funds. (the threads on on Arafat's excesses are still available).

[TolstoyAndy]

7. "to save its citizens' lives"

and the land grab is just a bonus, an unforeseen lucky Likud extra, a random surveying accident.

How fortunate! :puke:

With all due respect, good fences may make good neighbors, but not when they're built across your neighbors' land.

That's just a recipe for making your neighbors hate you.

What's that? Your neighbors already hate you?

I'm sure no one has any idea why that might be. :shrug:

[MrSoundAndVision]

8. I don't even think we should bring up this issue

It's obvious what Democratic-minded people think about this issue, but here we are, with a hawk in the White House, allowing this to happen and a compliant media, allowing this to happen, and a thriving defense industry, which supports war in Iraq, Afganistan, and Palestine, indirectly by selling to the Israeli military.

This issue is part of a larger one: the subversion of the poor peoples of the world to the capitalist machine. Sharon doesn't want peace. Arafat doesn't want peace. So here we are at the edge again and can appropriately apply some of the conventional wisdom of Dennis Kucinich: "The UN in, and the ..." Israeli's out.

This shouldn't be OUR world, this should be the world of some terrible novelist like John Grisham.

[Brotherjohn]

9. Your parallel with suburban fences and walls is not sound.

If a suburban neighborhood builds a wall, or fence, or gate to shield itself from crime, it does so on its own property. That is within its rights. If they want to wall themselves off, that is their choice.

The more proper comparison would be if the government built a wall to shield, say, the inner city from the suburbs. Of course, that would never happen, because it is simply unjust. Likewise for the barrier Israel is building.

[Philosophy]

14. Because the fence is not "in Israel"

A truer analogy would be if we built fence encircling Mexico city, herded every Mexican inside it, and then parcelled out the rest of the country to members of the 700 Club, while claiming we were just trying to prevent illegal immigration.

[brainshrub]

25. Oh...that's good! I'm going to remember that one! (nt)

[Gimel]

50. Except that

There is no country of Palestine. It is the ambiguity of the situation that baffles most people. The inticrate interlacing of the veins of economic and social life blood of the two peoples. "Give back" the land they say. It's not your land to build a fence on. Yet you must give them the right to vote, the right to invade and the right to destroy your economy.

If Mexico was still asking for Texas (as it was Mexico's at one time, but was taken in war) and you put a fence around it, between Texas and New Mexico and Oklahoma, (you might have to gerrymande there to keep some cities from ending up on the wrong side) then you have a parallel situation.

[The Magistrate]

52. There Is Something To That, Ma'am

The absence of any formally established state of Arab Palestine is indeed a complicating factor. Even an occupied state is guaranteed inviolability of its territory from any annexation, and its people cannot be unduly interfered with in use of their property, and exercise of their livelihoods. Indeed, it seems to me that one of the best things the political leadership of Arab Palestine could do would be to formally declare statehood on their own hook, and claim sovereignty over the lands overrun in '67. Even if they could not effectively exercise complete sovereignty, and are incapable of ejecting the Israeli armed forces from their ground, the doing would greatly alter the political situation. The declaration would surely be recognized as legitimate by many nations, and something on the order of Mr. Rugova's "shadow state" in Kossovo during the last decade of the twentieth century could certainly be put into effect. One suspects the reason this is not done is because doing so would freeze the borders of a projected state of Arab Palestine, and elements of the Arab Palestinian political leadership harbor dreams of wider boundaries for their state. But such dreams are impossible of fruition, and they would do well to recognize this.

In the interim, it seems wisest to borrow the old common law doctrine of assumption, often applied in torts to suggest that certain duties must exist in some circumstances even without contractual obligation, and to proceed on the assumption there is a state of Arab Palestine, where questions arise concerning land and the people on it outside of indisputable Israeli territory. There is no doubt it was the intention of the United Nations in 1947 that there be such a state, when Mandatory Palestine was partitioned into Jewish and Arab zones. There is no doubt that the Palestine Authority possesses most of the atributes of sovereignty in the areas outside Israel proper, albeit under an effective occupation: it makes laws, collects taxes, maintains some armed force, and certainly enjoys the allegiance of the people of Arab Palestine, by and large, as their governing auhority.

[ThorsteinVeblen]

15. South Africa rightly puts the "darkies" on reservations

in order to preserve their "culture" and their women and children from raping "savages".

The American South rightly goes to war over the election of an abolitionist president in order to protect their "property rights".

The Nazis rightly gas 6,000,000 Jews in order to save Germany from a sinister plot to enslave and muder the aryan race.

America rightly goes to war in Iraq to "protect" its citizens from Weapons of Mass destruction.

Israel is in good company.

You still don't even address the location of the fence and why it extends far into land considered to be "occupied" by the entire world including the US - Herschel.

[newyorican]

32. I get your 1st point on the 2nd reading...

but it still looks like "savages" are put away so that women and children don't rape them. :shrug:

[ThorsteinVeblen]

57. "raping" was used as an adjective, not a verb

the mixup kind of creates some funny images, but then again - not really, not really at all.

[Gimel]

95. None of the above

In none of the examples you give by way of comparison, was there an armed uprising and terror campaign against the citizens of the country. Therefore, your assumption is invalid. It doesn't hold water.

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[lefty_mcduff]

20. Amen, brother (or sister). Amen.

n/t

[Herschel]

21. Support of Israel is progressive

It is a democracy with a culture more kind to women, gays, and others persecuted or down trodden in Palestinian society. Why would a progressive support such a culture? Please!

[Darranar]

22. Support for Israel's progressive policies is a good idea...

support for Israel's unprogressive policies - namely, collective punishment, ethnic cleansing, useless assasinations, bulldozing houses, building walls for land-grabs, and refusing to freeze and dismantle settlements is not a good idea.

Distuingishing between one and the other is important.

A few other progressive policies of Israel that you forgot to mention (to hopefully avert any future "anti-Israel" accusations against me): sensible economic policies, conservation of natural resources, and a proportional parliamentary system (though still flawed, it is considerably superior to what we have here).

There is much to admire about Israel, though there is also much to criticize.

[brainshrub]

24. I'm not sure Israel is Progressive.

To be sure, neither is the United States. But the more I study Israel, the more I wonder about it. I suspect it is closer to a Liberal quazi-theocratic state.

Perhaps I will start a thread on this question when I have a little more time? I wonder if such a thread would get locked? I'll have to ask the Admins.

[Darranar]

26. Israel's domestic policy...

is progressive.

[brainshrub]

27. I agree

But you don't have to read his posts. There is the ignore button y'know.

[Flying_Pig]

34. What RULE did I violate this time? Telling the truth again? I'll ask

one more time. Why is a progressive board allowing non-progressive propaganda in I/P? I wouldn't care if it was the Israeli side, or the Palistinian side, the posting of blatant propaganda to denigrate one side or the other, or build a case for the immoral transgressions of a particular side, is W-R-O-N-G!! Instead of deleting my posts, you could address the question! Why is this being allowed? What are you so afraid of here? Every time I speak the truth, you delete my posts.

[Lithos]

42. Flying_Pig

While is is very acceptable to criticize the wall as being wrong, the deleted post contained several specific and personal comments about a user. This later is not allowed per I/P guidelines and is the reason your post was deleted. Remember to comment on the post and not the poster.

Lithos
FA/NS Moderator
Democratic Underground

[Herschel]

43. I would suggest

we see propaganda, as you say, from sources such as Elecronic Intifada as well.

[dudeness]

30. the problem is Herschel.

of course dependent upon ones perceptions,is, that this wall not only is keeping palestinians in, it is locking world sympathy out, Israel runs the risk of becoming an isolated , unlawful pariah. Perhaps not a problem to the inward looking, but I would suggest a problem to those whom wish to see a peaceful Israel and Palestine in existance.

[Flying_Pig]

35. This thread is nothing more than 100% propaganda..........

PROPAGANDA PROPAGANDA PROPAGANDA PROPAGANDA PROPAGANDA PROPAGANDA

It's also Grade A 100% horseshit.

[RuB]

37. Amazing isn't it?

Its just human nature to want to protect your family.

[bluesoul]

38. Land grabbing

is not protecting your family...At least not in a civilized world..

[truthspeaker]

44. nice try but

I have every right to build a fence on my property. But I don't get to build one in the middle of my neighbor's yard.

[sabbat hunter]

66. wall/fence

any sovereign nation has a right to build a wall along its borders to keep others out. as long as it is along the border not inside another country or in this case proto-nation.

althought he analogy about texas and the wars against mexico were a good one, lets face it just about every nation in the world was 'stolen' at one point or another from a native people and they were supplanted. the goal is to prevent that from happening again.

I believe that israel should build a fence, along the approx green line, with the exception of jerusalem. i know this will anger many here, but plainly put, jerusalem does NOT belong to the palestinians. technically it shouldnt belong to the israelis either, but the UN aborgatted their right to govern jerusalem as an international city, when they failed to protect it in the israeli-arab war when israel declared its statehood. the UN continued this when they failed to send troops in to force the jordanians out and make the city international.

from 1948-1967 no non arab or muslim were allowed into jerusalem. this ended when israel conquered it in 1967. an independent muslim body should have limited control over the temple mount where 2 mosques of course sit, but this autonomy should be similar to the rights christian denominations have over the church of the holy sepulcar (sp)

there several different denominations share the church. although it does cause conflicts from time to time.

the muslim holy sites should be ruled in a similar manner. hopefully more peacefully. all sects of islam should be included in this. just as all sects/divisions of judiasm should be allowed to control the wailing wall..

the ground under the mosques ie the temple mount, should be jointly controlled by a jewish/muslim/christian body. there is much in the way of archiological findings to be found there, carefully done so as not to disturb any existing structures.


peace
david
:hippie:

[Darranar]

67. Regarding Jerusalem...

The Geneva Accords seem to be the most sensible thing.

[tinnypriv]

69. That's the Old City

Jerusalem is a different thing.

[Darranar]

70. Not really...

since under the Geneva Accords Israel would get West Jerusalem (of course) and the "suburbs" around Jerusalem would be dismantled to some extent.

The Geneva Accords concern themselves with more than simply the Old City.

[tinnypriv]

71. Incorrect

There is no known plan to dismantle any Jerusalem suburbs. What is known from the leaked maps is that Ma'ale adummin, Givat Ze'ev, Har Homa etc (and the rest) will all be annexed to Israel.

There is an argument to be made about the amount of land that will be swallowed up by Geneva around Jerusalem in the context of previous plans.

However, let me assure you: nobody (other than Beilin-Rabbo) have the first clue what the answer to that argument is. Not me, not people who know more than me (Eldar from Ha'aretz and Noam Chomsky to name but two).

I've been having discussions on this ever since Geneva appeared, so take my word for it.

Dec 1 ain't too long to wait, anyway.

[Darranar]

72. Very interesting...

Thank you.

[Forkboy]

49. calling this a fence

is like calling an uzi a popgun.

[dudeness]

62. an excellent analogy forkboy

:)

[sujan]

83. lol