hpslugga

Yeah damnit I noticed that well after the limit to edit expired.

First I assume you mean a Jewish nation state with Jerusalem as it’s capital, correct? If it were up to me I’d scoff at the entire premise because nation states in general are an abomination, and that’s particularly true with ethnic states. That being said, I’ll answer: I would spare no effort to insure the Palestinians that the expulsion crap that was inbuilt into Zionism would not be an issue during the drafting of the partition resolution. The resolution did relatively little, if anything, to relieve those very real anxieties that were rampant about that exact subject. I would also urge the Israelis to refrain from engaging in same. That way if it did happen, literally no one would come to Israel’s aid and that 1967 shit never happens.

It’s a classic example of state hypocrisy: it’s terrorism when they do it, counter terror when we do it. Why? Because they’re them and we’re us. The thing is those types are so jaded in their thinking that they believe what they’re doing to the Palestinians will prevent another Holocaust against the Jews. That’s one of the ugly secrets behind the oft repeated argument about “the grand mufti of Jerusalem met with Hitler!!!” It’s a way to connect the Palestinians to the actual Holocaust and establish a ridiculous slippery slope from that all the way down to shooting children to prevent a repeat of that shit.

Yeah pretty hard to recover once one identifies oneself as a person who justifies the disproportionate murder of children. I mean I suppose it’s possible, in the same way that it’s possible for a quadriplegic to climb Mount Everest.

That’s the thing. There’s no such thing as a benevolent military occupation. As there is no such thing, it’s also true that there’s no such thing as a completely voluntary withdrawal from same. The way that this will have to end will be the way that it ended for Indonesia’s occupation of East Timor. That occupation literally ended with just two words from the US state department: game’s over

This. And it's funny because the implication in that insipid comment you were quoting is "well they're not all good, so they therefore do not deserve the right to self-determination."

Right, it's not peace, it's "peace on the occupier's terms."

See the thing is, the one thing that Israel's so-called "supporters" won't literally say is that "the Palestinians have a responsibility to lay down their arms and walk out into the open like ducks." They won't literally say it, but strip away all the bullshit of what they say when condemning this or that rocket attack or whatever and that's what you're invariably left with. They do not believe the Palestinians have any right to defend themselves, even when it comes to throwing rocks at armed (and armored) IDF soldiers that are tasked to maintain a 54-year old military occupation. It's pathetic fanboyism at its absolute worst.

Whole life Has nothing to do with my views. It has to do with the historic record compared to our very own definition of what terrorism is. Terrorism, as a legal term, was first established in 1984 in the US Army Tradoc Pamphlet 525-37. In it, they define terrorism as "the calculated use of violence or threat of violence to attain goals that are political, religious or ideological in nature. This is done through intimidation, coercion, or instilling fear." Incidentally, this was around the time that the US was involved in its terrorist war against Nicaragua. The principle strategy they used was labeled "low intensity conflict" that focuses on "soft targets." Check out how the Pentagon defined those terms and you'll notice that they're almost word for word the precise and exact definition of terrorism. That was the chief tactic the US used, not only in Nicaragua but in Central America more broadly. It's also the same tactic they've used in Iraq, Afghanistan, Grenada, and other comparatively defenseless nations. They're not alone in that regard, except for one thing: the US is the first and only country in world history that's ever been convicted by the ICJ of international terrorism (they termed it "excessive use of force," but that's exactly what it is). Ah yes, the Love it or Leave it fallacy.

And not only that, yes it absolutely does make them terrorist organizations. He’s just flat out wrong on that, as he has been about this entire topic. The ugly truth about international affairs is that states are violent (i.e. terroristic) to the extent that they’re powerful. The US happens to be the biggest perpetrator because they have the power. Israel is no exception and it’s partisan nonsense to pretend that they are. This is just silliness.

That’s all I needed to read

I would tend to say yes. Now it’s your turn: is Israel? And if yes, does that disqualify them from participating in the negotiations? Again, I’m not sure why this is relevant.

Let’s suppose the answer is yes. Whats the relevance? Yes, I know where you’re going with this. You’re trying to establish that Israel doesn’t have to negotiate with them because they’re a terrorist organization, right? Well if that’s the litmus test of who gets to and doesn’t get to negotiate the ending of the occupation, then Israel is disqualified as well, as is the United States from participating. Israel and the United States have perpetrated far worse acts of terror than anything the PLO and Hamas combined have ever even been accused of, let alone actually committed. That doesn’t stop Hamas from attempting negotiations with them and it shouldn’t stop the Israelis either. To argue otherwise is to propose a double standard.

“Hamas doesn’t support a two state solution and neither does Israel.”

They are not on the record supporting the settlement. That is also inaccurate

What I object to is your insinuation that both sides are equally against the settlement. That’s not at all accurate

Again, that's an attempt to both-sides this shit when the balance of forces, power, destruction, etc is overwhelmingly against one side. As to your assertion "Hamas doesn't support the two state solution," that's simply false. They've been on record supporting the two-state settlement for no fewer than two decades, well before any of you ever even heard of them. Israel, on the other hand, never has. They're staunchly against it, they reject Palestinian self-determination outright, and they even reject the notion that the Palestinians have the right to select their own negotiators on their own behalf. When Israel says that it has a willingness to negotiate a settlement, what they're talking about is a selective willingness to talk with filthy collaborators like Mahmoud Abbas, Saeb Erekat, et al. If you want to condemn rocket fire, that's one thing, but don't presume to know that it's a fact that Hamas doesn't support the settlement. Again, this is not a "both sides!!!" issue. Oh and btw, even in the narrow context of the rocket fire, understand what that is: it's a repudiation of a military occupation. This isn't a scenario where two states are at war. This is a scenario where an extremely powerful state is occupying a comparatively helpless other. That's not symmetrical. You can count all the rockets Hamas has ever fired at them and they wouldn't even begin to measure up to the inhumane, cruel, savage, murderous nature of a single white phosphorous grenade that the IDF lobbed at a Gaza hospital.

I apologize to the board, but I'm not just gonna leave this as a one line rebuttal. It takes 15 seconds to tell a lie and 15 minutes to dissect it: As I stated previously, the biggest obstacles to peace have been US and Israeli rejectionism. To assert otherwise is to engage in fantasy. To repeat, the US endorsed Israel's rejection of the Jarring Mission in 1971, they vetoed a UNSC resolution regarding Palestinian self-determination in 1976 and in 1980, the Israeli government rejected the Palestinian Declaration of Independence that was issued by Arafat in 1988 adding that there can be no "additional" Palestinian state, and the US has vetoed every single UNGA resolution regarding the Peaceful Settlement of Palestine Question. They have been steadfast in blocking peace for going on 50 years together. Accusing the PLO/Hamas of same is just petty projection at best, flat out dishonesty at worst. They did. Here's why, starting with a quote from Avi Schlaim: "The key figure on the Israeli side throughout the first Arab-Israeli war was David Ben-Gurion. As the strongman of the Yishuv, Ben-Gurion relentlessly concentrated power in his own hands. In 1946 he assumed the defense portfolio in the Jewish Agency Executive and immediately started preparing the Yishuv for a military confrontation with the Arabs, which in his view was inescapable. He accepted the UN partition plan, but he did not accept as final the borders it laid down for the Jewish state. Although he valued international support, especially that of the United States and the Soviet Union, for the idea of a Jewish state, he did not expect statehood to be delivered on a silver platter. Realizing that ultimately the Jews would have to fight for their state, he wanted a clear-cut Jewish military victory. That is why he assumed personal responsibility for directing the military struggle and left it to Moshe Sharett to conduct, in New York, the diplomatic campaign for a Jewish state.” He then goes on to explain “acceptance of the UN plan implied acceptance of a Palestinian state, but in practice the Zionist leaders preferred to seek an understanding with one of the rulers of the neighboring Arab States. They had their greatest success with their neighbor to the east, with King Abdullah of Transjordan. Did they have any diplomatic alternative? Did they have a Palestinian option in 1947-49? The answer to this question must be no, because under the leadership of Hajj Amin al-Husseini the Palestinian national movement remained as uncompromising in is opposition to Zionism in the late 1940’s as it had been over the preceding quarter of a century.” The reason for that “uncompromising opposition” was what Benny Morris, Israel's leading historian (and propagandist) pointed out: that inbuilt into Zionism was the idea of Arab expulsion and thus the “chief motor of Arab resistance” to the Zionist movement was the “fear of displacement and dispossession from their homes.” It had nothing to do with Arabs being some inherent war mongers or anti-semites or anything of that sort. They rejected the partition because inbuilt into the Zionist movement was the idea of Palestinian dispossession and expulsion. Who here among us finds fault in that? Who here scoffs at the idea that a people reject the idea of dispossession and expulsion? We're supposed to sympathize with the Israeli position here? But it is interesting that Israeli apologists keep referring to this rejection. As it were, progress has been made. The 1988 Declaration of Independence was predicated on Arafat's notion that he was making these claims based on the "unfinished business of 1948." But instead of rejoicing in the Palestinian position of compromise, which had already been established in 1971, they make excuses. They project. They lie. They blame charters and covenants and empty rhetoric of that sort, while wholly ignoring the sheer ugliness of their own (current) governing party's rhetoric in the same documents of their own. It's political theatre, and the US-Israeli contingency happens to have very bad actors in it. That's quite the artful dodge. Israel not only rejects the idea of the right of Palestinian self-determination, they reject any manifestation of that right, including the right of the Palestinians to choose their own representatives in potential negotiations. Arafat had been signalling a willingness to settle for decades, and the Israelis/Americans did absolutely nothing but undermine and sabotage his efforts beginning with the invasion of Lebanon in 1982 and ending with pulling the rug out from under him nearly 20 years later at Taba. So it's very easy to criticize the Palestinians for supporting Hamas, but what other options do they have? They tried the more secular route with the PLO and that turned out to be a multi-decade waste of time. What else are they supposed to do? Support that pushover Abbas and the so-called Palestinian Authority? Sure, keep fucking that chicken. Again referring to documents crafted over 30 years ago by a handful of angry people during an uprising rather than the present day. That's more tail wagging the dog. That's a very dishonest sleight of hand. You'll notice the author just casually refers to "Arab countries." If Israel was not interested in the existence of a Palestinian state, what obligation to be interested in same did Egypt and Jordan incur? The occupations of Gaza and the West Bank by same were utterly brutal, but that tells us absolutely nothing about Palestinian self-determination. These are just excuses to try to evade a peaceful settlement. Egypt has no responsibility to negotiate for a Palestinian state on Palestine's behalf, neither does Jordan. That's just fucking stupid, if you really think about it. Again, Camp David was impossible, which is what Israel's negotiator admitted on US public airwaves. Skip to the 4:00 mark if you want to get to the concession, but honestly I would urge anyone curious about this to watch the full debate because there's more accuracy coming out of the mouth of even Shlomo Ben Ami in this program than there is in an entire volume of articles the NYT has composed over the years. As Finkelstein later points out, Taba ended prematurely because Barak withdrew his negotiators. We can get into the issues of the timing and the Israeli elections and what not, but let's be clear about one thing: the PLO did not reject or walk out on Taba. They rejected Camp David, but that's why Clinton came forth with his parameters in the first place. The Americans, even Dennis Ross (though he later decided to play make believe in that piece of shit book he went on to write), recognized that Camp David was ridiculous, but they didn't want to miss an opportunity to define Clinton's legacy with this negotiation, which is why they rushed into it merely days before Clinton's term ended. Arafat wanted assurance from Clinton that he wouldn't throw him under the bus if Camp David failed, and that was largely because Camp David was so rushed. Clinton assured Arafat that he would do no such thing...and then he did. Slick Willy! Once again, blaming the Palestinians for these failures is not only false, but very stupid.

Wow that was powerfully dishonest

Oh there's no doubt about it. And did anyone else notice that Biden recently approved a $735 million arms sale to them recently? Couldn't be a coincidence, could it?

Dennis Prager's "conservative nonprofit that is focused on changing minds through the creative use of digital media. Taking full advantage of today's technology and social media, we educate millions of Americans and young people about the values that make America great. Donations to PragerU are tax-deductible." They put out these videos which are just hilarious in their fractal wrongness. AronRa in particular has made some hay out of dissecting some of the crazier ones (Ten Commandments, liberalism vs. leftism, proving the existence of an omniscient being, etc). In fact, now that I think of it, go ahead and watch the video because you'll learn exactly the opposite of the realities of the situation there.

See Impeachment of Donald Trump

Oh and it doesn't stop there. There are certainly repressive regimes in the Arab world, but the worst among them are US and Israeli allies. Conversely, the biggest "enemy states" of the US and Israel are fucking democratic paradises when compared to said allies.

This is like using...well a PragerU video to outline the Ten Commandments. In the words of the comic guy on the Simpsons, "worst.source.everrrrr"

The ICJ’s decision included within it a separate declaration by the US justice Buergenthal. In it, he literally says: ”Paragraph 6 of Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention also does not admit for exceptions on grounds of military or security exigencies. It provides that “the Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies”. I agree that this provision applies to the Israeli settlements in the West Bank and that their existence violates Article 49, paragraph 6. It follows that the segments of the wall being built by Israel to protect the settlements are ipso facto in violation of international humanitarian law. Moreover, given the demonstrable great hardship to which the affected Palestinian population is being subjected in and around the enclaves created by those segments of the wall, I seriously doubt that the wall would here satisfy the proportionality requirement to qualify as a legitimate measure of self-defence.” It is a logical impossibility to separate what Israel is allowed to do regarding the settlements and with the occupied territories. Again, this all traces back to the Partition Resolution/Green lines and all that wonderful stuff. There is no provision in international law that legitimizes permanent military occupation in those territories. That’s the thing about occupations: they’re temporary. They are supposed to end. When they do not end, they are not occupations. When they do not end, they are annexations. Occupations, as I said before, do become illegal when it’s been determined that the occupier isn’t making good faith efforts to resolve the issue. Israel has made no such effort to the Palestinians since June 4 1967. They were forced to with Egypt, and Egypt has since ceased all hostilities. Gee, I wonder why. Regarding what you said about signing a treaty not affecting international law, that’s true but it has nothing to do with the real world. Such a treaty would be a mutual proposition and mutual alterations to territorial integrity is certainly valid. But that’s not what’s happening here. The competing claims that the two parties have are that 1) there’s what the Palestinians are entitled to under current existing law (which is the partition resolution) and 2) there’s also what Israel wants. In a legal arena, even one as screwy as international law, what one party is entitled to trumps what another party wants if they’re talking about the same things (pieces of land in this case).