hpslugga

If by "real" you mean "ideal," I sort of agree. The most ideal thing is for there not to be states at all, but that's another fight for another day. The two-state settlement is the goal now because that's the ultimate achievement within the context of the facts on the ground. Or as Chomsky puts it, "the two state settlement is the least rotten of all solutions;" the tacit concession being of course that it's still rotten.

Which is why I said it's a gray area and that the rockets "could fall into that category." If they could, for example, show that they were intending to hit military personnel with that, there's no issue. What taps that shit down from "anything goes" into a "gray area" is the fact that those rockets have killed 28 people in the last 20 or so years. No one with a moral compass is trying to justify that. What honest people are saying is that even if these rockets are as grim as Israeli blowhards love to make believe, there's no comparison between that and what Israel does in the Occupied Territories. The reason I even brought that shit up is because the previous poster was going on about rockets as if that was the key issue to the last 54 years of this nightmare. It isn't, and he's dead wrong to imply that. He said "Is it lawful according to UN Charter you cite for Hamas to lob rockets at Israel?" Is it lawful to lob white phosphorous grenades at a school? Is it lawful to bomb UNRWA warehouses? Is it lawful to destroy homes? Is it lawful to construct settlement blocs in occupied territory? Is it lawful to construct walls around said settlement blocs? Those activities have done far more damage to the Palestinians than those "rockets" have done to the Israelis, and the Israeli actions are flatly, black and white, ipso facto illegal. That was my only point.

Scary thing is that he’s encountered much worse than that.

It's not up to me to make it easy for you or anyone else. I didn't get to my position by challenging random HF/SB posters as to their sources. I sought them out myself. https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v1_rul_rule145 https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2014/08/mounting-evidence-deliberate-attacks-gaza-health-workers-israeli-army/ https://www.hrw.org/news/2014/09/11/israel-depth-look-gaza-school-attacks# https://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/iopt0309webwcover.pdf http://www.btselem.org/press_releases/20010207 http://www.btselem.org/publications/summaries/200202_policy_of_destruction https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/eoir/legacy/2013/06/14/israel_0694.pdf https://www.un.org/press/en/2004/icj616.doc.htm

With all due respect, that's been done...precisely with the bolded portion of the quote to which you were responding.

My opinion is not relevant. As to these “rockets,” first of all they’re not even rockets. They’re precious more than enhanced fireworks. But even there, you have a problem because there’s a concept in international law called belligerent reprisals. A people that are struggling to win self-determination against a party that’s determined to deny them that have permission to achieve those aims by any means necessary. These “rockets,” as people in the west are so feverishly trying to label them, could very well fall into that category. The law hasn’t been perfectly clear on that question. What is clear, and this is what people like you either aren’t aware of or conveniently overlook in service of some ideological nonsense, is what the IDF does in the Occupied Territories is far more illegal (and immoral) than the very worst of what Hamas or the PLO have ever even been accused of. The issue of belligerent reprisals represent a gray area. But what Israel's doing isn’t a gray area. What they’re doing is ipso facto in violation of the law and is also repulsively immoral. Judging by the rhetoric you use, you likely only consume mainstream media in the US, so you only get that fairy tale that the Israelis are so fond of telling: the story that they, the country that’s been militarily occupying Palestine for over 50 years, bombing hospitals, bombing schools, bombing UNRWA warehouses, lobbing white phosphorus grenades at same, uprooting trees, demolishing homes, systematically torturing political prisoners, et al in the process, are the “victims” and that the other side of those actions are the “victimizers.” Who has the moral high ground? That’s not even close, but it’s not even relevant. The question is “what does the law say?” Now, if you want to conflate the law with morality as if they were one and the same, that makes Israel look even worse: -They have not one atom of sovereignty over the 3 aforementioned areas. -Accordingly, they have no right to impose military blockades in Gaza. -They have no right to break up the West Bank by cantonizing them vis a vis establishing settlement blocs. -They have no right to erect walls to protect those settlements (which is about 80% of the wall). This statement, incidentally, isn’t the least bit controversial as it’s been affirmed by an International Court of Justice advisory opinion which was not only unanimous (a rare feat for the ICJ just by itself), it included the US justice, Thomas Buergenthal; a Czech-born Holocaust survivor. It also included UK justice Rosalyn Higgins, who is also Jewish. -They have no right to impose checkpoints -They have no right to restrict air space -They have no right to restrict access to water -They have no right to demolish homes When I say “they have no right,” that’s not some bleeding-hearted appeal to emotion; that’s a literal fact. They have no legal protections to do any of these things because they are all in contradiction to international law. Apologists are fond of arguing that “well international law doesn’t count,” but that’s just rhetorical douchebaggery at work. If international law “doesn’t count,” then Israel wouldn’t even exist. The modern state of Israel is a creation of international law. Without international law, that whole place would still be Palestine.

You already know where that will end.

And to be sure, there are historic comparisons for what they're doing but they're not flattering in the slightest. You know what was also unsustainable? Suharto's invasion and occupation of East Timor. That went on for over 20 years and abruptly ended when Clinton's WH sent them a message that essentially informed them "the game is up." When they did that, the Indonesians packed their shit and went home.

Even with that, I have no reason to suspect that it'll play out the way you imply. The only route to the two state settlement is through us. We have to stop giving support to the rejectionist policies that they've been implementing for decades. As long as we stop providing cover, they have no reason to stop doing what they're doing. We have given very vague hints at that (Camp David Accord, Obama's abstention vote near the end of his term, and most importantly the Clinton Parameters), but there's much work to be done and that's going to have to come from civilian activism; not just from crossing our fingers and hoping that some candidate from these two Business Parties "does the right thing."

The one thing I'll say about it is this: Israel spent the better part of about 30 years doing nothing but undermine the PLO. After Arafat's death, the Palestinians were left with two choices for representation: A) Abbas and the so-called Palestinian Authority, which together have been nothing but a puppet for Israel and the US, and B) Hamas. Those are two rotten choices, but Hamas is the less rotten of the two. The PA is nothing but a small band of filthy collaborators who couldn't be bothered to give two shits about your average Gazan or West Banker. Israel, on the other hand, has (nominally speaking) a full-on parliamentary system. They have a much greater variety of options, and yet they continue to go with Bibi and the rest of those thugs. They have no excuse. I've had a lot of things to say about Labour over the last 14 years when I began studying this topic, but I'll never accuse them of being filthy collaborators with the Palestinian Authority. That would be insane. Point being; the political dynamics in those two places are not comparable in the slightest.

I liked how Finkelstein summarized it. He picked out two guys from the audience; John and Dan: "Dan is throttling John. John is choking. John is suffocating. John's face is turning blue. John scratches Dan. Dan is appalled. Dan says "HE SCRATCHED ME!!! I HAVE TO THROTTLE HIM IN SELF-DEFENSE!!!" Considering the unprecedented level of aid the US gives to Israel, I would say even a country with nukes isn't capable of destroying Israel. That was the big falderal about Iran's "pursuit of nuclear weapons," but the reality is that even if Iran did have a nuke and even if they began to arm it with the intent to launch it at Israel, the US would vaporize the entire country in 30 seconds, well before that fucker could launch.

Was this a reference to Labour? If so, prior to Bibi's second term, Labour actually had a worse human rights record with the Palestinians than Likud. It's perhaps paradoxical to say that, but consider: -Begin was the only Israeli PM to suspend torture as a national policy (brief, but a suspension nonetheless) -Rabin once boasted that he destroyed more houses than any Likud government (not true any more since Bibi has far surpassed him, mostly due to the length of his tenure) -Rabin was also worse on the question of settlement expansion than Shamir, and Barak was worse than Bibi had been previously -Speaking of Barak, he was the PM at the very peak of settlement expansion from the period of 1967-2001 It's true that Bibi is the absolute worst that they've had since 1967, but again, that mostly has to do with the fact that his heinous ass has been in that position considerably longer than anyone else. He has spent more than twice the amount of time in that position than Shamir (15 vs. 7).

That's a nice fairy tale but it has precious little to do with the established diplomatic record that goes back to the 1970's. In 1971, Sadat offered a full peace treaty to Israel (with nothing as a concession to the Palestinians). Israel refused it, and the US backed them in that refusal. That refusal led directly to the 1973 war. They reluctantly accepted Sadat's offer at Camp David, but by then, the Palestinian question had reached the international agenda and they were also included in it. In January 1976, the US (obviously with Israel's blessing) vetoed a Security Council resolution, which was advanced by the non-aligned countries, the Arab states, and endorsed by the PLO, that called for a two-state settlement along the pre-June 4 1967 borders. They would do so again in 1980. The US has also annually vetoed a GA resolution, which is called the "Peaceful Settlement of the Palestine Question," every year since it started in 1988 after Arafat had issued the Algiers Declaration. Every year, the vote is something along the lines of 165 or so in favor and 5-7 against, the "no's" being Australia, the United States, Israel, Nauru, Palau, the Federated States of Micronesia and the Marshall Islands. Notice, the whole of the Arab League and the whole of the OIC votes in favor of that resolution, as well as in their own conferences. In other words, the Arab League countries convene 3 times in 3 different arenas to affirm their support for the two-state settlement as dictated by UN Resolution 242, 194, and most recently the ICJ's 2004 Advisory Opinion. Israel and the US have, to this day, refused to endorse such a settlement. As to the idea of Israel's goal not being the destruction of the Palestinians, that's a bad joke. Of course it is. I mean since you're here tacitly referring to that stupid ass 1988 Hamas Charter (which has since been rebuked by its present leadership's willingness to join the international consensus more than a decade ago), I guess it's only fair that I directly refer to the charters of Likud and their predecessors (Herut), which explicitly forbid the idea of the creation of an independent Palestinian state and, in fact, calls for their destruction. And they not only put that forth in foundational rhetoric, they implement it in real policy. Nobody who's sympathetic with the Palestinians even bothers to point that out. Nobody serious says "oh they shouldn't negotiate with Bibi because his party has this charter that explicitly forbids a Palestinian state." That would be extremely stupid, and yet as extremely stupid as it would be, it would read like the Declaration of fucking Independence when juxtaposed with these complaints, whines and bitches about the Hamas charter. "This side of the Jordan, that side also." That was a Herut slogan...yet you'll never see a single Hamas leader make any sort of hay about it. Why? He wouldn't have to. The actions of the present are far more important than founding documents. To argue otherwise is to insist on rhetoric over reality. That is the folly of the superficial-minded. That's irrelevant. Neither Mexico nor Texas were created vis a vis a partition resolution by an international governing body in the way that Israel was. You're comparing apples to oranges, and as someone else pointed out, it's not even a flattering comparison anyways. Again, apples and oranges. Yes, Texas and the US together stole about 1/3rd of Mexico, but it is not maintaining that territory via military occupation. Israel is militarily occupying the West Bank, the Gaza, and East Jerusalem. They've been in flat contradiction of international law in doing so for the last 54 years and they're the ones that have incurred the obligation to cease such activities. They have no obligation to leave the West Bank and Gaza. That would be the IDF. That's what you don't get.

The totality of relevant international law. -Article 2 of the UN Charter: “All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.” -Article 49 of the 4th Geneva Convention: “The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.” It also prohibits the “individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory” -UN Resolution 242 Preamble: “Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in which every State in the area can live in security” And why am I invoking it? Because that’s, at least nominally speaking, how international relations work in the real world. What you’re talking about speaks nothing to that. You’re talking about the “might makes right” falderal that created this nightmare in the first place.

Again, that has absolutely nothing to do with the law. That prediction/hypothetical is about as useful as an asshole on an elbow.

Kellen Moore took the wins record. It was kinda like when Ricky had the rushing yardage record: eclipsed very quickly

I mean one could argue that the most fringe elements of the BDS movement tacitly supports that, but they constitute a very small percentage and pale miserably in comparison to their counterparts, which of course are Israeli Jews who get a woody thinking about a Greater Israel.

Has nothing to do with the law.

it’s not just their conduct inside of Israel that makes them an apartheid state, although that alone qualifies. There’s also the aspect of how they’ve militarily occupied the whole of the West Bank, the whole of Gaza, and the whole of East Jerusalem. Israel has not one atom of sovereignty over those area, but they pretend to vis a vis their actions. The label of “apartheid state” is just understood to mean both Israel and Palestine as both are defined by the pre-June 4 1967 borders. As to such conduct being necessary for survival, that’s absurd and any honest military expert would tell you that.

Yes it is

Ugh, gotta do everything myself:

Yeah, there aren't a lot of Texas fans who'd consider aggy the top rival, and those who do most likely started following the Horns between 1984-1994, a.k.a the decade where A&M FedExed itself into the conversation.

Eighty five cents in a taxi from one end to the other. I'm...talking...small.

That's actually a microcosm of American Jews in general. And you worded it perfectly, too. It's not so much that they suddenly support Palestinian self-determination, but their active support for the Zionist government has certainly become less active.

In fact it couldn't be a "violent and brutal apartheid state" without the US.