Meanwhile, in Jerusalem...

[Js1 85110]

Yikes 

[bad_teammate 13132]

28 minutes ago, Beantown Express 2.0 said:

Also, if the West Bank and Gaza is so horrible why don’t those people just move to Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, etc...  Oh, that’s right, those countries won’t let them in and don’t want them either.  Interesting isn’t it.

This doesn't make any sense.

Why would those other countries not allowing in Palestinian refugees mean Gaza is not horrible? There's no logic there at all.

Also, why should the sole expected reaction to oppression be leaving your home? That's idiotic. Is that what you would expect for yourself and countrymen? "Oh don't like Country X invading Texas and stealing all the land and killing kids? JUST MOVE!"?

[bad_teammate 13132]

double

Edited May 12, 2021 by bad_teammate

[wildcat09 29257]

35 minutes ago, Beantown Express 2.0 said:

I hate to agree with that Donkey dude but many of you on here miss the point of this whole issue.  Israel’s goal is not to destroy the Palestinians.  The Palestinian goal is to destroy Israel and take it back as their own.  Let’s look at our great state of Texas.  Many years ago this was Mexico and they lost a war and it became the Republic of Texas and then joined the United States.  What if today Mexico decided it wanted Texas back because it is really theirs and said their ultimate goal was to destroy all the Texans living here.   What if they started lobbing rockets into El Paso and San Antonio and Houston or sending suicide bombers into those cities?  I am pretty sure we wouldn’t as a country just sit back and say, “hey, maybe they should get their land back.  Everybody in TX vacate their homes and move to OK so Mexico can have their territory back”.  

This is the same as if the Native Americans demanded the US get off their land and give it back to them or any number of peoples over the last 1000 years who have lost land during war.  

The Jews have been persecuted everywhere they have lived in this world so when they were finally given some land to live on I kind of understand why they don’t want to let a group of people who’s goal is to destroy Israel and the Jews to have power in their country.

Not saying Israel is handling this situation the best way but those of you that think of it as big bad Israel versus these poor little Palestinians are extremely misguided.  Also, if the West Bank and Gaza is so horrible why don’t those people just move to Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, etc...  Oh, that’s right, those countries won’t let them in and don’t want them either.  Interesting isn’t it.

This post is so stupid onboard repped it. Think on that.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

2 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

This doesn't make any sense.

Why would those other countries not allowing in Palestinian refugees mean Gaza is not horrible? There's no logic there at all.

Also, why should the sole expected reaction to oppression be leaving your home? That's idiotic. Is that what you would expect for yourself and countrymen? "Oh don't like Country X invading Texas and stealing all the land and killing kids? JUST MOVE!"?

True, but if you keep poking the bear you're gonna get scratched or eaten. The stated goal of Hamas, and Hezbollah is the eradication of Israel.  Until that goal goes away you will never see peace in the Middle East.

 

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

3 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

This post is so stupid onboard repped it. Think on that.

Hey it's Mr. dick head,  is it just your MO to cry whenever you read something that you don't agree with ?  

[wildcat09 29257]

1 minute ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

True, but if you keep poking the bear you're gonna get scratched or eaten. The stated goal of Hamas, and Hezbollah is the eradication of Israel.  Until that goal goes away you will never see peace in the Middle East.

 

*Generalizes all Palestinians as the same as Hamas*

*Gets extremely angry when people assume he supports the Republican party's platform, which he repeatedly votes for*

[Js1 85110]

8 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

This doesn't make any sense.

Why would those other countries not allowing in Palestinian refugees mean Gaza is not horrible? There's no logic there at all.

Also, why should the sole expected reaction to oppression be leaving your home? That's idiotic. Is that what you would expect for yourself and countrymen? "Oh don't like Country X invading Texas and stealing all the land and killing kids? JUST MOVE!"?

Isn’t that a favorite of the modern Republican Party? “Oh you don’t like it here bc you have no power or rights? YOU CAN JUST GET OUT THEN”

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

1 minute ago, wildcat09 said:

*Generalizes all Palestinians as the same as Hamas*

*Gets extremely angry when people assume he supports the Republican party's platform, which he repeatedly votes for*

Gosh you really do conflate very issue into some bizarre little scenario in your little head don't you.  I love your selective reasoning. You lump anyone who disagrees with your little takes as some monolithic group, then try to say other posters are doing that exact thing.. what's that phrase you use so poorly, the lack of awareness astounds...  

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

3 minutes ago, Js1 said:

Isn’t that a favorite of the modern Republican Party? “Oh you don’t like it here bc you have no power or rights? YOU CAN JUST GET OUT THEN”

That's some funny shit right there.

[Beantown Express 2.0 6555]

Just now, Js1 said:

Isn’t that a favorite of the modern Republican Party? “Oh you don’t like it here bc you have no power or rights? YOU CAN JUST GET OUT THEN”

Let me make sure I got this right.  I am a Republican now?  If I am reading your post wrong then my bad.

I was trying to make the point that none of the other countries in the region will allow the Palestinians to move into their countries either so why is that.  

[hpslugga 4044]

51 minutes ago, Beantown Express 2.0 said:

I hate to agree with that Donkey dude but many of you on here miss the point of this whole issue.  Israel’s goal is not to destroy the Palestinians.  The Palestinian goal is to destroy Israel and take it back as their own.

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.

Quote

 Let’s look at our great state of Texas.  Many years ago this was Mexico and they lost a war and it became the Republic of Texas and then joined the United States.  

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.

Quote

What if today Mexico decided it wanted Texas back because it is really theirs and said their ultimate goal was to destroy all the Texans living here.   What if they started lobbing rockets into El Paso and San Antonio and Houston or sending suicide bombers into those cities?  

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.

Quote

 Also, if the West Bank and Gaza is so horrible why don’t those people just move to Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, etc...  Oh, that’s right, those countries won’t let them in and don’t want them either.  Interesting isn’t it.

They have no obligation to leave the West Bank and Gaza. That would be the IDF. That's what you don't get.

Edited May 12, 2021 by hpslugga

[Asithappens 974]

7 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

*Generalizes all Palestinians as the same as Hamas*

What is the level of Hamas support among the rank and file Palestinians? I don't know. I'm sure that ALL of them don't support Hamas, but what about that generalization is a material misrepresentation? Maybe there are poll numbers out there. 

 

[Ghost of LL 15492]

17 hours ago, David Dennison said:

Israel won't allow Arabs to assimilate.

I don't think in the current political environment that it is possible to speak as to what "Israel" would or wouldn't allow.  Your statement is certainly true of Likud and the parties with which it would commonly enter into coalition.  But I don't think that's necessarily true of the opposition (which may or may not be a slight majority of the Israeli population).

[F250 28691]

My favorite take in this thread is the "invasion, occupation and the eradication of indigenous populations occurred in the past so why not now?"

Or the Derek Chauvin defense. "Sure I had my knee in his neck but the fucker shouldn't have been resisting me putting my knee on his neck."

[hpslugga 4044]

1 minute ago, Ghost of LL said:

I don't think in the current political environment that it is possible to speak as to what "Israel" would or wouldn't allow.  Your statement is certainly true of Likud and the parties with which it would commonly enter into coalition.  But I don't think that's necessarily true of the opposition (which may or may not be a slight majority of the Israeli population).

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). 

 

[wildcat09 29257]

Yeah, support for Likud in Israel and support for Hamas among the Palestinians seems to be fairly comparable. That speaks to the fact that this situation, like every comparable situation in the history of the world, is ugly and hard and complicated. But the simple fact is that Israel enjoys an overwhelming power disparity in this conflict and is abusing it to carry out crimes against humanity and there is no moral defense for that. I used to buy in to the "Israel is fighting for its survival" defenses that were used to justify its crimes, but it's simply not true. Nobody without nukes is capable of destroying Israel. And maybe if Israel stopped bulldozing their homes and killing their children, fewer Palestinians would want to. 

ETA: this was in response to GoLL. Slugga knows much more about the relative levels of support than I do.

Edited May 12, 2021 by wildcat09

[hobbes2702 12846]

1 hour ago, Beantown Express 2.0 said:

I hate to agree with that Donkey dude but many of you on here miss the point of this whole issue.  Israel’s goal is not to destroy the Palestinians.  The Palestinian goal is to destroy Israel and take it back as their own.  Let’s look at our great state of Texas.  Many years ago this was Mexico and they lost a war and it became the Republic of Texas and then joined the United States.  What if today Mexico decided it wanted Texas back because it is really theirs and said their ultimate goal was to destroy all the Texans living here.   What if they started lobbing rockets into El Paso and San Antonio and Houston or sending suicide bombers into those cities?  I am pretty sure we wouldn’t as a country just sit back and say, “hey, maybe they should get their land back.  Everybody in TX vacate their homes and move to OK so Mexico can have their territory back”.  

This is the same as if the Native Americans demanded the US get off their land and give it back to them or any number of peoples over the last 1000 years who have lost land during war.  

The Jews have been persecuted everywhere they have lived in this world so when they were finally given some land to live on I kind of understand why they don’t want to let a group of people who’s goal is to destroy Israel and the Jews to have power in their country.

Not saying Israel is handling this situation the best way but those of you that think of it as big bad Israel versus these poor little Palestinians are extremely misguided.  Also, if the West Bank and Gaza is so horrible why don’t those people just move to Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, etc...  Oh, that’s right, those countries won’t let them in and don’t want them either.  Interesting isn’t it.

[hpslugga 4044]

6 minutes ago, F250 said:

My favorite take in this thread is the "invasion, occupation and the eradication of indigenous populations occurred in the past so why not now?"

Or the Derek Chauvin defense. "Sure I had my knee in his neck but the fucker shouldn't have been resisting me putting my knee on his neck."

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!!!"

5 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Yeah, support for Likud in Israel and support for Hamas among the Palestinians seems to be fairly comparable. That speaks to the fact that this situation, like every comparable situation in the history of the world, is ugly and hard and complicated. But the simple fact is that Israel enjoys an overwhelming power disparity in this conflict and is abusing it to carry out crimes against humanity and there is no moral defense for that. I used to buy in to the "Israel is fighting for its survival" defenses that were used to justify its crimes, but it's simply not true. Nobody without nukes is capable of destroying Israel. And maybe if Israel stopped bulldozing their homes and killing their children, fewer Palestinians would want to. 

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.

Edited May 12, 2021 by hpslugga

[hpslugga 4044]

24 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Yeah, support for Likud in Israel and support for Hamas among the Palestinians seems to be fairly comparable. That speaks to the fact that this situation, like every comparable situation in the history of the world, is ugly and hard and complicated. But the simple fact is that Israel enjoys an overwhelming power disparity in this conflict and is abusing it to carry out crimes against humanity and there is no moral defense for that. I used to buy in to the "Israel is fighting for its survival" defenses that were used to justify its crimes, but it's simply not true. Nobody without nukes is capable of destroying Israel. And maybe if Israel stopped bulldozing their homes and killing their children, fewer Palestinians would want to. 

ETA: this was in response to GoLL. Slugga knows much more about the relative levels of support than I do.

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.

Edited May 12, 2021 by hpslugga

[Ghost of LL 15492]

6 minutes ago, hpslugga said:

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). 

 

Not really.  Labor only has 7 seats in the Knesset.  Which I guess is better than the 2 seats that it had in the last Knesset.  But that's still pretty pathetic.  Labor isn't really a huge player anymore.

I'm talking about the broader group (including Labor, but more importantly Blue-and-White and Yesh Atid), which appeal to the secular middle class of Israeli society.  And I wonder if Israeli society hasn't become so cleaved between secular and religious that the secular middle class wouldn't rather be in a country with a bunch of secular Arabs than with a bunch of the Haredim. 

I mean, we're kind of seeing that question play out in the discussions of forming a coalition.  Yesh Atid could maybe form a government if it could hold together its potential coalition partners and bring in the two Arab parties.  I think Yesh Atid and Blue-and-White would be on board with that, but they would need a few more seats from some center-right parties that they probably can't get.

[hpslugga 4044]

3 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

Not really.  Labor only has 7 seats in the Knesset.  Which I guess is better than the 2 seats that it had in the last Knesset.  But that's still pretty pathetic.  Labor isn't really a huge player anymore.

I'm talking about the broader group (including Labor, but more importantly Blue-and-White and Yesh Atid), which appeal to the secular middle class of Israeli society.  And I wonder if Israeli society hasn't become so cleaved between secular and religious that the secular middle class wouldn't rather be in a country with a bunch of secular Arabs than with a bunch of the Haredim. 

I mean, we're kind of seeing that question play out in the discussions of forming a coalition.  Yesh Atid could maybe form a government if it could hold together its potential coalition partners and bring in the two Arab parties.  I think Yesh Atid and Blue-and-White would be on board with that, but they would need a few more seats from some center-right parties that they probably can't get.

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."

Edited May 12, 2021 by hpslugga

[Ghost of LL 15492]

2 minutes ago, hpslugga said:

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.

I would agree with that.

[bad_teammate 13132]

1 hour ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

True, but if you keep poking the bear you're gonna get scratched or eaten.

As Israel is currently finding out, yes.

Right now Israel is a glass cannon. It relies on the unflinching support (and anti-Arab/anti-Muslim sentiment) of the West to operate with its current level of impunity towards international law.

But the West's support is not an unwavering natural law.

What they are doing now is completely unsustainable.

[hpslugga 4044]

12 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

As Israel is currently finding out, yes.

Right now Israel is a glass cannon. It relies on the unflinching support (and anti-Arab/anti-Muslim sentiment) of the West to operate with its current level of impunity towards international law.

But the West's support is not an unwavering natural law.

What they are doing now is completely unsustainable.

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. 

[DonkeyCigars 144]

2 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

That's exactly what you're seeing right now. Fighting back.

And your response to it is "no no no no, this isn't fair, you either have to assimilate or leave!"

Which means... what?

You can "believe" what you want because it conforms to your desired worldview, but that's all you're working with right now, a desire to believe.

Israel is an ethnostate.

My response is not "no no no this isn't fair". All is fair in love and war.

Great. Fight back. Otherwise known as F around and find out-- Jewish edition. 

I am saying I'd rather Palestinians not needlessly die in vain against a greater force with greater allies and resources. Just follow logically the chain of what is going to happen in a war. Likely the same thing that always happens when Palestinians thinks they are big boys. Like I said, I don't like it and I can even understand it-- if I were a Palestinian with Palestinian beliefs and goals I'd probably feel the same way. But I'm not, I'm Pro-Israel and a Zionist.

And as far as assimilation goes, it means to materially change to be more like the conquering state. Believe in the cultures, customs and God, etc. If you can't do that and want to be in conflict or opposition-- then you must either reload and fight another round (as seems to be happening) or leave. Go on a pilgrimage. Sojourn where you can. Doesn't matter. It's not Israel's problem.

Maybe you've heard the term at 2am: "You ain't gotta go home but you gotta get out of here!"
 

[bad_teammate 13132]

Just now, DonkeyCigars said:

I am saying I'd rather Palestinians not needlessly die in vain against a greater force with greater allies and resources. Just follow logically the chain of what is going to happen in a war. Likely the same thing that always happens when Palestinians thinks they are big boys. Like I said, I don't like it and I can even understand it-- if I were a Palestinian with Palestinian beliefs and goals I'd probably feel the same way. But I'm not, I'm Pro-Israel and a Zionist.

Why?

There are a ton of questions and critiques, but I think a fulsome answer to that question would be interesting and instructive. If you are able or willing to actually consider it seriously.

[hpslugga 4044]

7 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Why?

There are a ton of questions and critiques, but I think a fulsome answer to that question would be interesting and instructive. If you are able or willing to actually consider it seriously.

You already know where that will end.

[bad_teammate 13132]

11 minutes ago, hpslugga said:

You already know where that will end.

Perhaps, but it's good to lay things out nice and neat.

[hpslugga 4044]

11 hours ago, DonkeyCigars said:

I see, you think I was trying to advise or give guidance within the framework of the law as opposed to commenting on extrajudicial ways to settle this once and for all (again).

You sound like you are well learned, or at least well-interested, in international and NGO law and politics, so reframing the conversation around your interests, let me ask you and learn from you:

Is it lawful according to UN Charter you cite for Hamas to lob rockets at Israel? Are there sections of the law in the UN Charter that outline how to engage in Jus Ad Bellum or Jus in Bello? I'm curious who has the moral high ground here, both on the record and in your opinion.

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. 

Edited May 12, 2021 by hpslugga

[hpslugga 4044]

3 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Perhaps, but it's good to lay things out nice and neat.

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

[DonkeyCigars 144]

48 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Why?

There are a ton of questions and critiques, but I think a fulsome answer to that question would be interesting and instructive. If you are able or willing to actually consider it seriously.

I'm Pro-Israel and Zionist because of how I see myself in this world; my identity in this temporary space I fill in the great, fallen in-between, after where I was and before where I will be eternally, God willing. I'm but a lowly and moderately faithful sinner doing the best I can among the rest of my miserably broken peers.

Quote

"Since the day that I brought my people out of the land of Egypt, I chose no city in all the tribes of Israel in which to build a house, that my name might be there, and I chose no man as prince over my people Israel; but I have chosen Jerusalem that my name may be there and I have chosen David to be over my people Israel."

So you see, old friend, I brought more soldiers than you did I was being completely honest when I said I don't like that Hamas is fighting for this land in Israel, but I understand it.

I even respect it.

If I were Palestinian/Hamas or sufficiently muslim in that land, I would feel the same way as they do and probably be a mortal enemy to a Zionist. But that's not my identity.

[DonkeyCigars 144]

44 minutes ago, hpslugga said:

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. 

Thanks for the post. I guess I need to pour over the records and legalese here, as it appears you have, since you don't want to cite sources and make it easy.

I found the bolded part of all your post, and all this discussion, to be the most interesting. It seems almost as if Israel would have been better served not being formed out of bureaucracy, but out of old fashioned blood spoils of war cum diplomacy, like most countries sovereign borders and recognization for time immemorial.

[bad_teammate 13132]

3 minutes ago, DonkeyCigars said:

I'm Pro-Israel and Zionist because of how I see myself in this world; my identity in this temporary space I fill in the great, fallen in-between, after where I was and before where I will be eternally, God willing. I'm but a lowly and moderately faithful sinner doing the best I can among the rest of my miserably broken peers.

Vaguely answered with a folksy lilt. A predictable side-step.

You should examine that. When a man is either unaware of what rules him or unwilling to say it out loud, that's a problem for that man.

Quote

But that's not my identity.

Your identity, in this case, is entirely a choice you make. You should interrogate why you make that choice.

[956 Worldwide 34444]

Ugh, these debates always boil down to each side making the same argument against each other: “My side’s atrocities are not as horrible as the other sides; my side was forced to commit these atrocities by the other side; and my side’s atrocities aren’t atrocities anyway.”

This whole thread and the whole debate reminds me of Orwell’s Politics and the English Language.  Consider: “settler.” Conjures up images of the prairie, virgin soil, self-sufficiency, wide open spaces. Now consider: “Forcibly removing Palestinians from their homes and giving the keys to Israelis.” 
 

Consider the facile analogy of a war between a state and a confederation of ethnic-religious paramilitaries as a struggle between two individual men.  No one’s “face is being scratched” per Finklestein.  Consider instead: “Ethno-religious paramilitaries murdering people in buses and supermarkets and trying to blow up civilians inside their homes.”
 

The problem with using plain language is that it instantly renders everyone involved extraordinarily unsympathetic. On its face, ordinary people understand that stealing a house and giving it to your co-religionists cannot be justified on any grounds of national security. Ordinary people can readily understand that shooting a rockets at people houses and blowing up people at the grocery store isn’t self-defense no matter how hard you squint at it. 

Edited May 12, 2021 by 956 Worldwide

[DonkeyCigars 144]

16 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Vaguely answered with a folksy lilt. A predictable side-step.

You should examine that. When a man is either unaware of what rules him or unwilling to say it out loud, that's a problem for that man.

Your identity, in this case, is entirely a choice you make. You should interrogate why you make that choice.

I think there is room for debate in there. Do we make a choice? What if I believe in predestination? What if I'm unconditionally elected per the Calvinistic tradition? Maybe you've made a choice that makes it seem like people's identities are a choice you make.

Those who identify as gay; are they making a choice? Or is it predetermined in the sequencing of a code? Is it preternatural?

I realize that a) we are creeping dangerously into the margins of philosophy on a geopolitical thread and b) you find conversation that invokes forces or ideas or beliefs that live deep within our soul and with quiet power in vague, hard to conceptualize and reconcile and understand ways, to be distasteful and evidence of weakness, laziness or disingenuousness, but I cannot be as literal and definitive as you need me to be. I can't and I won't. 

[bad_teammate 13132]

5 minutes ago, DonkeyCigars said:

I realize that a) we are creeping dangerously into the margins of philosophy on a geopolitical thread and b) you find conversation that invokes forces or ideas or beliefs that live deep within our soul and with quiet power in vague, hard to conceptualize and reconcile and understand ways, to be distasteful and evidence of weakness, laziness or disingenuousness, but I cannot be as literal and definitive as you need me to be. I can't and I won't. 

Deep beliefs can be articulated. No, I am saying you are being vague specifically because you are being vague.

Why are you a Zionist?

If it is your faith that leads you there, all you need to do is explain how.

Quote

Do we make a choice? What if I believe in predestination?

Do you?

Also, since when does "predestination" relate to anything other than salvation? You're flopping around. Reaching. Grasping.

[F250 28691]

I am a fascist because I was born a fascist.

[hpslugga 4044]

47 minutes ago, DonkeyCigars said:

Thanks for the post. I guess I need to pour over the records and legalese here, as it appears you have, since you don't want to cite sources and make it easy.

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.

1 hour ago, hpslugga said:

But even there, you have a problem because there’s a concept in international law called belligerent reprisals.

https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v1_rul_rule145

1 hour ago, hpslugga said:

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,

https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2014/08/mounting-evidence-deliberate-attacks-gaza-health-workers-israeli-army/

1 hour ago, hpslugga said:

bombing schools, bombing UNRWA warehouses,

https://www.hrw.org/news/2014/09/11/israel-depth-look-gaza-school-attacks#

1 hour ago, hpslugga said:

lobbing white phosphorus grenades at same,

https://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/iopt0309webwcover.pdf

1 hour ago, hpslugga said:

uprooting trees

http://www.btselem.org/press_releases/20010207

1 hour ago, hpslugga said:

demolishing homes

http://www.btselem.org/publications/summaries/200202_policy_of_destruction

1 hour ago, hpslugga said:

systematically torturing political prisoners

https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/eoir/legacy/2013/06/14/israel_0694.pdf

1 hour ago, hpslugga said:

-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. 

https://www.un.org/press/en/2004/icj616.doc.htm

 

[DaysOff 7853]

Since we can't fix this can we blame the British. They broke the egg.

[Brian Fantana 6668]

HD Norman Finkelstein Jewish Student Crocodile Tears - University of Waterloo - YouTube

The dumbass crying bitch in this video sums up the smoothness of some of the brains in this thread pretty well.

[Rip76 4914]

19 minutes ago, DaysOff said:

Since we can't fix this can we blame the British. They broke the egg.

I mean really.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

21 minutes ago, DaysOff said:

Since we can't fix this can we blame the British. They broke the egg.

And the French..... neeeeever miss an opportunity to blame the French.  Plus it's pisses Nivek off a shit load apparently, which is good

[hpslugga 4044]

18 minutes ago, Brian Fantana said:

HD Norman Finkelstein Jewish Student Crocodile Tears - University of Waterloo - YouTube

The dumbass crying bitch in this video sums up the smoothness of some of the brains in this thread pretty well.

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

[wildcat09 29257]

Just now, hpslugga said:

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

Fuck Dershowitz.

[Brian Fantana 6668]

1 minute ago, hpslugga said:

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

Yep. This just becomes relevant again every time Israel starts Israeling and the dipshits in this country start bleating about shit they don't understand.

[956 Worldwide 34444]

2 hours ago, hpslugga said:

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.

This is a grotesquely misrepresented version of belligerent reprisals.  That concept basically holds that a state can under limited circumstances violate ordinary laws of war and military conflict in response to a violation by an adverse party.  Even the limited form is a gray area with all sorts of caveats (Geneva Conventions followed, warnings issued, no reprisals against protected persons, other restrictions). 
 

There is no “my opponents are obstreperous assholes who won’t let me win, so anything goes” clause in international law.  To fully Godwin the thread, actual resistance fighters in World War II would in no way be able to invoke “belligerent reprisal” to justify, say, machine gun a German nursery school.  

[WhatTheBuck 28713]

2 minutes ago, DaysOff said:

Since we can't fix this can we blame the British. They broke the egg.

With a whole lot of help from the Americans. Blame all of “Western Christendom” who were perfectly willing to get rid of the Jews from their societies. And who believed the Abrahamic myth that this piece of land was promised to them by the God they invented (but who still believed would all burn in Hell at the end of days because now THEY were the chosen ones). Never mind that they were kicked off their land (repeatedly). And they didn’t take it back by force. They got it back by a massive swindle exercised by people who didn’t think highly of the Jews but thought even less of the Arabs they conned into helping them overthrow the Ottoman Empire. People who lived on that land for more than a millennium-and-a-half. They were the ones who took it by force. We’re supposed to respect that, right?

WRONG! That’s a lie. Don’t believe anyone who says that matters because they’re a hypocrite and a fraud. Israel wouldn’t exist without our support. If the God of Abraham really existed, he wouldn’t need American military aid in order for HIS CHOSEN PEOPLE (who we aren’t, and a truly just and loving God wouldn’t have in the first place) to exist on the land he promised them.

I’ve seen Texans boast about how authentically Texan they are because their ancestors have lived in Texas for over 100 years. Imagine if your ancestors lived there for 1,700 years and some Californians came in and kicked you off your land. Would you pack up your guns in your pickup truck and just drive away? And what if you had nowhere else to go? Like hell you wouldn’t fight back.

When Donald Trump moved the embassy to Jerusalem he declared that Palestinian statehood would never, ever be a thing. Benjamin Netanyahu couldn’t have been more pleased because he believes that the Jews have some divine right to that land and, though it may take generations, the ultimate goal is to take all of it and fuck everyone else. It’s the same as the ideology of the Taliban in Afghanistan. The irony is that they both worship the same god. (So do the Christians. At least Moses was a Jew and Muhammad was a Muslim. Christianity might be the most foolish of the three but that’s probably a subject better suited to be discussed elsewhere.)

It will never end and as long as anyone has the attitude of, “Why can’t you just accept your subjugation?” then they’ll never get it. Those are the truly evil people.

[hpslugga 4044]

17 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

This is a grotesquely misrepresented version of belligerent reprisals.  That concept basically holds that a state can under limited circumstances violate ordinary laws of war and military conflict in response to a violation by an adverse party.  Even the limited form is a gray area with all sorts of caveats (Geneva Conventions followed, warnings issued, no reprisals against protected persons, other restrictions). 

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.

Edited May 12, 2021 by hpslugga

[CooterBrown 17913]

I think people grossly underestimate how many other very loyal, very serious friends and allies that Israel has. 

When the time comes, how many of them are gonna be willing to die on that Israeli hill?

I’d guess we are standing there by ourselves with our dick in our hand.