Meanwhile, in Jerusalem...

[Neonmoon 38127]

So International Law says Israel are occupiers of the West Bank? When did they first occupy it? And why did the US support it? 

[Js1 85110]

3 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

So International Law says Israel are occupiers of the West Bank? When did they first occupy it? And why did the US support it? 

In 1967, Israel captured the West Bank from Jordan in the Six-Day War. UN Security Council Resolution 242 followed, calling for withdrawal (return to the 1949 armistice lines) from territories occupied in the conflict in exchange for peace and mutual recognition. Since 1979, the United Nations Security Council,^[53] the United Nations General Assembly,^[32] the United States,^[54] the EU,^[55] the International Court of Justice,^[56] and the International Committee of the Red Cross^[33] refer to the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, as occupied Palestinian territory or the occupied territories. General Assembly resolution 58/292 (17 May 2004) affirmed that the Palestinian people have the right to sovereignty over the area.^[57]

 

The International Court of Justice ruling of 9 July 2004, however, found that the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, is territory held by Israel under military occupation, regardless of its status prior to it coming under Israeli occupation, and that the Fourth Geneva convention applies de jure.^[59] The international community regards the West Bank (including East Jerusalem) as territories occupied by Israel.^[60]

[Neonmoon 38127]

I did not know that. Gracias 

[Mdhorn 5911]

https://imeu.org/article/fact-check-msnbcs-palestinian-loss-of-land-map

Were there real factual errors in the map?

Yes. There were two factual errors in the map:

1. It showed the Syrian Golan Heights, which have been under Israeli military occupation since the 1967 War, as part of Israel, although the international community, including the United States, does not recognize Israeli sovereignty over the area.
2. The map also shows “Israel” existing in 1946. While British Mandatory Palestine did exist in 1946, there was no political entity called “Israel” until 1948.

 

Edited May 13, 2021 by Mdhorn

[bad_teammate 13132]

Pretty simple stuff.

"Hey we are happy to help you defend your borders as legitimately defined by international law! All you need to do is go back to your actual borders, give back the land you've taken, and we'll give you all the missiles you need!"

https://twitter.com/disclosetv/status/1392928163018182663

[Nivek 16861]

Israel should just send Ted Cruz to live in the areas they want to settle.

[Brian Fantana 6668]

2 hours ago, Mdhorn said:

https://imeu.org/article/fact-check-msnbcs-palestinian-loss-of-land-map

Were there real factual errors in the map?

Yes. There were two factual errors in the map:

1. It showed the Syrian Golan Heights, which have been under Israeli military occupation since the 1967 War, as part of Israel, although the international community, including the United States, does not recognize Israeli sovereignty over the area.
2. The map also shows “Israel” existing in 1946. While British Mandatory Palestine did exist in 1946, there was no political entity called “Israel” until 1948.

 

They're just putting the word "Israel" in place of "Jewish" to for some reason.

[Guest Lobo]

I seem to remember a peace accord attempt that ceded about 80% of that yellow land back to green about 20 years ago.  

Really glad MSNBC obfuscating the fact that it was not the U.S.' idea to redesign that little strip of land between '45-'48.

[DonkeyCigars 144]

4 hours ago, Js1 said:

In 1967, Israel captured the West Bank from Jordan in the Six-Day War. UN Security Council Resolution 242 followed, calling for withdrawal (return to the 1949 armistice lines) from territories occupied in the conflict in exchange for peace and mutual recognition. Since 1979, the United Nations Security Council,^[53] the United Nations General Assembly,^[32] the United States,^[54] the EU,^[55] the International Court of Justice,^[56] and the International Committee of the Red Cross^[33] refer to the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, as occupied Palestinian territory or the occupied territories. General Assembly resolution 58/292 (17 May 2004) affirmed that the Palestinian people have the right to sovereignty over the area.^[57]

 

The International Court of Justice ruling of 9 July 2004, however, found that the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, is territory held by Israel under military occupation, regardless of its status prior to it coming under Israeli occupation, and that the Fourth Geneva convention applies de jure.^[59] The international community regards the West Bank (including East Jerusalem) as territories occupied by Israel.^[60]

Wait, if what you are saying is true, then Israel does own East Jerusalem, etc. and is not there with one illegitimate atom or whatever hpslugga was saying. Right? Or am I misunderstanding?

[Grade of D as in David 13253]

5 hours ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Catherine was one of the first actual enlightened rulers of Europe. Extremely intelligent, she had the greatest collection of art bar none during a goodly portion of her reign, was pen pals with several of the enlightened thinkers in Europe, and very curious, she was among the first to state torture did not work, gave the serfs some control over their economic loves, created health services for the masses, and loved having younger men fuck her.

 

[lmao 178]

 

Israel must inflict "blows [on the Palestinians] that are so painful the price will be too heavy to be borne ? A broad attack on the Palestinian Authority, to bring them to the point of being afraid that everything is collapsing". When asked if the US will object, he responds: "America is something that can be easily moved. Moved to the right direction. They won't get in our way. Eighty per cent of the Americans support us. It's absurd."

In the full transcript he goes onto say how he stopped the Oslo peace process.

[bad_teammate 13132]

30 minutes ago, DonkeyCigars said:

Wait, if what you are saying is true, then Israel does own East Jerusalem, etc. and is not there with one illegitimate atom or whatever hpslugga was saying. Right? Or am I misunderstanding?

"under military occupation" is not legitimate under international law

[DonkeyCigars 144]

10 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

"under military occupation" is not legitimate under international law

What about this one?

Quote

 

Legal positions since Oslo Accords

On the 'corpus separatum' issue

According to a 1999 statement by the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, "There is no basis in international law for the position supporting a status of 'corpus separatum' (separate entity) for the city of Jerusalem."[33] In the view of the ministry, the concept of corpus separatum became irrelevant after the Arab states rejected the United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine and invaded the newly created State of Israel in 1948. Accordingly, the ministry states, "There has never been any agreement, treaty, or international understanding which applies the 'Corpus Separatum' concept to Jerusalem."[33]

 

 

[Mrs Whiggins 13049]

2 hours ago, DonkeyCigars said:

Wait, if what you are saying is true, then Israel does own East Jerusalem...

Sigh. Israel owns nothing. None of us do.

"The Earth is the only world known so far to harbor life. There is nowhere else, at least in the near future, to which our species could migrate. Visit, yes. Settle, not yet. Like it or not, for the moment the Earth is where we make our stand.It has been said that astronomy is a humbling and character-building experience. There is perhaps no better demonstration of the folly of human conceits than this distant image of our tiny world. To me, it underscores our responsibility to deal more kindly with one another,and to preserve and cherish the pale blue dot, the only home we've ever known."--Carl Sagan, Pale Blue Dot_ 1994

 

Very wise words. Too bad we have our hands over our ears.

[Anastasis 23394]

9 minutes ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

Sigh. Israel owns nothing. None of us do.

"The Earth is the only world known so far to harbor life. There is nowhere else, at least in the near future, to which our species could migrate. Visit, yes. Settle, not yet. Like it or not, for the moment the Earth is where we make our stand.It has been said that astronomy is a humbling and character-building experience. There is perhaps no better demonstration of the folly of human conceits than this distant image of our tiny world. To me, it underscores our responsibility to deal more kindly with one another,and to preserve and cherish the pale blue dot, the only home we've ever known."--Carl Sagan, Pale Blue Dot_ 1994

 

Very wise words. Too bad we have our hands over our ears.

It's a folly of human conceit for philosophers to believe that people having their homes demolished and the means of putting food in their children's mouth's stripped away from them can simply be washed away by pretty pictures from space that obscure the reality of suffering on the ground.  

[Mrs Whiggins 13049]

If one puts it that bluntly, well of course. But we have such hubris in our power seeking that ordinary people who just want to live are denied that--that sustenance for their children, a place to lay their heads and for what? It just makes me sad, is all.

Apologies.

[bad_teammate 13132]

2 hours ago, DonkeyCigars said:

What about this one?

That's a statement from Israel's government.

Statements from Israel's government are not what determines international law.

[brakeman 28253]

 

 i'm not engaged here but STAND-DOWN!

[Prepuce of Doom 20988]

A couple of additional pictures, as well as some neat background information on how missile defense systems operate. 

 

[Sawbonz 27436]

3 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

"under military occupation" is not legitimate under international law

I don’t see anything in the quoted text that supports this statement. Are you saying no military occupation is legitimate under international law, or is there unquoted text from the 2004 ruling by the International Court of Justice saying this specific military occupation is illegitimate?

[SimonBolivar 10932]

Anyone have any streams? 7 years ago we had some solid streams up 

[Biff Tannen 45499]

7 hours ago, Mdhorn said:

The map also shows “Israel” existing in 1946. While British Mandatory Palestine did exist in 1946, there was no political entity called “Israel” until 1948.

Theodore Herzl. If you will it, it is no dream. 
 

What the fuck are you talking about?  The carrier.  What’s in the fucking carrier?

[InkaUtexas 25523]

1 hour ago, SimonBolivar said:

Anyone have any streams? 7 years ago we had some solid streams up 

Reuters had a fixed camera earlier, but could not see a lot on it. 

[bad_teammate 13132]

10 hours ago, Sawbonz said:

I don’t see anything in the quoted text that supports this statement. Are you saying no military occupation is legitimate under international law, or is there unquoted text from the 2004 ruling by the International Court of Justice saying this specific military occupation is illegitimate?

Even within the Wiki part that Donkey quoted there is "General Assembly resolution 58/292 (17 May 2004) affirmed that the Palestinian people have the right to sovereignty over the area.[57]"

Full text of 292.

-----------------------------------------------

- Reaffirming the principle of the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force,

1. Affirms that the status of the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, remains one of military occupation, and affirms, in accordance with the rules and principles of international law and relevant resolutions of the United Nations, including Security Council resolutions, that the Palestinian people have the right to self-determination and to sovereignty over their territory and that Israel, the occupying Power, has only the duties and obligations of an occupying Power under the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949 1 and the Regulations annexed to the Hague Convention respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, of 1907; 2

2. Expresses its determination to contribute to the achievement of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people and the attainment of a just and comprehensive negotiated peace settlement in the Middle East resulting in two viable, sovereign and independent States, Israel and Palestine, based on the pre-1967 borders and living side by side in peace and security.

------------------------------------------------

There's nothing ambiguous or complex about Israel/Palestine in terms of international law. Israel is an occupying military and an apartheid state. This has been established international law for decades and decades at this point.

It's ~cOmPlIcAtEd~ in America because of our wild anti-Arab racism, the outsized influence Israel has in government via lobbying, and American Christendom's apocalyptic obsession with the Holy Land and the Jews as vehicles/sacrificial lambs beckoning Christ's return.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

Praise be! Jesus is coming back just as the prophecy foretold. Good luck infidels! 

[CooterBrown 17913]

Just give the Jews a New Israel in the middle of Nevada. Problem solved. A 53rd state to offset DC and Puerto Rico.

[InkaUtexas 25523]

17 minutes ago, CooterBrown said:

Just give the Jews a New Israel in the middle of Nevada. Problem solved. A 53rd state to offset DC and Puerto Rico.

Oklahoma....  Win win for all. 

[bad_teammate 13132]

The real solution to the Israel/Palestine issue is a single democratic state in which everyone involved has equal political rights and if any fringe religious zealots try any nonsense they get smacked down hard.

The two-state solution is just a reinforcement of the validity of the concept of ethnostates, which should be opposed in all places everywhere.

[hpslugga 4044]

2 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

The real solution to the Israel/Palestine issue is a single democratic state in which everyone involved has equal political rights and if any fringe religious zealots try any nonsense they get smacked down hard.

The two-state solution is just a reinforcement of the validity of the concept of ethnostates, which should be opposed in all places everywhere.

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.

[hpslugga 4044]

15 hours ago, Lobo said:

I seem to remember a peace accord attempt that ceded about 80% of that yellow land back to green about 20 years ago.  

Really glad MSNBC obfuscating the fact that it was not the U.S.' idea to redesign that little strip of land between '45-'48.

If you’re referring to Camp David during the Clinton years, the figure was actually even higher. The figures I’ve seen suggest that Israel was willing to give back 94-96% of the land.

The reason Camp David failed, and Israeli negotiator Schlomo Ben Ami has since conceded this, is that the missing 4-6% were pieces of fairly high value to the Palestinians. More importantly, however:

-There was no mention of restoration of water rights
-There was no mention of restoration of air space rights
-There was no mention of withdrawing checkpoints
-There was no mention of cessation of tree uprootings, farmland destruction, house demolitions, etc
-Speaking of house demolitions, there was no mention of easing of difficulties obtaining house construction permits

That, above all, is why Ben Ami himself conceded that the Camp David deal was impossible and that no Palestinian leader, not even that incompetent buffoon Saeb Erekat, would have accepted it. That’s also why Clinton came forth with his parameters at Taba near the end of his term...but Taba failed because Barak prematurely withdrew his negotiators. In fact if one takes Israeli political commentary even half serious, one comes away with the impression that Taba was just a last ditch election ploy and not a serious negotiation effort. More on that later.

If anyone is curious about this, I’d suggest reading scholarship by Clayton Swisher and Ron Pundak. 

Since 1967, Israel has not made a good faith effort to resolve the occupation. That is what makes the occupation illegal, and there’s international precedent for such a label.

Namibia took its case against South African occupation to the ICJ back in 1971. The ICJ subsequently ruled that the occupation was illegal because the occupier ceased attempting good faith efforts at a resolution.

Israel has repeatedly sabotaged opportunities at good faith efforts, with the lone exception (and even that was forced upon them with no real alternative) being Camp David in 1978. And that was Egypt, not Palestine. They’ve repeatedly engaged in what the Likud government in particular calls “mowing the lawn,” which is when they go into Gaza and smash the place up with about 1-2k civilian casualties and untold property damage, they murdered 20k people in Lebanon to quash what Avner Yaniv called “Arafat’s peace offensive,” they’ve illegally blockaded Gaza for going on 16 years, they continue to expand settlement construction in the West Bank, and most importantly, they continue to beg the US to do their bidding on the international arena (Biden just vetoed an SC resolution this past week). Those are all the exact opposite of what any ICJ would call “good faith efforts.”

Edited May 14, 2021 by hpslugga

[bad_teammate 13132]

Just now, hpslugga said:

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.

This is 100% correct and you won't be fighting against me on that. We will fight that one together.

Quote

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.

A stepping stone along the way, yes. 

[hpslugga 4044]

1 minute ago, bad_teammate said:

A stepping stone along the way, yes. 

Right, and the chasm between that and the next is most likely not within our lifetimes. 

[Neonmoon 38127]

So what I’m hearing is that they need to go back to pre-1967 boundaries in a two-party state? With each side having equal air/water rights etc?

is it possible to put the toothpaste back in the tube?

[hpslugga 4044]

1 minute ago, Neonmoon said:

So what I’m hearing is that they need to go back to pre-1967 boundaries in a two-party state? With each side having equal air/water rights etc?

is it possible to put the toothpaste back in the tube?

It wouldn't be a two-party state. It'd simply be two states with, optimally, what international legal scholars call "functional contiguity" between Gaza, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem. And in case you're wondering what that means, it refers to infrastructure. It'd be like if the US had a super highway between, let's say, Washington state and Alaska.

[hpslugga 4044]

20 minutes ago, hpslugga said:

The reason Camp David failed, and Israeli negotiator Schlomo Ben Ami has since conceded this, is that the missing 4-6% were pieces of fairly high value to the Palestinians. More importantly, however:

-There was no mention of restoration of water rights
-There was no mention of restoration of air space rights
-There was no mention of withdrawing checkpoints
-There was no mention of cessation of tree uprootings, farmland destruction, house demolitions, etc
-Speaking of house demolitions, there was no mention of easing of difficulties obtaining house construction permits

And I should have added that the missing pieces, when put into practice, effectively broke up the West Bank into 3 cantons. So 3 West Bank cantons, East Jerusalem, Gaza, no border security, no air space security, no aquifer security, etc. That's even more offensive than when South Africa had the fucking bantustans.

Edited May 14, 2021 by hpslugga

[bad_teammate 13132]

6 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

is it possible to put the toothpaste back in the tube?

Of course it is.

It will require the US to withdraw the protection it gives Israel that allows it to act with impunity and in contravention of international law, though. And that will only happen with a popular movement turning against apartheid within Israel and border expansionism without. That might not seem likely, but changes always happen, and in the 21st century they happen even faster than usual.

If Israel isn't careful, they might not just lose the US as its protector, but might actually screw around and find a US population that is openly hostile towards them after decades of official government Judeophilia. I see this undesirable outcome growing more likely as the center and liberals pretend Israel's behavior is fine, shout down the internationalist Left, and regularly lose power to the growing anti-Semitic right wing.

[DonkeyCigars 144]

Serious question: what are the punishments or consequences or "teeth" for violating International Law? I'm hearing and understand now that Israel is/has been in violation of this international law.

Who is the legislative body for the law? Who are the enforcers? Why has nothing been done? Is "International law" a secondary or inferior tier of law that is superseded by national laws? What binds all this together, I guess is the confusion, because it sounds like it's just a bureaucratic invention if nobody is taking it serious or wants to enforce it or it can be ignored and willed away when convenient. 

[bad_teammate 13132]

1 minute ago, DonkeyCigars said:

Who is the legislative body for the law?

UN General Assembly

Quote

Who are the enforcers?

UN Security Council

Quote

Why has nothing been done?

The US has a veto on the UN Security Council, which it constantly uses on behalf of Israel.

[DonkeyCigars 144]

Thank you.

[hpslugga 4044]

7 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

UN General Assembly

UN Security Council

The US has a veto on the UN Security Council, which it constantly uses on behalf of Israel.

And I would suggest to @DonkeyCigars that's the one defect of the UN: permanent members and what power they possess. Essentially, the UNSC is like a DA's office, except that it just takes one of the five assistant DA's to thwart any attempt at potential prosecution, even if the other 4 actively want it. Realistically, you're never going to get those 5 to relinquish the veto powers they possess in the UN, but if by some snowball's chance in hell they did, there's no way that Israel would still be occupying those three places at this point in history. 

Edited May 14, 2021 by hpslugga

[DonkeyCigars 144]

38 minutes ago, hpslugga said:

And I would suggest to @DonkeyCigars that's the one defect of the UN: permanent members and what power they possess. Essentially, the UNSC is like a DA's office, except that it just takes one of the five assistant DA's to thwart any attempt at potential prosecution, even if the other 4 actively want it. Realistically, you're never going to get those 5 to relinquish the veto powers they possess in the UN, but if by some snowball's chance in hell they did, there's no way that Israel would still be occupying those three places at this point in history. 

After bad_teammates post I read a bit about the UN, it's founding, the permanent members and the criticisms, and while what you just said seems to be popular consensus, it's also, both heavily alluded and in some circles explicitly stated, that there would have never been a UN without that veto power. It never would have gotten off the ground or gained confidence (a la League of Nations) without conceding that power to the majors.

And, of course like everything else in 2021, there are "both sides" arguments that the UN is a great force but inefficient and underutilized and marginalized as a toothless tiger due to the bias/prejudice towards a few countries (despite trying to cap the % they can fund the AOP) and then the others are saying that the UN is worthless and inefficient and evaluations show it's ineffective and should be relegated to humanitarian work.

[hpslugga 4044]

57 minutes ago, DonkeyCigars said:

After bad_teammates post I read a bit about the UN, it's founding, the permanent members and the criticisms, and while what you just said seems to be popular consensus, it's also, both heavily alluded and in some circles explicitly stated, that there would have never been a UN without that veto power. It never would have gotten off the ground or gained confidence (a la League of Nations) without conceding that power to the majors.

Oh I don't dispute any of this. My only point was to answer your question "why is nothing done?" Nothing is done because we more than abuse our power to veto anything, and in fact everything, that even vaguely criticizes Israel. We've even vetoed resolutions that merely call on all members to observe international law. That's extreme. That's like a lawyer saying "ok. I'm sitting here in a court room, with my bar card. I went to college, studied for the LSAT, passed the LSAT, went to law school, got my JD, passed the bar exam, I pay my bar fees on time every time, etc. I'm sitting here today as an officer of the court...AND FUCK THE LAW! But I would still like to make money off of it!"

Edited May 14, 2021 by hpslugga

[Neonmoon 38127]

Well looking at the map previously posted, it seems like Israel is pretty much hell bent on wiping out the Palestinians via genocide. So unless the US stops protecting Israel, do Palestinians have a chance in hell of stopping them?

Edited May 14, 2021 by Neonmoon

[hpslugga 4044]

4 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

Well looking at the map previously posted, it seems like Israel is pretty much hell bent on wiping out the Palestinians via genocide. So unless the US stops protecting Israel, do Palestinians have a chance in hell of stopping them?

Not so much genocide as it is "force them to live lives so unbearable that they'll eventually all pack their shit and leave." Either way, no, there's no way of stopping it outside of the US excusing itself from the issue.

Edited May 14, 2021 by hpslugga

[4th&Five 41461]

 

[bad_teammate 13132]

1 hour ago, Neonmoon said:

Well looking at the map previously posted, it seems like Israel is pretty much hell bent on wiping out the Palestinians via genocide ethnic cleansing. So unless the US stops protecting Israel, do Palestinians have a chance in hell of stopping them?

fixed

Their chance is what they're doing now. Violence against Israel that pales in comparison to Israeli violence against Palestinians that gains international attention and favor to their cause. Isolate Israel from allies and potential allies.

We are the linchpin. If our support for Israel is compromised then the larger international community (virtually all of whom are opposed to the Israeli plan of ethnic cleansing) will gain influence and power, Palestinians will get more direct aid, and Israel won't have the means to sustain its overextension and campaigns of violence.

[bad_teammate 13132]

@DonkeyCigars

What do you think about this? As a Zionist.

 

[GW Hayduke 1952]

The folks at lawfare provide some insight in the conflict in their rational security podcast.  

https://www.lawfareblog.com/rational-security-gas-new-toilet-paper-edition

[Longhorn_Fan68 33843]

1 hour ago, bad_teammate said:

@DonkeyCigars

What do you think about this? As a Zionist.

 

that's fucking disgusting. dumb war is dumb.

[lmao 178]

5 hours ago, hpslugga said:

Not so much genocide as it is "force them to live lives so unbearable that they'll eventually all pack their shit and leave." Either way, no, there's no way of stopping it outside of the US excusing itself from the issue.

It's a genocide. It's not different when they do it. It's not complex. Call it 'ethnic-cleansing' or a 'slow-motion genocide' at the end of the day it is a genocide and our tax dollars are complicit in it.