UKC

I recently finished a paper for a course at a college where I am studying. It was about the legal issues of Israel’s occupation of the West Bank. I got many surprises, and they contradict some of the assertions made in another thread here. Specifically it seems that Israel can assert some legal claims to the West Bank. Note these are legal arguments - not arguments from history, religion, morality, practicality etc, which may of course point in different directions. And the arguments do not of course exclude Palestinian legal claims.
Personally, I am not denying the claims of the Palestinians to a state – in fact, I wish they would get one as a soon as possible.
The paper is 20 pages long, so I’m not pasting the whole thing here. But these are some interesting discoveries.
1. Occupation as such is not illegal under international law. This law defines what you may or may not do when an occupier. The relevant law here is the 4th Geneva Convention, which bans transfers of populations to occupied territories and requires occupiers to recognise the rights of the occupied population. In the Israeli case, there are no transfers – settlement is voluntary. But it also seems Israel has sometimes acted illegally against individual Palestinians in the West Bank by not respecting their property rights – rights the Israeli High Court is now defending against the Israeli Government.
2. Most UN resolutions do not set law. No General Assembly resolutions do – they are only aspirational. Most Security Council resolutions are not: they have to be declared as being under a specific chapter and be actionable: like 'Government A must do this by a defined date'. It seems that the recent resolution 2334 is aspirational, not legal.
3. International Law is only binding on participants to treaties. So a country can elect not to be bound by its provisions. There are two different international law courts administering different versions of laws about occupation: the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the International Criminal Court (ICC). The former is part of the UN system and adjudicates between Nation States. The latter administers mainly the legal rights of people, and most people in this world are not citizens of countries that have signed up for it. Israel (along with the US, India and many other countries) has chosen not to be part of the ICC legal system.
4. The Council of the League of Nations on 24 July 1922 created the Palestinian Mandate, to be run by Britain, and gave Jews worldwide the right to settle in the area west of the Jordan River. The UN when founded took over this mandate, along with Jewish settlement rights. This law may be old – but it is still UN based international law
5. There is an argument that when a country decolonises the new country take the whole of the ex-colonial territory, e.g. Ghana nowadays occupies the area of the previous British colony. Thus Israel, the only country resulting from Britain’s return of the Palestinian Mandate, has claims over the whole area west of the Jordan.
6. The Oslo agreement that set up the Palestinian Authority created 3 areas. Areas A and B, run the PA, where there are now no settlements. And Area C, run by Israel, where there was no prohibition on settlements under the agreement - which was approved of and supported by the international community.
7. Law runs on precedent. There is very little international case law. But occupied territories have existed in other places and times. For example, there were no accusations of breaking international law when Jordan settled the West Bank from 1949 to 1967. Or against Turkey for occupying and settling Northern Cyprus. So the argument say ‘If their actions are/were not illegal, why are Israel’s?’

In reply to MikeTS:

So points 2 and 3 says Israel can do what the hell it likes as there are no laws derived from the UN. Point 4 justifies gobbling up Palestinian land by reference to, err, UN derived laws. How very convenient.

In reply to MikeTS:

Interesting post, Mike. It being new years day, im not going to get drawn into a lengthy discussion, but a couple of observations-

Of the points raised, number 6 is the most interesting and 'legally' persuasive. And I agree with number 2- the recent resolution was mostly a way of expressing disapproval, rather than eg paving the way for escalating action, in my understanding.

But as you acknowledge, the legal arguments are not the only, or the most compelling ones. If there is ever to be an end to the conflict, it will be through the exercise of politics, not the law; and, as in ulster, creative solutions to legal impediments will be needed to get an agreement both sides can accept. In that context, ongoing settlement building makes peace less likely; and looks like a means of engineering an advantageous position for Israel when, or if, a 2 state solution is ever enacted. De facto usually carries more weight than de jure.

And, without wishing to denigrate your work, it is a personal opinion, not a legal one, albeit substantially better informed than the opinion of most on here. There are other opinions, that settlements are illegal; though I fully accept the matter is disputed, so prefer to appeal to the moral and political arguments.

Are you going to publish the work? Is there a peer reviewed journal you can submit it to? It would certainly carry more authority if it was, and would make interesting reading.

Best wishes, and a happy new year,

Gregor

In reply to MG:


I was actually saying something different. That Israel has rights under international law derived from the UN and qualified by the international law of occupation. The most important qualification is to respect individual Palestinians' rights within Area C. The original League of Nations mandate said that Jews could build on land not privately owned by Arabs or on land bought from Arabs. These are still the rules that should and can be applied in Area C. And that Israeli Government is in dispute with the High Court on this issue.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

It was a discussion paper for my fellow students, with summaries of arguments and links to resources. More generally, I fear that the current emphasis at the UN on quasi-legal statements assigning blame will get in the way of the necessary face-to-face bilateral discussions between the parties.

In reply to MikeTS: 5 strikes me as a tenuous argument to make as a point of law. How does that fit with say the decolonisation of India/Pakistan?

I think right now the bigger fear is that 'the settlers' will make a two state solution de facto impossible despite any words from the current government claiming to support a two state solution

In reply to wbo:

I agree that 5 is tenuous. My point is that the Israeli case has some legal merit. More generally, most 'settlers' are in contiguous blocs in Jerusalem or near the Green Line. So practically they are not a problem. Israel has 3 times proposed a solution which involves removing settlements so the Palestinian state would get about 95% of the territory - and each time the Palestinians left and did not return. Also Israel has a track record of dismantling settlement: but only if peace is possible. From Sinai. Gaza and the West Bank. The majority of Israeli want this too. This 'Obstacles to Peace' argument just is not supported by the evidence.

In reply to MikeTS:

Just wondering what you used as a source of information with regards point 7 and Cyprus. My understanding (which is probably less informed than yours) has always been that the Turkish occupation was against international law, and a quick search throws up the wikipedia page for the conflict which backs up this opinion. Not suggesting it is correct, but wondering if you found something more persuasive and what it is.

In reply to MikeTS:

The link I referred to: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_invasion_of_Cyprus

In reply to MikeTS:

In the wider picture, is there any value at all in an analysis of whether actions x, y or x are "against international law". Seems to me to be completely relativistic concept to be wheeled out for political reasons only: the UN decided the standards known as "international law" are applicable are Israel's actions (while considering others beyond the pale), and you will argue back and forth about it, as if there is any point in doing so.

Who cares about the wording of these treaties, can't we take a step back and view the situation pragmatically and morally?

What are the underlying principles that justify or condemn settlements in the West Bank? If you believe in religious zionism - that god intended that land for Jews and not for Arabs, then there *is* justification (within a set of rules and values which are objectively insane - you need to appeal to made-up bullshit in a self-serving interpretation of a meaninsgless holy book).

But without that totally made-up, supernatural, false, ideological excuse, how can the policy be justified? If you can retreat into ambiguous corners of international law (for all its worth) to force an interpretation that the policy isn't specifically proscribed, is that enough? Is that the moral high ground the Israeli govt seeks to achieve?

Israel: aim higher. Aim to pursue policies that can be justified without appeal to insane religious notions, nor to bending interpretions of treaties so you can show to yourselves that the actions are not illegal, despite what the world thinsks. Aim for a moral standard: we did this because it is fair, it treats people equally, it improves wellbeing and decreases suffering.

If you can look into your heart and believe without self-deception that Arab and Jewish lives are of equal value, and your policies support that, then you have claim to a valid position. If your position is constructed to conceal your view that Jewish lives are worth more than Arab lives, then you need to review *everything* from the most basic philosophical assumptions, through everything you take from your religion and culture, to the last detail of how you interpret interational law.

Dancing around elegantly on the surface is pointless if the lake itself is poisoned.

In reply to Jon Stewart:
Well put. The law should serve as a codification of society's morals and ethics, not the other way around.

In reply to Jon Stewart:

Most functioning nation states value the lives of their citizens more than others, if by Jewish you mean Israeli and Arab you mean Palestinian. I doubt you will get far asking Israel to aim higher. Russia isn't aiming higher when it comes to Syria, Trump got elected vowing specifically to aim lower in that respect. The UK in sentiment and policy has shown what it thinks when it comes to refugees in this regard this last year etc. etc.

I suspect Israel will act in what it sees as its best interests, it just no longer seems that many Israelis see the two state solution as in their best interests.

In reply to TobyA:

By Jewish I mean Jewish. If by Jewish, the Israeli's meant "Islraeli" there would be no call for a Jewish state, only an Israeli state, which they have.

In reply to Jon Stewart:




you are missing the bigger reason for settlements in the west bank : strategic depth.
with settlements there is also army presence, and it is easier to fight a full on tank battle against invading Arab legions than 1 km from Tel Aviv.
the original 67' line is about 10km wide in places, that is indefensible.
that was a VERY big original reason for expanding settlements, though may be less relevant these days and the ideological reasons have taken a higher place.



preaching doesn't make people listen usually. instead of looking at what happened in 1999-2000, and since then you just preach....


thats rubbish, even 'ideological' Zionists have no notion of 'Jewish lives are worth more than Arab lives'. sure you can find extremists, but you say it like there is some Nazi like movement.


again, the Anti israeli attitude is extreme.

In reply to jondo:
I asked the question:


I guess you give an answer


You then go on to admit that it's a poor justification given the comparitive military might of Israel:


So what's this ideology? Explain it.


Forget Nazi, let's just stick with racist. I do not understand how you can take land and resources from other people in their land which is outside your borders and claim innocently that you believe their lives are worth the same as your people's. How do you square that circle? Israel will be judged by its actions, not by someone on the internet saying "there's no racism here".


Just out of the blue isn't it? Here we were discussing settlements in the West Bank, and from no where comes these extreme anti-Israeli remarks. Totally uncalled for, must be antisemistism, what other reason could there be? The actions of Israel? Don't be ridiculous!

In reply to Jon Stewart:





what is there to explain ? there are several types of Zionism, but you talk about it in it's most extreme form... that's like saying any socialist is a Stalinist or was a Pol Pot supporter. you nitpick the most extreme form of Zionism, that of religious militants who think they are superior, and thats it. so all Brexiters are also racist ? does the racist minority also stand for the rest ?


I think MikeTS explained a few things to you, but you refuse to accept anything he wrote ? You do not say you are criticizing this or that Israeli government or policy. I think you think that the entire land belongs to the Palestinians and the Israelis are some foreign invader of sorts. thats how you come across anyway.



ha, is that you testifying against yourself ?
Because I did not call you an anti semite , so don't pull that stupid card at me mister.
no, you are just an anti Zionist. whether you think Israel should be eradicated or not I don't know.

In reply to Jon Stewart:

But we are talking about Israel as a state, all I mean is that all states value their citizens' lives more than the lives of non-citizens, that is why your plea seemed idealistic or unrealistic.

And Israel is the Jewish state already even if it has significant minorities who are non Jews.

In reply to TobyA: well if they continue down the road to a one nation state then that minority is set to become a non jewish majority quite soon, ergo the democracy or jewish argument Kerry alluded to. How do the settlers square that circle, or is it just a problem for the near future

In reply to TobyA:

You're drawing parallels where none exist.

Isreal is not protecting the rights of its civilians within its own borders and abroad within the laws of others states. It's placing the rights of its people above those whose *in land it has no claim to*. You are fully aware of this difference and it's an insult to my intelligence to pretend otherwise.

Israel needs to justify the settlements, or to agree it an unjustified, racist policy and must be reversed.

Where's the justification?










Until Israel returns to govern within its borders, the parallels are absurd.

In reply to jondo:

I'm asking the question. If the settlements are not strategic (self-defense), but ideological, as you say, the tell me what that ideology says. As you say, there are many different strains of expansionsist zionism (from the religious, racist side, to something else, apparently).

I'm asking you a question: what is the ideology driving the expansion of settlements.


I'm saying that 1967 boundary is a sensible boundary and that once Israel expands beyond it it is occupying foreign lands and loses all legitimacy in declaring a itself a modern democracy. Get back inside your borders and then you have a legitimate position from which to criticise others. Until then, you remain in a position of stomach-turning, mind-melting hypocrisy and your attempt to paint yourselves as victims (in view of the US military aid, additionally) will raise not bleeding hearts, but only raised eyebrows. Get back in your borers, then you can be taken seriously.


Explained above. Depends on your definition of Zionism. Israel within internationally recognised borders, has every right to exist. Beyond those borders it's at war with its neighbours, so get back in them and then start negotiating towards a peaceful solution.

In reply to Jon Stewart:


the ideological side is that Jews have the right to live in the entire area west of the Jordan river, as far as I know. That does not mean, like you constantly say, that other people do not have that right. Your claim of state sponsored racism is completely unfounded as many in Europe who have never visited the area and talked to people to form their own views. I myself do not support the settlement activities in ideology, but understand why they were started and how the situation is not sustainable without a negotiated agreement.


ok, at least you clear your basic position (which is not anti Zionist so I correct myself). I agree that the 67' border makes sense with agreed land swaps as is already stated in the road map.
the problem I have with your views is that you come across as failing to recognize the Palestinians responsibility in the mess and believe me they equally share it.
all you emphasize is this 'racism' which as i explained is focusing on a vocal minority in my view.

In reply to jondo:



The idea that a racial group, (or religiously defined), have a right to live in a certain area of land to be absurd, and racist. I'm a jew, I have the right to live here. I'm an African Christian, so I don't. That's a racist way to legislate. You either are a national of that area, or you are not. Racial and religious identity don't confer rights to pieces of land, and only racists think they do. It's simple, conceptual stuff about what characteristics can confer special rights. Race isn't one of them!


When Israel argues from within its borders, we can start talking about Palestinian responsibility. Until then, get the f*ck out of there, it's occupation of someone elses land.


I can't see any other justification for settlements in the West Bank. It's a racist policy.

In reply to Jon Stewart:
I think you are missing the point. To argue that although Israeli Jews have legal rights to live in the West Bank, they should not be allowed to because they are Jews is itself a racist argument.

In reply to Jon Stewart:


Jon, I'm not trying start a fight but loads of countries give citizenship (i.e. conferring the right to live within the territory of that state) on some kind national heritage grounds which is like saying "race" or religion. Look at the number of Irish citizens living beyond Ireland. Loads of countries confer citizenship on children born to women of that nationality, even if they are born abroad. Interestingly in some case its not the same for children of men of that nationality - I know Finnish citizenship law works like that.

In reply to Scotch Bingington:



I skimmed the article. I think that it is because of what they did after occupation . 'condemn the declaration as "legally invalid" ' is not to say it is illegal, as in taken to an international court. Rather, it means it is not recognised as a legally established state.

In reply to wbo:
.>How do the settlers square that circle, or is it just a problem for the near future

There is no coherent bloc called settlers. Certainly, not an ideological one. Most people living across the Green Line are there for cheaper housing. Interviewing and photographing some wild eyed guys with guns and long hair is a favourite activity of the European press. But these are a very small minority.
But to answer your question, about 300,000 Palestinians/Arabs live in Jerusalem and 300,000 in Area C. The other 12 million or so live in the PA (West bank or Gaza) or outside the Israel/PA/West Bank area. And almost no-one, even the most extreme, is seriously claiming this territory. There are already 1.5 million Arabs who are full citizens of Israel. Israel could, I assume they would argue, handle 600,000 more and so square that circle.

In reply to Jon Stewart:

I'd argue that, for example, a group of indigenous people in a S American rainforest who'd lived on the same land for thousands of years had a moral claim to that land over, say, a logging company who'd purchased a lease from the government of that country -- a government and country that had only existed for a few hundred years, and whose religion and culture was born on a separate continent. Of course, extrapolating from that is a tricky task if you're to avoid offending modern sensibilities.

In reply to TobyA:


OK, my statement was too broad and your race can in some circs confer you special rights (to live where your parents are citizens in some cases).

The idea I have a problem with is that one can have a right to live in an area of land outside the country of which you are a citizen, by virtue of your race. It would be much simpler if the West Bank had status as (part of a separate state). Then it could not be argued that Israelis (Jewish or otherwise) had a right to live there.

My mind boggles that people defend the policy of building towns and infrastructure for the people of a neighbouring country on land outside their borders, which is home to others. In what moral world that is acceptable, I cannot understand. It is madness.

In reply to MikeTS:


All I can see is that by denying statehood to Palestine, this allows anyone (doesn't matter if they're Jewish or Isreali or Mongolian) to come in and build, to take resources, to undermine the lives of those living there.

The idea that by virtue of their race one group has a speacial right to commit this abuse is racist. Denying statehood to allow anyone, regardless of race, to commit this abuse is not explicitly racist. But since in fact the situation is kept in this state of limbo such that Israel specifically can expand into the land by settlement building (and road building etc), then the motivation for the policy (a stateless West Bank on which Israel builds) is racist.

In reply to wurzelinzummerset:


Assuming that all were citizens of the country, then that fight would have to go to court. If the indigenous people were citizens and the loggers were foreign, the citizens would surely have the right to live on that land by virtue of citizenship not race.

In reply to Jon Stewart:

>it's occupation of someone elses land.

Unlike you I'll try to answer without expletives. This land was part of the Ottoman Empire, and was was renounced by Turkey after losing in WW1. It was then passed onto the League of Nations, who set up a Mandate administered by Britain in 1923. Britain returned the mandate to the UN in 1947. The UN failed legally to set up two states, a Jewish one and an Arab one. Then the Arab countries invaded, Israel was established in 1948 and now Jordan occupied the West Bank. Then in 1967 Israel occupied it in a defensive war. At this point the UN said basically, figure it out yourselves - resolution 242. This resulted in a peace agreement with Jordan who renounced claims to the West Bank. Then the Oslo Agreement So at this point, and in about 70 years, the land had passed through control by four states, one quasi-state, and two international organizations. So - very unclear legally what country had legal rights to it, if any! What is clear is that this situation is legally unique, and should be treated as such.

In reply to Jon Stewart:


you seem unable to grasp the idea of cultural heritage , but only the idea of race which in itself is vague and often ill defined. you also fail to understand the level of persecution of Jews throughout history (utterly fail to grasp) and that at some point they decided to return to the (only) land of their forefathers while needing a homeland for protection.
you also do not take into account that Palestine never existed as a state under what is called today the Palestinian people.
these three things you fail to grasp leads you to be extreme anti Israeli as opposed to someone who would get the complexity of the situation.


when you say 'get the f*ck out of there' you are referring to who exactly ? i am not Netanyahu, if you are capable of making the distinction.
frankly, you read like you hate Israelis and anyone who supports the existence of Israel, not just their government.
the last thing you fail to get is the numerous times the PA rejected a peace deal, but according to you they have no responsibility .
Furthermore your post leads me to conclude that contrary to what you said earlier I think that you do not believe Israel has the right to exist as a Jewish state in any border, as your post is mostly about your opinion that states based on culture (religion + language + heritage) have no right to exist, in particular Israel.
Other examples of numerous such states that give citizenship like MikeTS pointed to you do not seem to bother you .

therefore you are Anti Zionist after all as you would not favor a two state solution where Israel is recognized as a Jewish state.
Those are your opinions but at least be honest about them and less self contradictory.

In reply to Jon Stewart:




I presume you mean the pre 6-day war boundary. This boundary (the so called green line) was basically the 1948 cease fire line - sensible - I don't think so.

Of this boundary, the only bits that are seriously disputed is West Bank & Jerusalem. Gaza has been given back which the Palestinians have made a mess of (it was handed over with viable bits of industry/agriculture that were almost immediately trashed rather than used/exploited, etc.). Golan Heights isn't going to go back to Syria - no way - too strategic although maybe the actual border line could be negotiated to a different wiggle.

Jerusalem - no way that is going back, although any possible border with a Palestinian state may include part of E Jerusalem.

The West Bank - bit of a mess really (to put it mildly) - I agree that many of the settlements were originally there for strategic reasons - especially those established closer to 67 than now. I always feel uncomfortable about new settlements, even if the land has been legally obtained (purchase for reasonable price) - simply because it seems very provocative to the Palestinians and the world community. Presumably the internal political pressure to "settle" is seen as greater to a right of centre Israeli government than the resistive political pressure of condemnation.

The answer is not just for Israel to withdraw to pre-67 lines - I don't know what the answer is - nobody really does - that's why it's such a mess. I suspect that the final answer will actually be a 3 state solution as I can't see a Palestinian state composed of two physically separate parts (WB & Gaza) having any long term viability (as per W & E Pakistan).

In reply to MikeTS:



Very true. The land does not belong to Israel. It is the land that would make up a Palestinian state were this solution implemented, and as you say this situation is unique. Israel may be able to construct a legal argument (as your OP suggests) that it's OK to build there, to which I've already responded:

The policy is one of destroying the lives of the people who live on that land. Israel should aim to pursue policies that can be justified without appeal to insane religious notions, nor to bending interpretions of treaties so you can show to yourselves that the actions are not illegal, despite what the world thinsks. Aim for a moral standard a policy which treats people equally, improves wellbeing and decreases suffering. The policy of building settlements on the West Bank is a racist policy - it says explicitly that Jewish people have a right to those resources that overrules the rights of those living there.

What is it that confers that right? Making a re-interpretation of treaties to demonstrate that under light favourable to Israel you can describe it as "not illegal" (despite what the rest of the world thinks) is not a victory. Explain why the policy is right, or admit that it's racist and immoral.

In reply to jondo:

That's relevant to existence of Israel, but has no relevance to extending settlements on the West Bank. I'm not interested at all in those elements here. They have no bearing. We live in 2017 and the management of resources need practical governance solutions.


My position isn't extreme. I think that Israel's policy of building settlements in the West Bank is wrong and is motivated by racism. I don't understand how such a policy of destroying people's homes and livelihoods, taking away their land and resources can be justified. "Cultural heritage" and "levels of persecution" do not provide this justification.


I'm referring to the policy of settling the West Bank. Change the policy - it's not Israel's land, so evacuate the settlements.


You can read that into what I've said if you like, but I haven't said anything other than about the Israeli policy of settlements on the West Bank, which I think is an immoral, racist policy. Up to you if you want to infer from that further, but you have to be honest and understand that it's in your head, not my words.


You present that as if there was a realistic deal that would have given the Palestinians dignified lives in a viable state. Palestians have very considerable responsibility for the ongoing conflict, but not for settlements in the West Bank. Israel could stop building now (and retreat).


Not in particular Israel. I believe in secular governance. I believe that racial identity is a toxic issue when it comes to the pragmatic issue if managing resources. We need states that work as economic units, within which people of different races and cultures are treated equally. Whatever your nonsense you believe, you can do so in your home, *not* in schools or public institutions, and whatever your racial or cultural identity, you can keep that in the private sphere too. We can't manage the world through tribalism, time has moved forward in the last 2000 years and some people need to grow up.


No, I don't favour a Jewish state any more than I favour a white state, or a Christian state, or a state based on any religious, racial or cultural grouping. The state should be there to do simple things irrespective of your identity: provide infrastructure and services in return for tax. The laws should treat everyone equally and public institutions should be free from the toxic divisions of race and religion.


Does that set things out for you clearly?

In reply to Michael Hood:


I agree that that is not the answer, what I'm saying is that there is no way of negotiating a solution from the current position of Israel building all over the West Bank and in doing so undermining the possibility of a Palestian state there.

In reply to Jon Stewart:
Whether it's true or not I don't know but I always get the feeling that part of the pressure to settle is to have a stronger opening bid position to retreat from. That's part of what makes me uneasy about settlement expansion.

Another point, you seem to be very anti religion, but don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. A lot of (good) western morality and law comes out of the first few books of the bible.

In reply to Michael Hood:

I don't buy that, sorry. Morality can be derived by thinking about the consequences of actions, you don't need any impenetrable fairy stories at any point. They are not helpful (although even a stopped clock tells the right time twice a day).

In reply to Jon Stewart:

you have no evidence that Israeli policy is motivated by racism, not in Israeli law or official policy, hence your statements about racism can be considered extreme or at least a kind of incitement.


pointed out to you by MikeTS it is not anyones land legally.


as I said your made up fantasy of racism is in YOUR head.. I try to follow evidence.


there were several realistic deals... see Barak, Olmert, Livni, etc... all rejected by Palestinians. Israel has absolutely no reason to follow your unilateral retreat advice as it implemented that in Gaza and got murderous terrorism in reply. If your life was in danger I doubt if you would give this 'unilateral retreat' advice.


ironically i have similar views on what would be the 'best' solutions in an IDEAL world, but not everywhere is the French republic, and you can see the mess that is in the moment. so this arrogant multiculturalism you project is a kind of intolerant vanity really , thats how i see it.
Arabs who are Israeli citizens have equal rights there, but you conveniently ignore that since it does not fit your 'Israel = Racists' model.
groups of people who share a common culture want there own nation when there rights are violated, be it economic rights or even the right to live. Thats what happened to the Jews, thats what happened to the Palestinians as well in the late 20th century (different rights violations same effect).
you think you are above that in some way and are more moral....



yes, you have an extreme republican position. states should have no identity , they should be just administrative entities. your ideas are a complete fantasy i think, not unlike the utopias dreamed by Lenin and friends. btw, the Palestinians themselves would think the same of your views except the communists, as the PA is a nationalist movement.
your position would work if humans were robots.

In reply to jondo:
There are Palestinian communists? alive?

Edit: much as I'd like to post more I'm off to Slipstones to see if I can get a bit of climbing/bouldering done in the sun TTFN.

In reply to jondo:


The policy *is* the evidence. Building homes, roads, infrastructure on land on which another race are already living and whose homes and livelihoods are being destroyed. This is explicitly racist action. The onus is on supporters of this policy to show that it isn't what it appears to be (which, by the way, is explicit racism).


Have you noticed anyone living there? Does that have any bearing on whether it's right or wrong to build there?


You deem them realistic - what, precisely does that count for?


I didn't say that, I said that policy of building settlements in the West Bank was racist, which it is.



Perhaps if we started to educate children without poisonous religious ideology, mixing them with others from different cultural backgrounds, and providing equality of opportunity, then some progress could be made. Or we could cling to the identity of our in-groups, and use everything in our power to make sure our group get more of the resources than the out-groups.

This seems to be the world you favour, and I can't see how that can be justified.

In reply to Jon Stewart:
And equally would make an Israeli State more viable. There are claims - legal, moral, historical, practical - both ways.
We need a compromise (to move away from the original point of the thread, which was to look only at legal).
My problem is that the Palestinians do not act like a compromise solution is acceptable. As I said before, they have walked away from 3 proposals where they get about 95% of the area.
And no-one has mentioned Hamas, who run a vicious theocracy over 1.5 million people. which says that Jews have no place at all in the land, that no negotiations should be entered into, and violent resistance is the only answer. If I was a Martian advising the UN and Obama/Kerry I would tell them to deal with Hamas first as the obvious obstacle to peace.

In reply to MikeTS:



Nice to see you care about the lives of Palestinian people.

http://www.countthekids.org/

In reply to llechwedd:

Why? Hamas has several times chosen a war against Israel, knowing that their kids will suffer. It has a policy to protect its fighters and government officials in concrete bunkers and leave the civilians exposed above them. It could choose peace - but does not. Every kid, Israeli or Gazan, kid killed is a tragedy. But the moral responsibility is held by Hamas because of the choices it made.

In reply to Jon Stewart:


the land is disputed, vast majority of settlements were built on barren hilltops with no houses on them, that does not mean i support the settlement program. i don't. but you are making up things. you see something on the news and thats the truth for you. ('all settlers are racist, settlements are built on homes'...).


see first paragraph.


97% of the west bank, all of Gaza, free movement, land swaps for settlement blocks near Jerusalem, administrative rights in east Jerusalem, a road from Gaza to the West bank, airports in both, functioning port in Gaza. all that for what ? the recognition of Israel as the state of the Jewish people and an end to the conflict.


we disagree.


are you talking of Palestinian children ? because that's what they do, far more than settlers. formal Israeli textbooks contain none of the vile hatred you find in Palestinian ones. check for yourself. I'm not making it up.


it's not about justification, as I said you have Utopian ideals, it about realism as well. realism about human beings , about the world, and about the aspirations of peoples.
your posts aren't really about settlements, it's about your view that Jews should not have a homeland to themselves. (of course no people should have according to you. )
you also seem to really like the word 'racist' and use it freely without any connection to reality.
if your posts were just about settlements and you talked to the point instead of branding people then we could have avoided this boring argument.

In reply to Michael Hood:



good point. there are plenty of Israeli communist Arabs though. they have a party in the Knesset , some Jews as well in the same party.
of course this is possible because of racism...

In reply to MikeTS:

Haven't read the whole thread, so this may already been covered.

But screwing my mate's wife isn't against the law either.

In reply to David Martin:



but he's your mate, these sides are far from it.
was she any good ?

In reply to jondo:

Strange that isn't it?
But you could just be neighborly, not crapping on your own doorstep, that sort of thing.

As much as I'd like to go there, I don't. I wish Israel was as morally upstanding as I am, but as I think we discussed in another thread, such expectations are apparently unjustified.

I suppose you could claim slamming the Palestinians only occurs under duress, through gritted teeth. But Israel's apparent sense of entitlement to an area of land far greater than that of 1948, legal or otherwise, surely leads to relishing the zero-sum game of an ever-diminished Palestinian statehood, ie. your mate's wife being so appealing that his loss is your gain and that suits you just fine.

In reply to David Martin:



is your middle name sanctimonious ?


unfortunately all my mates wives are rather appalling.

In reply to jondo:


What am I making up? You are trying to diminish the impact of the settlement programme.

Here's an example of the type of information that forms my view of the settlement policy:

youtube.com/watch?v=DwcMKDh64VQ&

I am saying that the settlement of West Bank is a racist policy, based on this type of evidence. I will say it again, and again, util the evidence changes.


My posts are about the policy of settlements in the West Bank. That is what they are about. Check again if you're unsure.


The policy of settlements in the West Bank is a racist policy. That's a simple description of the reality of the policy.

In reply to Jon Stewart:



i am not trying to diminish the impact of settlements. I explicitly said the settlements are a problem and I oppose their continuation. Find me a post where i say otherwise.
i can't watch such a long video now, but i saw they talk about the wall.
the wall was built in response to countless murderous suicide and other attacks on civilians. the wall diminished those attacks to virtually zero. yes, it disrupts lives in some areas, but better israelis continue to die indiscriminately ?
you are very sensitive to Palestinians lives , but would like to take down the wall which saves Israelis lives. so their right to live is lesser for you than Palestinians right for free movement ... ? nice one.




ok. i cannot further comment , because all I have to say that it is not a racist policy at all.
Palestinians would not be employed as equals in factories like Sodastream (which closed because of BDS pressure ironically and moved to israel), if this was racism. 500 palestinians lost their jobs because of BDS....
its nothing to do with racism, everything to do with a conflict over land.
believe what you want.

In reply to jondo:




Build it along the border, then it can afford all the security you want. Build it separating Palestinians from their own land, and the security purpose appears to be only part of its purpose.


Build it along the border.


There is an enormous difference in the privileges afforded to Israelis and Palestians in the West Bank.


One example of people being treated equally does not diminish all of the examples were they are not.


Maybe find time to watch that video and then come back and tell me that it's nothing to do with racism.


I'll believe the most independent sources of evidence I can find. These will generally be Jewish people who don't approve of Israeli policy. If you can show me high quality, independent evidence that shows me that these international peace activists in the West Bank are lying, then bring it on.

In reply to Michael Hood:

'Another point, you seem to be very anti religion, but don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. A lot of (good) western morality and law comes out of the first few books of the bible.'

I don't think we will be in a position to truly criticise and move beyond Islamic fundamentalism, Christian fundamentalism, Jewish fundamentalism and all the rest until we become a secular state where religious belief is tolerated (if we must...) but not accorded any special privileges. (That includes the privilege of parents being allowed mutilate the genitalia of children of either sex.)

And I would turn you comment entirely through 180 degrees: a few religious texts - out of thousands - reflect the fact that we have had to have certain morals in common simply to survive - 'do as you would be done by', and all that. These weren't derived from religious texts; they were what made our evolution possible, and were subsequently hijacked by religions as revelations.

In reply to Jon Stewart:

Do you know about the UN OCHA maps? They really help visualise the occupation if you haven't been there. You can see the 'border encroachment' settlement blocks - suburbs of Jerusalem mainly, where like Mike said, lots of people are there for economic reasons more than anything else, and the outpost settlements which are often the ultra religious and militant ones. http://www.ochaopt.org/content/west-bank-acces-restrictions-september-2014

In reply to Jon Stewart:


i know it was not built with the intent of disrupting Palestinian lives , but to save Israeli lives at the time. the priorities were save lives even if it is necessary to disrupt others lives. I totally agree if those were the options. and I think it could have been much worse.


yes, Israel is not in the position to offer anything as Palestinians are not citizens of Israel.
I agree that is a bad situation, but racism is not the motivation or the cause.


it is always possible to cast aside any example when it does not suit you. even scientists do it all the time.


as I said racism exists with some people, you are saying racism is the motivation of whatever suffering is inflicted. I completely disagree.


I didn't say they are lying, but obviously some of them will have an agenda and then it is possible to present facts in a way that suits them.
if racism was the motivation of Israel you would not have Arabs in the parliament or Arab judges and doctors.

In reply to jondo:

I think you need to face the bare facts of the situation: Israel occupies land that is not hers, and treats Israelis on that land (who it pays to colonise it) as superior to those who have lived and worked on that land for generations. If Israel believed that their lives were of equal worth, it could not pursue that policy.

In reply to Jon Stewart:

as i pointed to you earlier Israel primarily pursued settlement policy for other reasons than 'we are superior'.
You seek only one type of information, as you quickly discarded a single fact about a factory I put forth.

which other peoples do you also think should not have a homeland ?
or are you claiming Jews are not a people at all ? should they go back to Europe, Arab countries,Ethiopia, India and the rest ?
why should there be Scot and Welsh parliaments if 'everyone should be treated equally by the state'. according to your ideas Westminster is enough.

In reply to jondo:

The strategic reasons you cite for settlement policy do not provide a compelling explanation for the realities of the policy. It is indisputable colonisation of land outside Israel's borders. Any other explanation of the policy is ridiculous.

Have a look at the map and explain to me how this situation has developed based on "strategic defense" aims rather than an aim to colonise the land and undermine the lives of the population who have lived and worked there for generations. You cannot colonise without racism. Racism is the pyschological component of colonialism.

http://www.ochaopt.org/content/west-bank-acces-restrictions-september-2014


I'm sure the soda stream factory was great. You fail to understand what evidence is needed to support a statement about a policy. It's not like a law of physics where a single counter-example is all that's required to falsify the theory. In order to make fair statements about the West Bank, we need to talk about what's going on in total, on balance, in general: what is the big picture?

I never claimed that there was not a single example of people being treated equally in the West Bank. I'm sure there are loads of fantastic projects trying to bring people together and ameliorate the hatred brought about by Israel's occupation. But if you think that a company employing Israelis and Palestinians on equal terms makes up for all of the land stolen, the resources poisoned, the homes bulldozed, the freedoms denied, then you're completely mad. Look at the situation. Is it fair? Or is it a racist programme of colonisation?


What straw man are you arguing against here. We're not discussing the existence of Israel, but no since you raise it, I do not agree with the concept of granting peoples a homeland. Borders are accidents of history, and it's a sad state of affairs when the different groups within them hate each other so much they can't be governed. A deep, sad failure of human behaviour, showing how we have not yet been able to shake off our primitive tribal instincts.

What the f*ck are you proposing happens in Africa if every people deserves a homeland? Or is it just Jews who deserve theirs?



I don't know what argument you're making here, but it's got nothing to do with anything I've written. I can't respond to complete nonsense, sorry.

In reply to Jon Stewart:




I already told you the armies presence between the 67' lines and the river jordan.
the settlements give some legitimacy to the presence, as opposed to being on the 67 line. all this post imperialist lefty mumbo jumbo about colonisation and psychology is really not something I can argue with , its your world view.


the big picture is that the PA rejected deal after deal. Why do you think they did that ?
basically they thought like yourself : Jews do not deserve a homeland in Israel.
hence they recognized Israel in the Oslo accord but NOT as a homeland of the Jewish people. that has become the main problem in all negotiations since Oslo.
I already stated about a million times take or give that I oppose the continuation of settlements. I also told you the same number of times that racism is not the motivation of settlements, rather opportunity, cheap housing , belief of the right to settle (from any number of sources including religion), and so on.


it is neither fair nor a 'racist programme of colonisation'.
it is a situation that developed for a variety of reasons, racism isn't one of them.




did I say 'just Jews' deserve theirs ?
History, if you haven't noticed, is extremely complicated. once Jews had a homeland, then they dispersed for 2000 odd years, then the accumulated circumstances of history, such as persecution and mass murder created a collective movement towards a homeland.
I imagine it is possible to find parallel stories in Africa and elsewhere though probably not spanning so long and geographical diverse.
your main 'problem' as far as i can tell, is that you think in terms of 'deserve' , 'justifications' and so on , and not in terms of historical process.
your definition of borders as 'accidents of history' underlines this attitude.


ha. it definitely has to do with what you have written. the Welsh and Scots are peoples, they have a unique culture, languages (Welsh more), and history of independence. despite living in a comfortable union, they still require a great deal of their own say in things. I would argue that the position of the two peoples has been less extreme than the Jews in pushing for self determination , and yet it is still a collective wish... other examples : Catalonia, Basque country, etc....
now imagine any of those peoples persecuted , scattered, no protection of any state, and just one place that is their ancient homeland and you might get the connection to your absolute rejection of the rights of Jews.

In reply to jondo:

How many times do I have to explain that I am not arguing against the right of Israel to exist. I am arguing that the occupation of the West Bank is wrong.

Can you please argue against that statement, not a straw man about denying Jews a homeland. The concepts of "peoples" and "homelands" aren't really my bag, but for the sake of a discussion about the West Bank I'm happy to accept that it's important to other people and that Israel provides this pyschological assistance to Jews. I just don't see why this homeland must inlcude the West Bank, which is an area of land on which other people have lived and worked for generations.


Why do you oppose it? Because it's not Israel's land and other people are living and working there, and it's wrong to destroy people's lives just because they belong to a different racial and cultural group to you?


None of those reasons are valid justification for bulldozing down people's homes. It *requires* racism -the belief that these people's lives do not matter because they are from a different racial and cultural group - to go forward with this policy. All the reasons you cite are no doubt true - but they also require racism to justify taking away people's land and destroying their lives.

If you want to convince me that the occupation is not a racist policy, reasons for moving into settlements that are perfectly compatible with racism (or in the case of "right to settle" are synonymous with racism) will not do.

In reply to Jon Stewart:



indeed. forget that factory. lets say an israeli factory in the west bank pays Palestinians a half of the minimum wage in Israel and that is much more than the minimum wage in the PA territory. you would call that racism, i would call it taking advantage of a situation in a bad way.
If you wear any western brand such as Nike and about 1,000,000 other brands or shop at Primark or about 1,000,000 other retailers then you are a hypocrite for using this 'racist' stuff, or I would say a racist yourself by your definition. they do exactly the same thing in Vietnam , China, Indonesia, India, and a load of other places.

In reply to jondo:



I don't know where you're going with this. The issue of hypocrisy in benefiting from the exploitation globalisation has brought us is certainly a valid and interesting one. But it has got f*ck all to do with the occupation of the West Bank.

In reply to Jon Stewart:


i disagree with you, since you classify almost any exploitation as 'racism', whether it is an economic exploitation or whatever, then it is a relevant example.
if you participate in the global exploitation by purchasing all these brands then you are also a 'racist economic aggressor' .

In reply to jondo:

What I describe as racism is a policy of one ethnic/cultural group going beyond the borders of their country and taking away the homes, land and livelihoods of another ethnic/cultural group.

That is what I describe as racism. It is about one tribe taking the land and resources of another.

In reply to jondo:

Buying clothes from Primark is the same as bulldozing homes in the west bank? You want me to take what you say seriously?

In reply to Jon Stewart:



ok, so you are changing your position somewhat. now Jews have a right for a homeland. you see, if the PA leadership followed your line there would be a negotiated end to the conflict by the road map. I am 99% certain of that.
it does not have to include the west bank.




I am not trying to convince you... there are simply no racist laws I am aware of. Arabs who identify themselves as Palestinians who live within the 67' lines have equal rights as Jews.
your 'racist' accusations simply do not hold according to any definition of racism I have seen.
Btw, It's perfectly possible that people are harmed without anyone being a racist.
for instance if someone immigrates to the UK illegally he will not have the same rights as a UK citizen, he may be removed by force and sent to live in poverty in some third world country, but no one would say the UK government is 'racist'.
the illegal immigrant was harmed by this removal, his removal was based on discrimination regarding his place of origin, which may be said his identity.
so by your classification , this is racism.

your constant use of 'racism' i find non factual and just your interpretation both of the word and of history.
I can agree that the Nuremberg laws were racist. I can probably agree on many examples that are clear.
here you attribute an intention to some situation without finding out if that intention is there at all. (hint : it isn't).

facts are facts, if you or I have different opinions that's another matter, we can agree there is no point arguing on facts which can be found out.
Palestinians lived on parts of the West bank, but many settlements were not built on owned land which 'people made a living of' or any homes were present. FACT.
certainly the presence of some settlements violate rights of Palestinians in restricting movement for security reasons and I imagine that is awful to be on the receiving end of that, and SOME settlements are built on Palestinian owned land.

In reply to Jon Stewart:


it can be worse, as many of the bulldozed homes belong to terrorists which murdered people.
so depending on what you are referring to.
some people would call it collective punishment, Israel calls it a deterrent.
I would not classify bulldozing the home of someone who rammed and murdered civilians a 'settlement activity'.

In reply to jondo:

What kind of backward state deals with terrorists by bulldozing homes? "deterrent" - what a f*cking joke, if you want to encourage terrorism, just watch Israel at work.

In reply to jondo:

No. I have not changed my position once, I have pointed out time and time again your stupid strawman about "denying Jews a homeland". Quote where I said anything about the existence of Israel, anywhere on this thread or anywhere in past. Pay attention, or shut up. I think Israel should exist with the 1967 border. If it wants to be a "Jewish State" (an idea that doesn't appeal to me) then that's the business of the democratically elected government.


Israel is taking land and resources from the Palestians of the West Bank. If they believed that these people were equals, they would not take their land and resources. It is a racist policy.


But that person would have crossed the border into the UK. Israel is acting outside its borders. Your point is absurd.


You're trying to diminish the impact of the settlement policy and it won't wash. Watch that video, or else show me that the content is untrue.

In reply to jondo:




And there in lies the problem. Using different words does change what is happening. Destroying people's homes and livelihoods because someone they are related to did something bad has no place in the way a 21st century state administers justice. It is indefensible and remarkably damaging to the perception of Israel worldwide.

This may not matter at present with the US there to shield Israel from consequences. But no one who watched the brexit result, trumps election and the rise in populist movements across Europe should be under any illusion that the current approach to Israel is bound to last forever. Poisoning the attitudes of those who would otherwise support the country by this sort of action seems in the long run a very hazardous approach to take.

In reply to Jon Stewart:


not necessarily.. you seem to address immorality from your point of view and then you proceed to claim it encourages terrorism... well as you are not an expert of terrorism or on the receiving end I imagine the Israelis know a bit more on deterrents ....
so if anything is backward here it's your knowledge on the topic.
some states deal with terrorism by blowing up homes with drones in remote countries...
hmm.. ah yes, the USA, the UK, and NATO.

In reply to jondo:

You don't need to be an expert in terrorism to realise that bulldozing family homes is not going to deter it! You'd have to be a complete idiot to believe that.

And I agree wholeheartedly with your criticism of US/UK "anti-terrorism" strategy. Our foreign policy exacerbates the problem of Islamic terrorism.

In reply to jondo:

I may not be an expert on terrorism but I an expert on being a human being, and collective punishment is wrong, on every level. I am baffled that you appear not to condemn it.

And of course it's wrong when the US and UK do it, straw man time again, you are usually better than that.

I'll go further- its racist, as we didn't bulldoze the houses of Republican terrorists, or drone strike them when they are sitting down to dinner with their families. It's racist when we do it, and it's racist when Israel does it.

It's also massively counterproductive, undermining any pretence at our acting on any morality based way, and storing up huge amounts of ill will, which won't go away, and which we'll get given back to us later.

In reply to Jon Stewart:


you have changed your position, from saying states should not be based on religions, cultures or anything that discriminates one people from another, to accepting the existence of a Jewish state. you are the one that should pay attention to the disparity between your brain and keyboard i think. seems like you are two people.



point was to demonstrate discrimination exists without racism , based purely on legalities ('crossed the border to the UK')


you know the west bank is under martial law since 67' ?
you seem not to. when it suits you , you point to legalities, and when it suits you , you claim some moral high ground.
but you do not seem to understand those legalities ('outside it's border...').
martial law is a grey area, not annexed, and not outside the border.

ok man, your escalating swearing isn't my style.
so knock yourself out.
(you can try in 48 seconds but I won't pay 3 million $)

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

i am not going to argue about morality, since it is human life vs a building, and the collective punishment of destroying a house. hard to put one against the other.

as to the question if it is effective , I COMPLETELY disagree with both of you.
you both have no idea if it deters young Palestinians of going out and stabbing someone. no idea whatsoever.



rubbish. nothing racist about bombing Dresden and killing 100,000, or dropping A - bombs on Japan. you can call it a war crime if you want. Racist it is not.


rubbish, you have no evidence it is not productive in stopping attacks.

over and out. you and Mr Stewart can go on an anti Israel rampage . meet for a pint even.

In reply to jondo:
i don't think you're following the argument, which seems perfectly clear to me; taking other peoples' land is wrong, and doing so has implicit in it an attitude that they are inferior to you. This is racism. the rest- about what israel calls itself within its borders- is red herrings.

edit: "you're"

In reply to jondo:
sorry Jondo, but i used to think you were a reasonable person, and even if i didn't agree with the points you were making, i could respect the viewpoint.

i can't respect this. if my father was to commit a crime, then in any civilised society, he should be punished, not me. punishing me, and my children, for his acts violates the most basic principles of justice. and its not just a building; its a family's home, in a society where there is limited prospect for recovery when that is lost. i am truly disturbed by your refusal to accept this. a society that stoops to collective punishment has lost its humanity, and its way.

as to its effectiveness, of course i can't point to any randomised controlled trials of its effectiveness; but neither can you.

i can point to a large population of young men and women in palestine who appear to be so incensed by their situation that the are prepared to carry out acts of unforgiveable violence. of course, it may be that palestinians are just like that, but i personally doubt it; its more likely something made them that way. and if reading about collective punishment of innocent people makes me this angry sat 2000 miles away, it seems unlikely its not one of a number of factors that drive people to violence.

note- one of. there are many others, including the vile anti-Jewish propaganda that i've no doubt does circulate. nor does it excuse or justify these acts when they happen. but there are people holding poisonous racist views about jewish people all over the world, sadly; that doesn't seem to be sufficient in most cases, to get them to run over pedestrians. something else is going on here, and it think its perverse to deny that the actions of israel contribute to the extent of ill will it attracts. on a previous thread, you even noted that swedish people appear to have turned against it; that should be the canary in the mine, the road israel is travelling on is not a happy one for its future peace and security.

and dresden? hiroshima? more straw men; this is not a war, its a criminal justice situation. if you keep making irrelevant comparisons, its no wonder you come up with irrelevant conclusions. its probably for the best if you have in fact stopped posting.

edited for clarity

In reply to jondo:


Ahhhh . . . . . I see default mode has been found then.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:




This . . . . . . .

Sorry Jondo, you are as anti-Palestinian just as much as you claim the rest of the world to be anti-Semitic.

In reply to jondo:


Crikey. I'm nowhere near as restrained as they are, and it strikes me Mr. No_More_Scotch_Eggs was not only pro-Israel but infuriatingly (and in my opinion unreasonably) "balanced" in favour of Israel in his arguments. Yet you now include him as someone on an anti-Israel rampage?

Your reaction quite neatly typifies that of Israel as it appears to the outside world: out of the pram go the toys, accusations of everyone else being unfair (dare I say it "anti-Jewish"), everyone is against you, only Israel is right.

I'll be blunt. Israel is hopelessly out of touch with normal, contemporary opinion on issues of human rights and how democratic states should behave. As such, its claim to be the one virtuous democracy in the Middle East rings hollow. It is a pariah, and behaves like some of the worst the world has to offer; Gambian presidents, Saudi clerics and the American tea-party fringe. Israel is a far bigger threat to itself than anything Hamas or the anti-semitic Muslim world can muster.

In reply to jondo:

I think this needs updating for Israelis

youtube.com/watch?v=aeDk6ZeGNnU&

I guess the OP is related to this

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jan/03/far-right-israel-minister-naf...

“It does not violate international law because that would suggest that we occupy a state,” he said. “We don’t. There was never a Palestinian state. The British conquered the land from the Turks, the Jordanians illegally conquered the West Bank from the British, and then we released it.”

In reply to Hugh J:



didn't call anyone anti semitic except user april20th, didnt even call you that despite your lunatic rantings about a Jewish banker who lived 150 years ago on another thread.
if you want to call yourself anti semitic thats up to you. .

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:


i don't require respect of my viewpoints, but rather dislike inaccuracies in 'quoting'.


i explicitly said :
1. it is hard to judge morally , as it is collective punishment vs maybe saving lives.
2. you do not know if it is an effective deterrent.
3. it is not motivated by racism.


other than what I have read based on press releases.



It is a war and not a criminal justice situation. The Palestinians and Israelis both call it a war despite its often otherwise appearance.

I will stop posting, but not on your advice.
its simply turns into pointless bickering.

In reply to David Martin:



you can say 'anti Jewish' , but that would be making false accusations about me.
a lot of people here are anti israeli (which is different), I cannot see why that is wrong, or some kind of swear word or humiliation to be called that.


calling others out of touch with reality....

In reply to jondo:




no it absolutely is not hard to judge, that is the very simple and fundamental point here. It is wrong to punish people for what their relatives have done. this is not a matter for debate and hasn't been since the middle ages. if you think this is hard to judge, you are wrong, and your personal morality is out of step with the jurisprudence of the modern world.



and you don't know that it is. but see 1 above, this is irrelevant- its wrong.


that's your opinion. but typing something doesn't change the facts of the world. this is an outcome applied only to one racial group, by another. i have no idea of the mental state of the people carrying out collective punishment, so can't say what the motivation is; but neither do you. if they wouldn't do it to people 'like them', then its racist, by definition, whatever the thought in their head when they drove the bulldozer into the house was.



no its not, the fact that some people say it is and you accept that doesn't change the reality of the world. and even if it was, war isn't a free for all, there are rules of engagement and behaviour that has been ruled to be outwith accepted norms. just saying 'is war' is not a licence to normalise inhumanity.

even the IDF have publicly come out yesterday to affirm this, though some of Israel's elected office bearers have behaved despicably and seem to wish there were no limits on what they can do.


feel free to continue, though i don't think its helping you, so probably a fair call


i wouldn't say this has been pointless at all. we know much more about your disturbing views on the issue in question, and i think its best to have these things out in the open.

In reply to jondo:

Ironically, most don't appear to be anti-Israel. At least no more than they would be anti-Australian if Australia decided to invade New Zealand and make a decent stab at Indonesia.

Unless we're anti-semitic, and most of us really aren't, we don't have any inbuilt reason to be anti-Israel. But its actions tend to push people in that direction. I certainly find it a struggle to support the idea of Israel, as I would any country that seems incapable of abiding by norms I consider acceptable.

If you're going to go accusing people of being anti-Israel when they criticise border expansion, you'd be right at home in McCarthyite America.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:




its a war, to think otherwise is your fantasy.



didn't seek any help or affirmations here.


yep, im a war criminal. maybe I should be locked up for saying anything.
hey man, start a 1984 style police force, vilify people for saying 'its hard to judge morally because there are two sides to it'.
you sound like a complete fascist.

In reply to David Martin:




'the idea of israel' = that means you are anti israel.. you do not support the EXISTENCE of a country....


see first comment. you are far from just criticizing border expansion. I really can't care less, just calling you what you are which seems awfully insulting to you for some unknown reason.

In reply to jondo:


I'm not sure any poster has said this, but why do you find it so surprising?

In reply to jondo:

is what you were claiming. And no it's not hard. You are wrong.

In reply to jondo:


I think that is probably a typo and was meant to be "ideas".


Jondo, you need to chill out, it's not April20th, is it? Your attitude gets peoples backs up. It does not lead to enlightening debate and leads to you not getting your point across. It's almost as if you enjoy deliberately provoking people. There are others who come on here just to do that, they usually gain the epithet "troll".

In reply to jondo:

again, just typing stuff doesn't make it true. wars occur between states. as we are all too aware, we don't have two states in the area we are discussing. its an anti terrorism policing operation; and Israel has internationally accepted standards of behaviour it needs to observe when executing this. which includes not executing unarmed detainees, incidentally.

of course it, depends how you define war; we have the 'war on terror' here too, but that doesn't mean we are literally at war. you are familiar with metaphor, i take it? its one of those; you can't actually have a war with a noun.

it is however very telling that you frame the anti terrorism policing arrangements in Israel and the west bank as 'war', as in your perspective that appears to give greater licence to security forces to take steps that would otherwise not be allowed. but this is just a convenient mental sleight of hand to avoid uncomfortable cognitive dissonance, its not a reflection of reality.

it also still wouldn't legitimise the deliberate and targeted destruction of property of non combatants as a form of punishment, so this argument fails even on its own, deeply flawed, terms.





there aren't two sides to this though. collective punishment is part of medieval justice, along with trial by ordeal. if you haven't moved on from that, that's your own business; but when you come into a public space and start defending morally bankrupt viewpoints and actions then it would be naive not to expect to be challenged on it. complaining about this, flouncing about making straw man claims and abuse just confirms that you have no actual arguments to make.

and that's twice you've said you're going to go away, yet here you still are. would you not be happier on another site, where you could post stuff like this to an echo chamber and get validation for it? since you seem uncomfortable with relatively mild and polite challenge to your views on here.

feel free to keep digging that hole though; here's another spade for you- who do you support in the matter of the recent manslaughter conviction of the IDF member- Netanyahu, or the IDF?

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

>no it absolutely is not hard to judge, that is the very simple and fundamental point here. It is wrong to punish people for what their relatives have done. this is not a matter for debate and hasn't been since the middle ages. if you think this is hard to judge, you are wrong, and your personal morality is out of step with the jurisprudence of the modern world.

I think you might be overstating your case here. Of course, it's wrong to punish people for the misdeeds of others - their relatives, neighbours, members of whichever group but it can also be wrong to allow people to kill when you could do something to prevent that. Jondo's suggestion is that these two wrongs conflict and choices need to be made. Now, I'm not sure the two necesarilly do conflict as to my mind collective punishment no doubt encourages further terrorism and to any extent that it does prevents it I'm sure the costs in innocent palestinian lives far outweights the benefits. But if they do conflict then there's a real and difficult choice to be made - addressing conflicting rights is a lot of what the law is about. Just saying collective punishment is wrong and not addressing the potential trade off with other wrongs is to simply not engage in debate and to mischaraceterise the law.

In reply to MG:


i do not find it surprising, just surprised that some people take offense in being called 'anti israeli' .

In reply to Hugh J:




completely chilled here, though calling me a 'troll' won't encourage further discussion.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:




yep , al quaeda is a state as are countless other terror groups.
try policing, boko haram, ISIS, Hamas, Hizbollah....





yes, NATO is from mediaval times, so is are the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, where people were not collectively punished for anything. oh, sorry, those were police operations....
you are a hypocrite.


whats really ridiculous about you is that you ask me to go away yet continue to ask me questions. I think our correspondence has reached a level of unpleasantness that unwarrants further discussions. but if you continue to talk shit about me i probably will reply. you think you are some forum moral moderator here or something... bizarre and disgusting.

In reply to sebastian dangerfield:

Hi Sebastian,

i don't accept that; there are certain areas where the principle of expediency, where the ends are seen to justify the means, is held not to apply. torture is one example- while information extracted is potentially unreliable, it may nevertheless generate important information, and the 'ticking bomb' scenario is advanced as a situation where some people would argue for its use.

nevertheless, even if it could be useful, and save lives in some situations, it is unlawful, and when our governments at times cross that line, they are rightly condemned.

chemical weapons proved very effective when used i believe, but we decided that they were not something civilised nations should consider, even in war when many other boundaries on behaviour are discarded

collective punishment is another area where any (deeply doubtful, indeed almost certainly counterproductive) utility is moot, as it is outside the legal systems and traditions of developed nations. we hold individuals to account for their actions, no matter how heinous, not their relatives. i'm open to persuasion- if someone can show me a situation where we do engage in collective punishment, i'll reconsider; but until then, i think its a very strong argument that destroying the houses of convicted criminals, pour encourager les autres, is outside accepted norms in developed countries, and that support for such a practice is an example of defending barbarity.

In reply to jondo:


Firstly, you don't sound like you're completely chilled. Secondly, I am just pointing out the abrasive attitude perceived within posts will end up in you being labelled a troll and an understanding of the construction of my sentence can in no way lead to the conclusion that I actually called you a troll.

It is you that is being the hypocrite here.

In reply to jondo:


perhaps because they do not perceive themselves as anti-Isreal, but rather than being pro or anti simply see Israel as a country like any other - it has a right to exist peacefully, but also needs to obey international laws and norms.

In reply to jondo:
lol, Jondo i keep saying you're welcome to stay...! its you that repeatedly posts that you're going away, then you post again... though it doesn't seem to be proving an enjoyable experience for you, not sure what you're getting from the experience. but pull up a chair if you like, just make up your mind one way or another...

i will keep pointing out the absurd and irrelevant comparisons, and legions of straw men, that you insist on coming up with though...

again, in your head, palestine might be the same as IS, or boko haram; but this is patently ridiculous, the comparison is fatuous, and its only purpose is to persuade yourself that otherwise unacceptable behaviour is justified. the comparison is much more apt with Ulster, as i've pointed out before; the policing of a hostile population, from a different religious background, by military personnel, in an urban developed environment.

and before any claim is made about the threat being faced in israel being of a different order of magnitude:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Troubles#Casualties

and the brighton bomb, and mortar attacks on downing street, and multiple casualty attack on the mainland. republican terror groups were a very potent threat indeed.

and as i've said now three times, even if we accept the false premise that this is a war, that still does not legitimise the destruction of non combatants' property as a warning.

you might say i'm 'talking shit about you'; that just looks like a petulant reaction to it being pointed out that your arguments are invalid

as for the wars in Iraq and afghanistan- you appear to have made an assumption that i am a supporter of them. to continue the recurring theme of this thread, you are once again wrong.

do you see a pattern forming here, Jondo...?

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

Just to check, by collective punishment - do you mean specifically doing stuff to hurt relatives with the primary purpose of deterence? Or a broader interpretation which includes actions with the primary aim of doing someting else, but where it's known others will be harmed?

In reply to sebastian dangerfield:

The former, which I think there can be little doubt is the case here. The aim appears explicitly to put people off by saying, 'look what will happen to your family'. Its the state taking a leaf out of the book of justice, Keyser soze style.

This seems different to me from repossessing the assets of a criminal where they were gained illegally, even though this is likely to impact family members; or for that matter imprisoning someone who is the primary source of income for a family. That's unavoidable in the workings of any justice system; it's the deliberate use of family as a tool to get to the criminal that is fundamentally wrong in the situation being discussed.

As others have pointed out, far from being anti-israel, my starting position is to support the state. It should be a concern for jondo that I am so alienated by current Israeli actions. I accept that it's a difficult situation and there are forces they face that are deeply unattractive. But that doesn't give them licence to disregard standards of state conduct that we have arrived at after centuries of progress.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:
okay, I was assuming the latter - general bombing of gazza, restrctuons of liberties etc.

I agree that domestic law doesn't allow that, full stop. There's plenty of things that fit the broader defintion though and, as I understand it international law says you can't do it unless it's absolutely necessary. The IDF might argue that it is a genuine, effective deterrent and therefore absolutely necessary (I expect they'd lose/are wrong).

All that aside, even if it is absolutely against the law (and I believe it is), I think you still need to respond to the utilitarian argument. Sometimes it's moral to break the law, and you can be for an absolute ban on something that sometimes might be good on utilitarian grounds. For example, I'm all for an absolute ban on torture but I'm fairly sure it's sometimes the right thing to do. I just think an an absolute ban will do the most good in preventing 'bad torture' and having 'good torture' still happen. (To be fair, in your responses to me you've started to address this)

[just to be clear - from what I've read of your comments, I agree with you on the rights and wrongs of israel/pallestine]

In reply to sebastian dangerfield:
Yes, I can see the utilitarian viewpoint that you put forward. I'm not sure I buy it though; the quote from nietzsche seems relevant in this regard, 'and if you gaze long into the abyss, the abyss gazes also into you'.

I think crossing the line to accept the commission of morally compromised actions, even to try to accomplish good, is very dangerous for the society that goes down that path. I think 'Watchmen' explores this issue pretty well.

I worry for Israel; they have been looking into an abyss, metaphorically speaking, for decades now. That level of violence is hard not to react to harshly. But it seems to me that there is an increasingly indifferent acceptance of ill treatment of palestinians, aand a hardening and coarsening attitude towards them. It looks ever less likely that peace and forgiveness is possible; and people have long memories in that part of the world. In the long term, who knows whether the balance of power that protects Israel will endure. It's actions seem to be turning away friends and creating grudges that are likely to last for generations, perhaps even centuries. It strikes me that this isnt a situation that is likely to end well.

And this isn't a belief that gives me any pleasure, quite the opposite.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

I agree with all that! (It makes sense from a utiltarian perspective btw).

And I'm not really putting forward any particualr argument, my point is just that if someone (like Jondo) says the ends justify the means, then say what you just wrote rather than it's just wrong and that's it. If it really did discourage terrorism and you're in charge of Israel you'd have a proper moral dilem on your hands.

Also, kudos for the Watchmen reference.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

A couple of really good post there NMSE.

Though to perhaps take Jondo's side on this somewhat, I imagine Israel's hardening of attitudes is not only to do with "staring into the abyss" for too long, but perhaps also to do with the rise of Iran as a major power in the area and also the rise of ISIS, both of which are within striking distance of Israel. I'm sure if I were them, with all the anti-Semitic rhetoric that comes from those quarters, I would be a little more than jittery and want show my strength. The taking of land that is not legally theirs and demolition of Palestinian homes is however, just a symptom of greed, though I'm sure Jondo will dispute otherwise.

However, I still cannot and will not say I approve of a lot of their actions, but perhaps that is an easy thing to do from the relative comfort and safety of the UK.

In reply to sebastian dangerfield:

Fair points. Brevity in posting can certainly get in the way of understanding, and leads to many disagreements on here I'm sure.

And its good, Watchmen, isn't it? I must be due a re-read of it soon...

Cheers

Gregor

In reply to Hugh J:
I'm not sure anywhere is safe any more, IS inspired attacks could happen anywhere. How would we cope with sustained attacks; I don't know. We ended up bending rules to combat the IRA, and were complicit in facilitating torture post 9-11, so I don't think Israel are uniquely morally flawed in any way.

But we brought the Troubles to a close by making some very controversial choices to deal with terrorists, and addressing the concerns of the Republican community. The only way to get lasting safety for the people of Israel is to take some even braver decisions at some point. I don't even think it's possible at present, but reining in on the actions that contribute to extreme attitudes against Israel would be a start.

In the end, people with houses, jobs, and full stomachs don't join uprisings. Of course there will always be some who will choose violence; but they will be far fewer if Palestine is stable and prosperous, and they will find far less support from their communities. Israel should be following policies that support this end, even in the teeth of actions by those that would wish to prevent this; there have certainly been challenges to the NI peace process.

But that looks a long way off, further off than I can ever remember to be honest.

Anyway, I think I'm done with the thread- taking up too much time. This is why I usually don't post on Israel/Palestine threads- too time consuming!

Cheers for the debate everyone, jondo included,

Gregor