Must reading on Israel

Politics and religion
21

Does anyone remember the 6 day and 7 day wars? where all of the neighboring arab countries tried to exterminate all jewish life in israel?

Israel fought back brilliantly, and captured some territory from the attacking nations.

These are the “disputed territories”, the ones that israel did NOT give back after 2 genocidal wars to kill them all. Territories held to improve their self defense. (most territories captures - such as the suaz peninsula were returned)

After 2 genocidal wars in 30 years, can you understand the israeli position?

22

No, they can’t understand that position.

I wouldn’t go there bago, you’re looking for a buttload of trouble foreshadowed by the statement:

Because I think that Israel refuses to bite bullet and do things like remove the settlers from the west bank, I’m saying that its all Israel’s fault. There ain’t no slope here, shit, man, its a cliff.

They will never admit the fact that that land is legitimately Israel’s, taken in an armed conflict in which they were victorious. The ‘right of return’ takes precedence over any imagined right of occupation.

23

I love this discussion. You either agree that Israel is beyond reproach, that nothing they have ever done or will ever do can be criticized, including the camp massacres that got Sharon originally removed from power, the demolition of homes, destruction of farmland, confiscation of water supplies, murder of journalists and peace protesters, or you’re an anti-semite.

I love it! What a fantastic, logical way to hold a discussion. I should start a religious state somewhere, so I could have Daniel and Mulligan say that even criticizing any action I take in any situation is religious persecution. Great deal! Also, criticizing the Bush administration? Religious persecution! Exactly the same as throwing christians to the lions in Roman times! Jesus fucking christ.

24

Fun article in today’s Times. Apparently, Israel’s Chief of Staff is an anti-semite.

Israel’s top-ranking soldier said that current hard-line policies against the Palestinians were working against Israel’s “strategic interest” and had contributed to the downfall of the previous Palestinian prime minister, Israeli news organizations reported on Wednesday.

25

The problem is more the treatment of the people living on the land they took, not so much the taking of it.

26

No, and no. For example, as I’ve said numerous times, I think Israel should remove most of its settlements–a clear example of my disagreeing with Israeli policy. And I don’t need to pre-suppose anti-semitism; it doesn’t really enter into the argument I’m making.

In Daniel’s original post, take a look at the third quote, the one that starts “In England, the Guardian…”. Every time a newspaper publishes the sorts of things you see there, they’re doing their part to make sure Israel ignores any rhetoric coming out of Europe–after all, Israel would have to be icredibly stupid to listen to suggestions coming out of the mouths of people who think Israel has no right to exist.

It’s not self-pity or anything like that. If someone came to my house and told me it should be demolished, then started giving me gardening tips, I’d be an idiot to listen to them.

Meanwhile, Sharon’s hand is strengthened by all this European (and UN) posturing. If you’re a leftist in Israel, the last thing you want to say is “getting rid of settlements is a good idea; look, the international community would support us on this”, because the obvious response is “with supporters like that, who needs enemies?” Instead, they need to continually distance themselves from Europe, which is a waste of time and energy.

And personally, I don’t see it. I see a lot of people fed up with Israeli oppression of the Palestinians, people empathizing with the underdog, which is pretty easy to do when you see kids throwing rocks at tanks. Anyhow, I can only speak for myself. I’ve nothing against Israel’s existence as a state.

Which is fine–there’s a lot about Israel’s various policies to criticize. But I think it’s fair for an Israeli to wonder why there’s so much focus on the Palestinians, and virtually none on, say, the Tibetans. Again, Brett, this may not apply specifically to you–you’re one person, and people have to pick where to focus their energy. But it’s hard to believe that the UN can single Israel out at the Durban conference–aren’t there any other racist countries in the whole wide world?

Gav

27

Again, you’re assuming a position and saying that the entire Israeli populace has to adopt the same position. Why should a single article in a single newspaper, even a big one like the Guardian, be treated as evidence that all of Europe thinks Israel has no right to exist? Newspapers in the US routinely publish articles hammering Canada for one crazy thing or another and off-handedly mention annexing us, yet nobody here thinks that we should assume that all Americans want to conquer us. I know Israel has, uh, more reason to be suspicious about this sort of thing, and I’m not comparing the two situations. But you can’t go around assuming that an entire continent is against your very existence because of the views of some people. And I don’t think that anywhere close to a majority of Europeans believes that Israel has no right to exist. That’s pure Dan Morrisia, er, paranoia. At any rate, this sort of thing only turns into self-fulfilling prophecies.

28

It’s more that there’s a pattern that one sees emerging. And, as it happens, the Guardian’s probably a bad example, because the British are relatively supportive of Israel. Whereas there’s very little that comes out of, say, the French government that seems supportive of Israel (I’m talking about the last twenty years, so don’t bring up Mirage planes :-) ).

Various people within France may be very supportive of Israel, but their goernments are consistently not. Or look at Belgium, which was all set to put Ariel Sharon on trial for crimes against humanity. Not that he’s such a great guy, but why was he the first and only application of that law?

And the UN stuff is very real–I challenge you to find a benign interpretation of what happened at the Durban conference. Or to explain why Syria, say, gets a seat on the security council but Israel can’t–is it because Syria is such a paragon of human rights? And I would say, again, that every time shit like that happens, it makes Israelis less willing to hear the good things the UN has to say (and there are some).

But you can’t go around assuming that an entire continent is against your very existence because of the views of some people. And I don’t think that anywhere close to a majority of Europeans believes that Israel has no right to exist. That’s pure Dan Morrisia, er, paranoia. At any rate, this sort of thing only turns into self-fulfilling prophecies.

You’re probably right, and I was probably going over-board. But there’s really unquestionably an anti-Israel bias within Europe, and ever so much more so at the UN (just as there’s an unquestionable pro-Israel bias in the US, which makes the Palestinians distrust the US). I’d love to see a more neutral party emerge.

Gav

29

There were courts in Belgium that put Tony Blair, Bil Clinton, et al up for the bombing of Yugoslavia. Of course, it was later thrown out, but it seems to me that there’s something about Belgium law that makes it a haven for “protest” trials.

30

There were courts in Belgium that put Tony Blair, Bil Clinton, et al up for the bombing of Yugoslavia. Of course, it was later thrown out, but it seems to me that there’s something about Belgium law that makes it a haven for “protest” trials.[/quote]

They have a law under which anyone can be tried for war crimes. From an AP article, dated June 21:

The law was first used to convict four Rwandans involved in the 1994 genocide there. Since then, cases have been filed against a slew of world figures, including Saddam Hussein and Cuban President Fidel Castro as well as British Prime Minister Tony Blair and U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld.

The government has already pushed through changes that allow authorities to reject complaints against citizens from the United States or other countries judged to have fair legal systems.

Under those changes, complaints filed last week against Bush, Rumsfeld, Powell, Blair and others were blocked within 24 hours.

…

Repealing the law could kill efforts to put Chad’s fallen dictator Hissene Habre in a Brussels dock this year on charges of torture, murder and other crimes. Campaigners are seeking Habre’s extradition from Senegal, where he has lived in exile since 1990.

31

Gav wrote:
And the UN stuff is very real–I challenge you to find a benign interpretation of what happened at the Durban conference. Or to explain why Syria, say, gets a seat on the security council but Israel can’t

Daniel Morris wrote:
Prediction: Not one of you will make an attempt to explain it, much less succeed in adequately explaining it.

So far, my prediction is holding up quite well…there has yet been no attempt made to even try and justify the U.N.'s singling-out of Israel.

32

Alright, so basically, people pointing to Belgian legal cases as an example of Europeans hating Israel without going further into the facts make themselves look silly and guilty of anti-Belgianism.

Dan: No one cares what the UN General Assembly says. They’re not legally binding. You can’t justify them, but no one really cares about them.

33

And the security council’s decisions are legally binding?

Yeah, only if the US decides to enforce them.

Shirley you can’t be serious?

34

Sometimes, which is an infinite percent greater than the General Assembly resolutions.

The legally binding nature of Security Council Resolutions has been the subject of some controversy. It is generally agreed that resolutions are legally binding if they are made under Chapter VII (Action with Respect to Threats to the Peace, Breaches of the Peace, and Acts of Aggression) of the Charter. The Council is also empowered to make resolutions under Chapter VI (Pacific Settlement of Disputes); most authorities do not consider these to be legally binding. The International Court of Justice suggested in the Namibia case that resolutions other than those made under Chapter VI can also be binding, a view that some Member States have questioned. It is beyond doubt however that those resolutions made outside these two Chapters dealing with the internal governance of the organization (such as the admission of new Member States) are legally binding, where the Charter gives the Security Council power to make them.

35

yippie, skippie.

If armed robbery was made illegal, but the cops refused to enforce the law, then legally binding really doesn’t mean squat, does it?

36

Do you have any instances where the UN Security passed a resolution that the US refused to follow or are you just making shit up.

(Oh, wait, I’m supposed to be polite…)

… or are you just making shit up, sir.

37

http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/01fs/14906.htm

the point of my statement was that the UN can pass resolutions till they’re blue in the face and it makes no difference or has no real power unless someone (namly the USA) decides to do something about it and enforce the decision. They are merely a gathering place for nations to voice their opinions, not an authoritative body.

38

I can think of various laws that the are passed in this country everyday, a large number which are ignored every day. This does not make the US government merely a “gathering place for various elected officials to voice their opinions”.