Ed General Israel/Palestine discussion thread - Part 3

[theprestige]

Should Israel fulfill their international legal obligations.

Again, Israel doesn't have international legal obligations. UNSC resolutions are not binding in the sense that your arguments require. In fact, I'm still pretty sure they're not binding at all, even if the UN does insist on using the term.

 

[Ziggurat]

Should Israel fulfill their international legal obligations, if Hamas continues their attacks (or even step them up), then legitimate force might have to be used against them. That would make a big difference (no more inhumane blockade, very long illegal occupation and so on).

Legitimate force can and is already used against them. It slows them down, but it doesn't stop them. Why would you think that sticking a UN label on such a force would somehow work magic? That makes no sense. It's one of the stupidest propositions ever made on this message board.

 

[Michel H]

Legitimate force can and is already used against them. It slows them down, but it doesn't stop them. Why would you think that sticking a UN label on such a force would somehow work magic? That makes no sense. It's one of the stupidest propositions ever made on this message board.

U.N. is not just a label, it's careful thinking, based on historical, justice and rule of law considerations. Something U.S. imperialists don't like, it's a different vision of the world. It is civilisation, as opposed to U.S. barbary.

One of the great advantages of solving the Israel-Palestine conflict by using U.N. Security Council resolutions is that, in addition to bringing you peace instead of the endless America-sponsored conflict we are seeing every day, you can greatly reduce military spending, and use these financial resources to fight climate change for example (e.g. by building many nuclear power stations after prohibiting nuclear weapons - this would make it somewhat easier to build plutonium-based nuclear reactors).

The opposite of American madness - perhaps a rebirth of human intelligence.

 

[Michel H]

Again, Israel doesn't have international legal obligations.

This is a rather strange statement. Countries sign treaties, and must abide by them. Are you, with Zig, trying to promote some kind of neo-Nazi ideology, where only force matters?

For example (about an important treaty):

The Charter of the United Nations (also known as the UN Charter) is the foundational treaty of the United Nations, an intergovernmental organization.[1]
...
As a charter and constituent treaty, its rules and obligations are binding on all members and supersede those of other treaties.[1][4]

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charter_of_the_United_Nations).

One of the consequences of this treaty is that you cannot just conquer land from other countries.

 

[theprestige]

U.N. is not just a label, it's careful thinking, based on historical, justice and rule of law considerations. Something U.S. imperialists don't like, it's a different vision of the world. It is civilisation, as opposed to U.S. barbary.

One of the great advantages of solving the Israel-Palestine conflict by using U.N. Security Council resolutions is that, in addition to bringing you peace instead of the endless America-sponsored conflict we are seeing every day, you can greatly reduce military spending, and use these financial resources to fight climate change for example (e.g. by building many nuclear power stations after prohibiting nuclear weapons - this would make it somewhat easier to build plutonium-based nuclear reactors).

The opposite of American madness - perhaps a rebirth of human intelligence.

The UN that gives Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Russia a vote?

The UNSC where the US is one of five members with veto power?

 

[theprestige]

This is a rather strange statement. Countries sign treaties, and must abide by them. Are you, with Zig, trying to promote some kind of neo-Nazi ideology, where only force matters?

For example (about an important treaty):

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charter_of_the_United_Nations).

One of the consequences of this treaty is that you cannot just conquer land from other countries.

I'm pretty sure you're still allowed to claim as your own territories that you legitimately occupied in a defensive war.

Also, I'm more and more convinced that either you, or the UN, or both, have no idea what "binding" actually means. There is no sovereign government, higher than the Israeli government, with authority over the Israeli government. Not the UN, not the UNSC, not the ICC, not anything. Nothing the UN does or says can be binding on any of its members.

You keep saying "binding", but can you answer my questions?

What government besides the Israeli government has authority over Israel?

What court has jurisdiction and authority to put Israel on trial?

What agency or arm of the law has the authority to enforce UN resolutions on Israel?

 

[Michel H]

The UN that gives Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Russia a vote?

The UNSC where the US is one of five members with veto power?

Yes, of course, this is the democracy of the world, of humanity. Everybody gets a vote at the General Assembly, including the U.S..

In view of U.S. bad behavior in recent years, it might perhaps be useful, in my opinion, to suspend U.S. veto power for one year, following a vote at the General Assembly.

 

[Michel H]

I'm pretty sure you're still allowed to claim as your own territories that you legitimately occupied in a defensive war.

Also, I'm more and more convinced that either you, or the UN, or both, have no idea what "binding" actually means. There is no sovereign government, higher than the Israeli government, with authority over the Israeli government. Not the UN, not the UNSC, not the ICC, not anything. Nothing the UN does or says can be binding on any of its members.

You keep saying "binding", but can you answer my questions?

What government besides the Israeli government has authority over Israel?

What court has jurisdiction and authority to put Israel on trial?

What agency or arm of the law has the authority to enforce UN resolutions on Israel?

A rule is binding when you have to obey it. Once again:

The Charter of the United Nations (also known as the UN Charter) is the foundational treaty of the United Nations, an intergovernmental organization.[1]
...
As a charter and constituent treaty, its rules and obligations are binding on all members and supersede those of other treaties.[1][4]

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charte...United_Nations).

And:

The UN's role in international collective security is defined by the UN Charter, which authorizes the Security Council to investigate any situation threatening international peace; recommend procedures for peaceful resolution of a dispute; call upon other member nations to completely or partially interrupt economic relations as well as sea, air, postal, and radio communications, or to sever diplomatic relations; and enforce its decisions militarily, or by any means necessary.

In 1967, Israel used a relatively minor pretext to attack several other countries, and conquer vast territories by force. This was deemed unacceptable by the international community, represented by the U.N. Security Council.

 

[theprestige]

A rule is binding when you have to obey it. Once again:

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charte...United_Nations).

And:


In 1967, Israel used a relatively minor pretext to attack several other countries, and conquer vast territories by force. This was deemed unacceptable by the international community, represented by the U.N. Security Council.

Deemed unacceptable, execpt of course they've gone on to de facto accept it. So I guess it's acceptable after all.

 

[Michel H]

Deemed unacceptable, execpt of course they've gone on to de facto accept it. So I guess it's acceptable after all.

No, I don't think so, see this post: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=13561596#post13561596.
(about resolution 2334, adopted in December 2016, after Trump had been elected, but when Obama was still president).

In this post, "heap fo weapons" should be replaced by "heap of weapons".

 

[Ziggurat]

U.N. is not just a label, it's careful thinking, based on historical, justice and rule of law considerations.

It is nothing of the sort.

One of the great advantages of solving the Israel-Palestine conflict by using U.N. Security Council resolutions is that, in addition to bringing you peace instead of the endless America-sponsored conflict we are seeing every day, you can greatly reduce military spending

This is so delusional I don't even know where to start. What part of the UN's history, hell, HUMAN history, makes you think that the UN is even remotely capable of "solving" the conflict? It is not.

Hell, even the idea that there is a "solution" is delusional.

The opposite of American madness - perhaps a rebirth of human intelligence.

Despite what you seem to believe, the United States actually has very little to do with the conflict.

 

[webfusion]

Syria didn't attack Israel in 1967

Israel was under incessant Syrian rocket and artillery attack (exactly of the type we witnesed yesterday from Lebanon) http://www.sixdaywar.org/content/northernfront.asp
"In response to a false Soviet warning on May 13, 1967 that Israel was preparing for an imminent attack on Syria, Egypt and Syria activated a mutual defense pact, and Syria massed troops on its border with Israel (with the Syrians occupying the high ground)."

"During the first day of the war, on June 5, Syrian planes attacked communities in the north of Israel, including Tiberias, and attempted to destroy the Haifa oil refineries (bombs they dropped missed their intended targets). The Israeli air force responded later that day with an attack on Syria’s airbases, eliminating 59 Syrian aircraft, mostly on the ground."

"On June 8, the fourth day of the war, Syria accepted a UN cease-fire, and for five hours there was a lull in the shelling. But then the barrages resumed, and their state radio announced that Syria did not consider itself bound by any cease-fire."

I am fine with Israeli dominance of the military equation.
I will be fine with it to my dying day, and hope my son is also fine with it, and his son, and so on and so forth.

Jewish lives will be shown to have a high price, instead of the 'cheap and worthless' attitude that many still have. (See: Belgium -- Breendonk)

 

[webfusion]

No, I don't think so, see this post: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=13561596#post13561596.
(about resolution 2334, adopted in December 2016, after Trump had been elected, but when Obama was still president).

In this post, "heap fo weapons" should be replaced by "heap of weapons".

2334?

(insert laughing dog here, rolling on the floor spasmatically).

 

[webfusion]

Yes, of course, this (UN) is the democracy of the world, of humanity. Everybody gets a vote at the General Assembly, including the U.S..

In view of U.S. bad behavior in recent years, it might perhaps be useful, in my opinion, to suspend U.S. veto power for one year, following a vote at the General Assembly.

It is not 'democracy' in action at all.
Actually, many of the nations participating in the circle-jerk within the glass tower at Turtle Bay are so far from democratic norms and fail so miserably at humanity.

Even Jordan, our peaceful neighbor the East, is now just proclaiming that democracy in their country can come about (maybe) in another decade or so.
https://www.jpost.com/middle-east/jordan-to-become-a-full-democracy-within-a-decade-675960

I never received an answer to my question about Palestinian Lands, earlier in this conversation.
(Gaza was Egyptian -- now Palestine claims it, Golan was Syrian -- how come Palestine doesn't claim it, using the same UN 242 wording to do so?)

As for the suggestion to suspend the USA from the Security Council, what about suspending China (that 'shining beacon' of human rights) or Russia (the champion of human rights worldwide) or India ( https://www.amnesty.org/en/countries/asia-and-the-pacific/india/report-india )

 

[theprestige]

No, I don't think so, see this post: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=13561596#post13561596.
(about resolution 2334, adopted in December 2016, after Trump had been elected, but when Obama was still president).

In this post, "heap fo weapons" should be replaced by "heap of weapons".

It's obvious they've accepted it. They say they don't like it but they're not actually doing anything to stop it.

And there's nothing illegal about Israel ignoring the UNSC and deciding for itself what its borders are. Because the UNSC is not sovereign over Israel.

 

[Michel H]

It's obvious they've accepted it. They say they don't like it but they're not actually doing anything to stop it.

And there's nothing illegal about Israel ignoring the UNSC and deciding for itself what its borders are. Because the UNSC is not sovereign over Israel.

I don't think you would like it if your neighbor (who is physically very strong, the bodybuilder) could freely decide whether your living room actually belongs to you, or to him.

Don't you see the problem with that?

Don't you understand the need for an impartial and objective judge or referee?

If Israel is a peace-loving state, it should always try to comply with the Security Council decisions or opinions (the Security Council is the highest, or one of the highest international institutions devoted to peace and security).

 

[webfusion]

I don't think you would like it if your neighbor (who is physically very strong, the bodybuilder) could freely decide whether your living room actually belongs to you, or to him.

All across the USA, people break into homes that are not owned by them, and squat.

Police get called by the owners, they arrive, and more often than not, tell the owner to go to court for an eviction decree. THEN, after a judge issues an order, the authorities (generally, Sheriff's Departments) are permitted to intervene.

If you decide to perform a thing called a "Self-Eviction" then YOU will be arrested or face charges.

Is Belgium different? Can I walk into your vacant building and take it over (squat) and you are allowed to force me out with whatever means you have at your disposal?

What you are failing to realize here, MichelH, is Jewish properties and Jewish RIGHTS to them, have been usurped by Arabs over hundreds of years.
For example, in Sheikh Jarrah (Shimon Ha'Tzadik in Jerusalem).
For example, the JEWISH Temple Mount.
For example, in Hebron (Jews were forced OUT in 1920's and have now returned to Jewish-owned and deeded homes there, using the Courts to reclaim their properties after the Arabs have stopped paying rental to the legal owners and now just claim it as theirs).

Don't you understand the need for an impartial and objective judge or referee?

Did you mean the UN? Are you claiming the UN is 'impartial' ? (with a solid Arab-led majority that could pass any anti-Israel Resolution they wish to, and have done so frequently) ----- in fact, it's quite well-known there is a firm and solid attitude at the UN to focus on Israel, to the exclusion of other Nations.
Israel is the only country listed on the Human Rights Council’s permanent agenda (Item 7).

If Israel is a peace-loving state, it should always try to comply with the Security Council decisions or opinions (the Security Council is the highest, or one of the highest international institutions devoted to peace and security).

Why do you use the word "if" ???

Let me ask you another question (which you'll also ignore, probably) ---
Have you ever read the 1949 Rhodes Armistice Agreements?
https://peacemaker.un.org/sites/pea...ingdom-Israel General Armistice Agreement.pdf
Are you aware that in those documents, the following phrase appears (regarding the demarcations that you are trying to foist upon Israel as "Palestinian Lands")

Article II
"...no provision of this Agreement shall in any way prejudice
the rights, claims and positions of either Party hereto in the ultimate peaceful
settlement of the Palestine question, the provisions of this Agreement being dictated
exclusively by military considerations"

What does that actually mean to you? That one party (Israel) has to be FORCED to relinquish any of those captured areas? Is that your opinion? I read it as saying the opposite.

 

[webfusion]

Legitimate force can and is already used against them. It slows them down, but it doesn't stop them. Why would you think that sticking a UN label on such a force would somehow work magic? That makes no sense...

All we have to do is take a peek at what has been happening over the past 96 hours across the Lebanese Border.
That's an international border which is recognized by the United Nations, and has International Peacekeeping Troops (UNIFIL) positions along there to ostensibly prevent attacks against Israel.

Hmmmmmm, I haven't been following this too closely, it's appearing to be just a minor cross-border flare-up, but has the United Nations Security Council convened in Emergency Session to discuss this incredibly blatant violation of UN 1701? https://peacemaker.un.org/israellebanon-resolution1701

I predict we'll hear the usual response in Turtle Bay --- crickets chirping.
https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/a...ndemnation-of-hezbollah-rocket-attacks-676066

 

[trustbutverify]

If Israel is a peace-loving state, it should always try to comply with the Security Council decisions or opinions (the Security Council is the highest, or one of the highest international institutions devoted to peace and security).

Israel is a state committed to remaining Zionist and sovereign. Her love for peace is constrained by these vital commitments... just as her neighbor's peace-loving is similarly constrained. The hard right, unfortunately, dominates in Israel because they've spent decades making the case that elimination, rather than international law and so forth, is the actual goal of their "critics". This campaign has been spectacularly effective because, for the most part, it's accurate.

 

[Michel H]

Is Belgium different? Can I walk into your vacant building and take it over (squat) and you are allowed to force me out with whatever means you have at your disposal?

I wasn't talking about a vacant building.

If (in Belgium) a physically strong neighbor comes into my living room after breaking my apartment door open, and tells me to either go to my bedroom or go outside while he watches TV using my (old) TV set, what I would do is call the police who would probably quickly come to evict the intruder.

I suppose this is what should happen in Israel too, and this should work both ways, to protect both the Jews and the Arabs.

There seems no be no questions that the Jews and Israel were victims of persecutions and threats around 1967, before the Six-Day War.

Many Arabs felt they had been evicted or expelled by Jews who immigrated from Europe or Arab countries in Palestine (and protected by the UK), so there was deep resentment towards the Jews both in Palestine and in Arab countries.

About this, I found some information which is actually (in my opinion) good for Israel (and this is somewhat different from what I said previously):

Though Israel had struck first, Israel initially claimed that it was attacked first. Later it claimed that its attack was a preemptive strike in the face of a planned invasion.[6] Israel justifies its preemptive action with a review of the context of its position: Economic strangulation through the shipping blockade in the Straits of Tiran (90% of Israeli oil passed through the Straits of Tiran),[7] the imminence of war on three fronts (hundreds of thousands of enemy troops and hundreds of tanks massed on its borders), and possible social and economic difficulty of maintaining a civilian army draft indefinitely.[8] According to Israeli historian and former Israeli ambassador to the United States, Michael Oren, the Arabs, "had planned the conquest of Israel and the expulsion or murder of much of its Jewish inhabitants in 1967". Some historians[who?] state that the neighboring Arab countries had nevertheless not begun any military actions against Israel so as to warrant an attack.

It seems to me that economic strangulation is not acceptable, it's an act of economic war (and, of course, this wouldn't be more acceptable now than it was more fifty years ago). In 1967, Israel solved the problem by conquering the Sinai Peninsula. Now, the Sinai has been given back to Egypt, which is no longer talking about closing the Straits of Tiran, this is an important step towards peace.

It seems to be the civilised way to deal with this long conflict is through international intervention (like when you call the police), and a first step towards this would be for Israel to implement Security Council resolutions, which seem balanced, and which obviously do not seek to destroy Israel, in order to show respect for these institutions designed to protect peace in a negotiated, fair and objective way, and also in order to try to ensure a better economic equality, without having the Palestinians constantly humiliated and suffering in poverty. I believe this would be a better idea than providing Israel with a lot of expensive weapons (absurd U.S. policy), which obviously do not invite concessions and generate permanent Israeli arrogance.