Let all the above continue ("settlements" are not something evil), as it's just a normal traditional battle for land, with no one being right or wrong, and the contending tribes each trying to get what it wants.
Proof of Israel's nature and crimes. No different from Saddam Hussein invading Kuwait and trying to take it.
No different than any nation in the world, all established by "invading" somewhere, especially U.S. and Canada and Mexico, which committed "crimes" in order to exist, so all countries should remove their embassies from Washington DC and Ottawa and Mexico City and other illegally-established national capitals, which most national capitals are....
You're describing the pre-UN world.
No, it's basically the same world. The same conflicts, contradictions, power struggles. Details change, but the substance is the same. The UN is just an added component to the conflicting entities.
We would move in to stop a nation that engaged in slavery too. If it were feasible.
Possibly, in theory. It would be legitimate. But that's because slavery makes people worse off, so it's an evil needing to be stamped out.
But the European "invasion" of the Western Hemisphere made people better off generally, as the Israeli "invasion" of "Palestine" made people better off. By far the world is better off, and people generally (not just the "invaders") are better off as a result. (But it's true there are always some victims, and the ones who prevailed can always be accused of some "crimes" which were unnecessary.)
There is no need to "stop a nation that engaged in" making the world better off rather than worse off. E.g., the Mideast and the entire world is better off as a result of the Israeli state.
And slavery existed for thousands of years too.
Theoretically it would have been legitimate to try to stop it 1000 or 2000 years ago, as something which probably made the world worse, or definitely made it worse in some cases, if not all. That would be the principle behind trying to end it -- that it was making people worse off.
But European takeover of the New World and Israeli takeover of "Palestine" have made the world better off overall. So these are not analogous to slavery, which was an evil to be stopped.
(Let's set aside any debate whether slavery was a necessary evil in the ancient world.)
You're living in a world that stopped existing a while ago. Just like a world that permitted slavery ended at one time.
No, the basic principles are the same. Only the superficialities are different. A basic ongoing principle is to stop something which is making human life worse off, but to promote or allow beneficial change, such as progress toward higher living standards.
The UN was formed and the US formed it, that's why it is in the US, to deal with the type of oppression the Palestinians have been suffering for decades.
Yes, inflicted by other Palestinians and Arab nations (and perhaps geographical factors). 99% of their suffering has been inflicted by non-Israeli elements -- so you're right that the UN and US should be doing more to stop the Arabs from inflicting all this damage onto Palestinians, if possible. We agree on this.
Unfortunately the US has used it's power to stop the UN from doing anything.
Maybe. Perhaps the UN could have taken some actions to stop Arabs from killing each other, and the U.S. could have encouraged such action. I don't disagree, though perhaps people killing each other is not so easy to prevent.
Ultimately it is the US responsible for Israeli crimes.
How is making people better off a crime? Improvements to the world are not crimes.
Israel could not do them without constant US cover at the UN.
Probably Israel would have done most of the good it has accomplished even without U.S. help. But it's OK if the U.S. plays a secondary role in helping another country to do its good. But you're probably giving the U.S. too much of the credit.
In opposition to the entire rest of the world.
Let's divide this "rest of the world" into 2 parts, for simplicity:
1. The
Arab nations (plus perhaps a few
poor nations) which hate the U.S. and Israel because the latter have produced such a higher living standard, and those poor nations imagine that any rich country must have produced its benefit by stealing it from the poor nations. The U.S. should not automatically agree with the delusions of this class of nations.
2. The
more advanced nations, which believe the Israelis are superior to the Palestinians and thus are obligated to show pity toward them and make sacrifices for the benefit of those who are inferior and less able to improve themselves.
It isn't necessary to agree with this "rest of the world" who sees the Palestinians as inferior and needing pity from those who are superior.
A better remedy would be for some intermarriage between today's Palestinians and Israelis, which would produce future generations not having the inferior traits of the present Palestinians.
