I guess this is what "bringing about long-term peace and social justice ...

[LordKiran]

As you know, the whole Country is Palestine, and the Nazis have no claim to it whatever.

Lets hop in the time machine and have a look. "Palestine" used to refer to the Jewish people there.

- - - Updated - - -

So ethnic cleansing is fine so long as it's done by Muslims?



Somehow I think you would be singing a different tune if Israelis started stabbing Muslims in Israel.

Killing the unlawful invaders of your sovereign territory is fine, yes. Odd that you'd have a problem with that.

Then go kill yourself--you're an invader of the Native American territory.

The Jews, however, bought their land, they are not invaders.

Correction: They bought the land from turkish aristocrats. Not from the people who actually lived there.

Also I am an invader of no such place. There is no formal polity known as "Native America" who's sovereign soil I could even invade for one thing. But seriously, the fact that people who have long been dead fought and died and suffered on the land I now live on does not speak of my moral character and is not the same as a polity invading and pushing people out of their homes NOW. Fuck off with that noise.

 

[Derec]

As you know, the whole Country is Palestine,

No it is not.

and the Nazis have no claim to it whatever.

I agree. Therefore, if Palestinians want to enjoy full sovereignty over even one square inch of the land, they need to first remove Nazis like Hamas from power.

As you know, the Resistance in occupied countries takes what action it sees fit to remove Nazi killers.

Oh good. I trust then that you will support the IDF the next time it has to resist Palestinian Nazi killers from Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah etc.

 

[Derec]

There is no formal polity known as "Native America" who's sovereign soil I could even invade for one thing.

And there was no sovereign polity known as "Palestine" either. Since Romans took it over in the 2nd century CE, it has been merely a geographic descriptor that does not denote it being a separate political or national entity, like for example "Apalachia" or "the Balkans". At the time of the land purchases it was part of the British mandate territory, before then part of the Ottoman empire. The last time before 1949 that the land between the Jordan and the Jordan and the Sea was an independent state was under the Maccabees, and then it certainly wasn't known as "Palestine". That was the name Romans gave the region after Philistines, who established themselves in the southern coastal region (from Ashdod to Gaza) during the Iron Age. The name itself probably comes from the Hebrew word for "invader", which is a good fit for these Arabs demanding sovereignty over the land of Israel.

 

[Derec]

"Vacant land" excuse is bullshit. If some Palestinian were to find vacant land on Israeli side of the border, he could hardly claim and annex it to the Palestinian state.

Bad comparison. "On the Israeli side of the border" is obviously the state of Israel, emphasis on state. The vacant lands Jews purchased were not part of any existing state, but instead part of mandatory Palestine, a British protectorate established after WWI, which also included trans-Jordan (shortened to Jordan today). Also, there was the Balfour Declaration that sought to help Jews establish a homeland there.

Borders are legal agreements, and there is practically no "vacant land" anywhere on Earth at this time in history.

Except after a major war like WWI. Ottoman Empire collapsed and lost these territories and UK administered them in trust. They were not, at the time, part of any sovereign state.

Besides, if the land is vacant because it was ethnically cleansed and walled off to Palestinians, that's hardly legitimate. Same with "buying" the land from their owners. As a foreigner, I can buy a plot of land in America, but doing so does not make that land not being outside the sovereign jurisdiction of U.S. government.

You are presupposing that a state already exists. What this is more akin to is the colonial period.

 

[Derec]

Killing the unlawful invaders of your sovereign territory is fine, yes. Odd that you'd have a problem with that.

So you think it would be legal and morally acceptable for Americans to shoot illegal Mexicans?
Or for Europeans to shoot boat migrants?

 

[LordKiran]

Killing the unlawful invaders of your sovereign territory is fine, yes. Odd that you'd have a problem with that.

So you think it would be legal and morally acceptable for Americans to shoot illegal Mexicans?
Or for Europeans to shoot boat migrants?

Only if you accept the premise that immigrants can be considered invaders, which I do not because I am sane.

 

[Derec]

Only if you accept the premise that immigrants can be considered invaders, which I do not because I am sane.

Illegal ones certainly can.
I mean isn't this an invasion?

>90% of these migrants (often erroneously called "refugees") are military age men, btw. It is not a representative slice of the population, like you'd expect.

 

[iolo]

As you know, the whole Country is Palestine, and the Nazis have no claim to it whatever.

Lets hop in the time machine and have a look. "Palestine" used to refer to the Jewish people there.

- - - Updated - - -

So ethnic cleansing is fine so long as it's done by Muslims?



Somehow I think you would be singing a different tune if Israelis started stabbing Muslims in Israel.

Killing the unlawful invaders of your sovereign territory is fine, yes. Odd that you'd have a problem with that.

Then go kill yourself--you're an invader of the Native American territory.

The Jews, however, bought their land, they are not invaders.

Before they converted to other religions, like people everywhere. You can't be a racist and a religious bigot at the same time, Goebbels.

- - - Updated - - -

No it is not.

and the Nazis have no claim to it whatever.

I agree. Therefore, if Palestinians want to enjoy full sovereignty over even one square inch of the land, they need to first remove Nazis like Hamas from power.

As you know, the Resistance in occupied countries takes what action it sees fit to remove Nazi killers.

Oh good. I trust then that you will support the IDF the next time it has to resist Palestinian Nazi killers from Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah etc.

You need to learn to argue, Goebbels. Hamas is the Resistance, like that we supported in Europe when your Great Model was killing people and stealing land, as you know.

 

[Jayjay]

No it is not.

and the Nazis have no claim to it whatever.

I agree. Therefore, if Palestinians want to enjoy full sovereignty over even one square inch of the land, they need to first remove Nazis like Hamas from power.

Then why is Israel still occupying West Bank, where Hamas is not in power, but withdrew and has no intention of returning to Hamas-led Gaza? It certainly looks like Israel has no problem with Hamas being in power, in fact it is rewarding Hamas and its tactics. Same with Hezbollah in South Lebanon; another place where Israel cut and run because of violent resistance, not by dialogue or peace treaties.

History has shown that Israel responds much better to violence than peaceful methods, so is it any surprise that fascist fanatics like Hamas get in power?

As you know, the Resistance in occupied countries takes what action it sees fit to remove Nazi killers.

Oh good. I trust then that you will support the IDF the next time it has to resist Palestinian Nazi killers from Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah etc.

I can't speak for him but I fully support Israel resisting any attacks from Hamas et al. The difference is that they are actually attacking Israel, not merely resisting an occupation.

 

[Jayjay]

Bad comparison. "On the Israeli side of the border" is obviously the state of Israel, emphasis on state. The vacant lands Jews purchased were not part of any existing state, but instead part of mandatory Palestine, a British protectorate established after WWI, which also included trans-Jordan (shortened to Jordan today). Also, there was the Balfour Declaration that sought to help Jews establish a homeland there.

I was referring to allegedly "vacant lands" in West Bank, that Israel has slowly crept into after 1967. At that point there was a well-defined and internationally recognized border (the 1949 armistice line), with states on both sides (Israel and Jordan).

 

[Loren Pechtel]

1) I put more weight on events that are happening now, than events in past. Especially if said past events are so remote that hardly anyone is still alive who remembers them.

Doesn't change the convenient use of dates.

2) Fair point. But Jerusalem before 1949 was not part of Israel, it was part of Palestine. So technically the undoing of the ethnic cleansing of Jews would mean also that Jews relinquish the control of the entire city. Not doing basically the same thing what Jordan did in 1949.

You are basing this on the false notion that the Palestinians controlled the land before.

3) As I said, there are zero muslims in Israeli settlements. Those areas have been cleansed, and as the settlements grow the cleansing continues as well. The fact that the population of whatever bantustans Israel deems shitty enough for Palestinians to live on is irrelevant.

You are assuming they were cleansed as opposed to the land simply purchased.

There is no part of Israel that is occupied by a muslim country (or even a non-governmental entity). Note that I would also be singing a different tune if muslims were stabbing jews in West Jerusalem. Or anywhere else in Israel for that matter. Only place where stabbings can be considered legitimate resistance is within the occupied territory itself.

There are areas where Jews are liable to be attacked if they go there. That certainly sounds like non-governmental occupation to me.

Israel maintains police and military control even in these areas. They are no different from high-crime areas in any major cities in US or Europe.

That's not a rebuttal.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Correction: Israel wants survival more than it wants peace. Your idea of peace means the extirpation of the Jews.

Extirpation of Jews in West Bank, where those fanatics had no business of being in the first place. But all that means is that they would pack their bags and move a few miles to the east. This is not a matter of survival for the illegal settlers, and it is certainly not a matter of survival for the country of Israel.

No. Your "answer" is extirpation of the Jews in Israel as by the Palestinian standards it's Israel that's the occupied territory.

Israel is the occupying power, and it's responsible for what its citizens do in the occupied territory, especially since it's providing them with financial aid, security, and even stealing land for them. It's Israel's legal and moral responsibility to actively prevent its citizens from transferring en mass to the occupied territory, and failure to do so is a war crime.

You're assuming they are stealing land. The problem is that the Muslims define "stealing" as any act, legal or not, that puts land under Jewish control.

As for Palestinian residents--why would you expect there to be any? The settlements were on either vacant land or on land they bought from it's owners.

"Vacant land" excuse is bullshit. If some Palestinian were to find vacant land on Israeli side of the border, he could hardly claim and annex it to the Palestinian state. Borders are legal agreements, and there is practically no "vacant land" anywhere on Earth at this time in history. Besides, if the land is vacant because it was ethnically cleansed and walled off to Palestinians, that's hardly legitimate. Same with "buying" the land from their owners. As a foreigner, I can buy a plot of land in America, but doing so does not make that land not being outside the sovereign jurisdiction of U.S. government.

At the time in question the land was under Israeli control. The vast majority of land in the area was public land, people could lease it but under a use-it-or-lose-it situation. Thus the land tended to remain under public ownership.

Israel operates under the sort of situation we are used to where land is generally private. The settlers saw public land, settled on it and made it private. No theft involved.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Correction: They bought the land from turkish aristocrats. Not from the people who actually lived there.

Even if true, so what?

Also I am an invader of no such place. There is no formal polity known as "Native America" who's sovereign soil I could even invade for one thing. But seriously, the fact that people who have long been dead fought and died and suffered on the land I now live on does not speak of my moral character and is not the same as a polity invading and pushing people out of their homes NOW. Fuck off with that noise.

Yeah, it was a collection of tribes rather than a monolithic entity. That doesn't change the fact that basically all US land was taken from it's original occupants.

 

[Jayjay]

Killing the unlawful invaders of your sovereign territory is fine, yes. Odd that you'd have a problem with that.

So you think it would be legal and morally acceptable for Americans to shoot illegal Mexicans?
Or for Europeans to shoot boat migrants?

There are mainstream politicians in Europe who are advocating just that (or more accurately, that we shouldn't save people from sinking boats because it encourages more people to come in), so it's not so far fetched. But the difference is that U.S. police and border control have many other less violent means at their disposal before they have to start shooting people. What other means do Palestinians have to get rid of the Israeli settlers and invaders? Let's say, this police officer that was stabbed. If you were Palestinian, how would you go about forcing her to return to Israel?

 

[Elixir]

Yeah, it was a collection of tribes rather than a monolithic entity. That doesn't change the fact that basically all US land was taken from it's original occupants.

I find artifacts from the Ute who used to live on "my" land, and it always makes me sad. But it's kind of an irrational sadness; I have seen early photographs of the local Utes camping out in my neighbor's yard in the mid-1800s. They were dying - it was a very hard winter. My neighbor died last year at ~95 yrs old, but the family has been on that land since the 1820s. They took in and fed the Indians and their horses when hard winters fell. (They still hay the land, but not with scythes and horse-drawn hay wagons... )
It must have been a short, brutal life for the Utes before white man came and gave them long, brutal lives...

This is the ranch Ca 1870:

 

[Jayjay]

Extirpation of Jews in West Bank, where those fanatics had no business of being in the first place. But all that means is that they would pack their bags and move a few miles to the east. This is not a matter of survival for the illegal settlers, and it is certainly not a matter of survival for the country of Israel.

No. Your "answer" is extirpation of the Jews in Israel as by the Palestinian standards it's Israel that's the occupied territory.

Most Palestinians have agreed to 1967 borders, and in any case, my opinion or the world opinion is not the same as Palestinian opinion. Whether some Palestinian militants think the whole of Israel is occupied territory is as irrelevant as ISIS thinking that Spain is Dar-al-Islam. The speculative accusation that Palestinians might have unjustifiable territorial ambitions of their own in no way negates Israel's unjustifiable territorial ambitions, especially because Israel is actually engaged in annexing and settling the land, whereas all Palestinian nationalists might have are pipe dreams.

Israel is the occupying power, and it's responsible for what its citizens do in the occupied territory, especially since it's providing them with financial aid, security, and even stealing land for them. It's Israel's legal and moral responsibility to actively prevent its citizens from transferring en mass to the occupied territory, and failure to do so is a war crime.

You're assuming they are stealing land. The problem is that the Muslims define "stealing" as any act, legal or not, that puts land under Jewish control.

As for Palestinian residents--why would you expect there to be any? The settlements were on either vacant land or on land they bought from it's owners.

"Vacant land" excuse is bullshit. If some Palestinian were to find vacant land on Israeli side of the border, he could hardly claim and annex it to the Palestinian state. Borders are legal agreements, and there is practically no "vacant land" anywhere on Earth at this time in history. Besides, if the land is vacant because it was ethnically cleansed and walled off to Palestinians, that's hardly legitimate. Same with "buying" the land from their owners. As a foreigner, I can buy a plot of land in America, but doing so does not make that land not being outside the sovereign jurisdiction of U.S. government.

At the time in question the land was under Israeli control. The vast majority of land in the area was public land, people could lease it but under a use-it-or-lose-it situation. Thus the land tended to remain under public ownership.

Israel operates under the sort of situation we are used to where land is generally private. The settlers saw public land, settled on it and made it private. No theft involved.

It is irrelevant whether the land is "private" or "public" under Israeli law, becasue international law (as well as ethics) trumps Israeli law. It is nevertheless occupied territory, and whatever labels the occupier uses to label that land is irrelevant. Even if Israeli government were to buy some land from Palestinians, it would be illegal for Israel to use it to house settlers. At best they could use the land or buildings for military purposes to keep the peace in the occupied territory.

This is why Israel's taking the land can be considered "stealing". It first cleanses some area from Palestinians, and designates the land as "public". Then it gives the land to private settlements and annexes it to Israel. It is ridiculous to claim that there is any difference with this two-step process from public to private, and simply stealing the land in one step. The end result is still the same: land that belongs to occupied Palestine is ethnically cleansed and annexed to Israel.

 

[Jayjay]

Doesn't change the convenient use of dates.

2) Fair point. But Jerusalem before 1949 was not part of Israel, it was part of Palestine. So technically the undoing of the ethnic cleansing of Jews would mean also that Jews relinquish the control of the entire city. Not doing basically the same thing what Jordan did in 1949.

You are basing this on the false notion that the Palestinians controlled the land before.

At no point did Jews control Jerusalem either. Besides, who owned the land "before" becomes increasingly irrelevant the farther back in time we go. And of course, it wasn't Palestinians who controlled the land... it was the British, and before that it was the Ottomans. From modern perspective their ownership was based on nothing more than geopolitics. Morally speaking, land should belong to whoever lives there, and in 1948 the mandate of Palestine was mostly Arab with some Jewish pockets.

3) As I said, there are zero muslims in Israeli settlements. Those areas have been cleansed, and as the settlements grow the cleansing continues as well. The fact that the population of whatever bantustans Israel deems shitty enough for Palestinians to live on is irrelevant.

You are assuming they were cleansed as opposed to the land simply purchased.

See previous post. If Palestinians are no longer allowed to live on that land and it is no longer under their jurisdiction so that they can never even hope to do so, then that area is effectively ethnically cleansed.

There is no part of Israel that is occupied by a muslim country (or even a non-governmental entity). Note that I would also be singing a different tune if muslims were stabbing jews in West Jerusalem. Or anywhere else in Israel for that matter. Only place where stabbings can be considered legitimate resistance is within the occupied territory itself.

There are areas where Jews are liable to be attacked if they go there. That certainly sounds like non-governmental occupation to me.

Israel maintains police and military control even in these areas. They are no different from high-crime areas in any major cities in US or Europe.

That's not a rebuttal.

"Being liable to attack" does not mean an city or a neighbourhood is outside government control. That kind of neighbourhoods where it is dangerous to move outside exist in all major cities, and plenty of smaller ones too. There is absolutely no analogy between even the worst "no-go zones" of Paris, and actually being under a military occupation of a foreign power.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

So you think it would be legal and morally acceptable for Americans to shoot illegal Mexicans?
Or for Europeans to shoot boat migrants?

There are mainstream politicians in Europe who are advocating just that (or more accurately, that we shouldn't save people from sinking boats because it encourages more people to come in), so it's not so far fetched. But the difference is that U.S. police and border control have many other less violent means at their disposal before they have to start shooting people. What other means do Palestinians have to get rid of the Israeli settlers and invaders? Let's say, this police officer that was stabbed. If you were Palestinian, how would you go about forcing her to return to Israel?

The route they have is peaceful negotiation. The thing is it will never happen because negotiation can't get them what they want--all the land.

As an average citizen I have no other means of getting rid of illegals. By your logic I should be allowed to shoot them.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

No. Your "answer" is extirpation of the Jews in Israel as by the Palestinian standards it's Israel that's the occupied territory.

Most Palestinians have agreed to 1967 borders, and in any case, my opinion or the world opinion is not the same as Palestinian opinion. Whether some Palestinian militants think the whole of Israel is occupied territory is as irrelevant as ISIS thinking that Spain is Dar-al-Islam. The speculative accusation that Palestinians might have unjustifiable territorial ambitions of their own in no way negates Israel's unjustifiable territorial ambitions, especially because Israel is actually engaged in annexing and settling the land, whereas all Palestinian nationalists might have are pipe dreams.

1) Most have not agreed to the 67 borders. 67 borders are seen as a stepping stone to a final victory, not as an end.

2) It does matter what they think is occupied because that's the motivation for the violence. World opinion doesn't really matter on this, only the opinion of the Arabs backing the continuing conflict. They're already whining about what's going to happen with the Arabs cracking down on Qatar.

As for Palestinian residents--why would you expect there to be any? The settlements were on either vacant land or on land they bought from it's owners.

"Vacant land" excuse is bullshit. If some Palestinian were to find vacant land on Israeli side of the border, he could hardly claim and annex it to the Palestinian state. Borders are legal agreements, and there is practically no "vacant land" anywhere on Earth at this time in history.

Reality check time:

1) There's lots of vacant land in the world. I live in the western US--most of what is around here is vacant land.

2) You continue to bring up borders--forgetting that at the time in question Israel had conquered the land. Not only that, but at that point their ownership was uncontested. (The Palestinians had refused to try to make a nation (they backed the horse of conquest and lost) and thus could not make a claim.)

3) I pointed out the difference in the property ownership laws of the two systems.

It is irrelevant whether the land is "private" or "public" under Israeli law, becasue international law (as well as ethics) trumps Israeli law. It is nevertheless occupied territory, and whatever labels the occupier uses to label that land is irrelevant. Even if Israeli government were to buy some land from Palestinians, it would be illegal for Israel to use it to house settlers. At best they could use the land or buildings for military purposes to keep the peace in the occupied territory.

If the Israeli government were to do so you are right, it would be illegal under Geneva. However, that does not prohibit private individuals from buying land and moving to it.

This is why Israel's taking the land can be considered "stealing". It first cleanses some area from Palestinians, and designates the land as "public". Then it gives the land to private settlements and annexes it to Israel. It is ridiculous to claim that there is any difference with this two-step process from public to private, and simply stealing the land in one step. The end result is still the same: land that belongs to occupied Palestine is ethnically cleansed and annexed to Israel.

You still need to support your claim of cleansing.

And note that the lawful owner of a property can expel unwanted individuals on it without it being ethnic cleansing. If the landlord sold the land to the Jews the tenants have to leave when their lease is up if that's what the new owners want.

- - - Updated - - -

"Being liable to attack" does not mean an city or a neighbourhood is outside government control. That kind of neighbourhoods where it is dangerous to move outside exist in all major cities, and plenty of smaller ones too. There is absolutely no analogy between even the worst "no-go zones" of Paris, and actually being under a military occupation of a foreign power.

And where in any other civilized country is it extremely dangerous to simply drive down the street if you're of the wrong group?

 

[Jayjay]

There are mainstream politicians in Europe who are advocating just that (or more accurately, that we shouldn't save people from sinking boats because it encourages more people to come in), so it's not so far fetched. But the difference is that U.S. police and border control have many other less violent means at their disposal before they have to start shooting people. What other means do Palestinians have to get rid of the Israeli settlers and invaders? Let's say, this police officer that was stabbed. If you were Palestinian, how would you go about forcing her to return to Israel?

The route they have is peaceful negotiation. The thing is it will never happen because negotiation can't get them what they want--all the land.

You do realize that the same applies to Israel, right?

As an average citizen I have no other means of getting rid of illegals. By your logic I should be allowed to shoot them.

As an average citizen you do have another means to get rid of illegals: call the police or the immigration officials and turn them in. Palestinians can hardly call the IDF and say "officer, we have 600,000 squatters on our land, can you help us move them out?"