What really gets me about the Israel / Palestine thing

 Pages 1 2 3 4 NEXT
 

I am not a die-hard supporter of Israel that thinks they can do no wrong. I dislike a lot of the stuff they do with land settlement and there human rights record is by no means perfect but I cannot fathom why the international community so rarely condemns Palestine / the PA / Hamas or whatever regional group you want to focus on.

The vast majority of UN resolution and reports condemn Israel, and they give Palestinians only passing mentions or the equivalent of "oh you scamps", whereas Israel gets condemned more than every other country. It is a farce that Israel gets condemned more than some of the most despotic regimes in the world, and in my mind showcases the UNs dysfunction and ineptitude.

This article is what got me thinking about this today http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/12/10/where-was-the-outrage-as-hundreds-of-thousands-hamas-chief-in-gaza-world-remains-silent-israel/
Worth a look imo, tell me what you think

I cannot claim to fully understand the conflict, so is there something I am not getting here? The Palestinians seem to act far more abhorrently than the Israelis, yet they get all the sympathy.

Champthrax:
This article is what got me thinking about this today http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/12/10/where-was-the-outrage-as-hundreds-of-thousands-hamas-chief-in-gaza-world-remains-silent-israel/
Worth a look imo, tell me what you think

I cannot claim to fully understand the conflict, so is there something I am not getting here? The Palestinians seem to act far more abhorrently than the Israelis, yet they get all the sympathy.

Consider the source...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Post#The_Post_today

Since Izzy Asper's acquisition of the National Post, the paper has become a strong voice in support of the state of Israel and its government. The Post was one of the few Canadian papers to offer unreserved support to Israel during its conflict with Hezbollah in Lebanon during 2006.

If you're looking for information that isn't biased, look for an unbiased source. The National Post clearly isn't one.

madwarper:
If you're looking for information that isn't biased, look for an unbiased source. The National Post clearly isn't one.

Maybe that's most telling: If even the national post can make a valid attack on the UN stance, then just how diehard hypocritical is the UN?

I mean, that there's total silence about Hamas' grand aniversary celebration is just plain weird, especially since even normal regular things done by Israel are published hugely and labeled as a provocation by the UN, it strikes me as weird to not say anything about a grand celebration by a terrorist movement, containing proud display of weapons used exclusively for terrorist strikes, which has vowed that there will never be peace.

madwarper:

Champthrax:
This article is what got me thinking about this today http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/12/10/where-was-the-outrage-as-hundreds-of-thousands-hamas-chief-in-gaza-world-remains-silent-israel/
Worth a look imo, tell me what you think

I cannot claim to fully understand the conflict, so is there something I am not getting here? The Palestinians seem to act far more abhorrently than the Israelis, yet they get all the sympathy.

Consider the source...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Post#The_Post_today

Since Izzy Asper's acquisition of the National Post, the paper has become a strong voice in support of the state of Israel and its government. The Post was one of the few Canadian papers to offer unreserved support to Israel during its conflict with Hezbollah in Lebanon during 2006.

If you're looking for information that isn't biased, look for an unbiased source. The National Post clearly isn't one.

The papers pro-Israel stance does not discredit the point made in the article

Anyway, the source wasn't supposed to be the heart of my post, I was just using it as an example of the perceived bias I see against Israel. The point I am trying to make is that Israel is constantly condemned, yet Palestinians (though admittedly there are a lot of factions), behave in more violent and international law breaking ways, yet get mass international sympathy.

All you have to do is look at the UNs voting record. The Goldstone report is aother good example, where international bodies like the EU all gang up and condemn Israel, yet there is little condemnation or investigation into Hamas / PA abuses.

Champthrax:

madwarper:

Champthrax:
This article is what got me thinking about this today http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/12/10/where-was-the-outrage-as-hundreds-of-thousands-hamas-chief-in-gaza-world-remains-silent-israel/
Worth a look imo, tell me what you think

I cannot claim to fully understand the conflict, so is there something I am not getting here? The Palestinians seem to act far more abhorrently than the Israelis, yet they get all the sympathy.

Consider the source...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Post#The_Post_today

Since Izzy Asper's acquisition of the National Post, the paper has become a strong voice in support of the state of Israel and its government. The Post was one of the few Canadian papers to offer unreserved support to Israel during its conflict with Hezbollah in Lebanon during 2006.

If you're looking for information that isn't biased, look for an unbiased source. The National Post clearly isn't one.

The papers pro-Israel stance does not discredit the point made in the article

Anyway, the source wasn't supposed to be the heart of my post, I was just using it as an example of the perceived bias I see against Israel. The point I am trying to make is that Israel is constantly condemned, yet Palestinians (though admittedly there are a lot of factions), behave in more violent and international law breaking ways, yet get mass international sympathy.

All you have to do is look at the UNs voting record. The Goldstone report is aother good example, where international bodies like the EU all gang up and condemn Israel, yet there is little condemnation or investigation into Hamas / PA abuses.

Let's see here:

* One of these entities is an actual country with a legally regonised government.
* The other is a group of terrorists not legally regonised by much of the world as being a legitimate governing body.

So you're complaing that the international body governing countries is condeming a country while ignoring an illegal entity that has no formal regonition by said body?

Don't worry about fully understanding it. No one does and no one can. You're dealing with people who think they are nothing but entitled to a seemingly arbitrary piece of land. I just hope they don't drag the US into another war in the Middle East. I fully condemn both countries and peoples for what they've done, what they want to do, and what they will do. The ideal solution is they simply wipe each other out, but the situation is so complex and convoluted, with multiple treaties and promises made by past generations that will drag us into a war like WWI did.

One other thing to notice is that Israel was a state created last century and given land from an existing country. In the minds of the pro-Palestinian supporters Israel is an occupying force and those retaliating against them are fighting for their freedoms.

To give it context: What if another ethnic group needed a homeland and it was decided that they would take half of the USA (if you aren't from there feel free to substitute your own country into this scenario)? The USA wasn't happy but they (for the sake of argument) weren't given a choice. This new state kept taking more land off the USA and forcing the US citizens to live behind large fences with little or no access to the other areas (the citizens of this new country could come and go as they pleased). They also began settling more and more of the lands that weren't granted to them originally and, if the local US citizens protested with any show of force, they cracked down on them swiftly and then claimed those new territories as necessary buffer land to protect their citizens.

Most other nations weren't impressed with what happened but this new nation was backed by the Russio-chinese empire and so no one would openly challenge them (except at one point Canada, Mexico, along with the Spanish-speaking Central and south American countries attacked this new nation and were defeated; this was hailed as a great victory by this nation and proved to them and their backer that God was on their side).

What would be the right reaction for the US citizens who didn't like this new state of affairs? What would be wrong?

ElectroJosh:
What would be the right reaction for the US citizens who didn't like this new state of affairs? What would be wrong?

Well, a few tribes tried exterminating the European settlers, much like the Palestinians tried to exterminate the Jewish inhabitants of Trans-Jordan.

The response was to defend onseself, defeat those tribes, than go after them untill their were no longer a military threat, after which they could either stay or got banished to some place where they wouldn't be a problem.

And not untill centuries later when the hostilities from both sides were forgotten and only what the whites did is still remembered, did anyone make a fuss out of that.

Pan-arabic attempts to exterminate the Jews from Trans-Jordan are basically no different from any other ethnic conflict. In all cases the losing group relocates in large numbers.

RUINER ACTUAL:
Don't worry about fully understanding it. No one does and no one can. You're dealing with people who think they are nothing but entitled to a seemingly arbitrary piece of land. I just hope they don't drag the US into another war in the Middle East. I fully condemn both countries and peoples for what they've done, what they want to do, and what they will do. The ideal solution is they simply wipe each other out, but the situation is so complex and convoluted, with multiple treaties and promises made by past generations that will drag us into a war like WWI did.

I feel that you've hit the nail on the head except for the ideal situation is for them to wipe each other out. Ideally they could get along somehow without more bloodshed but we don't live in an ideal world unfortunately.

Friendly Lich:

RUINER ACTUAL:
Don't worry about fully understanding it. No one does and no one can. You're dealing with people who think they are nothing but entitled to a seemingly arbitrary piece of land. I just hope they don't drag the US into another war in the Middle East. I fully condemn both countries and peoples for what they've done, what they want to do, and what they will do. The ideal solution is they simply wipe each other out, but the situation is so complex and convoluted, with multiple treaties and promises made by past generations that will drag us into a war like WWI did.

I feel that you've hit the nail on the head except for the ideal situation is for them to wipe each other out. Ideally they could get along somehow without more bloodshed but we don't live in an ideal world unfortunately.

Well, ya I suppose peace would work too. But if they turn the place into a glass parking lot, we can build a water park! Now that's ideal!

Champthrax:

The vast majority of UN resolution and reports condemn Israel, and they give Palestinians only passing mentions or the equivalent of "oh you scamps", whereas Israel gets condemned more than every other country. It is a farce that Israel gets condemned more than some of the most despotic regimes in the world, and in my mind showcases the UNs dysfunction and ineptitude.

If you want some incite on the reason why their is more focus on Israel, here is a video that Danyal showed me....

ElectroJosh:
One other thing to notice is that Israel was a state created last century and given land from an existing country. In the minds of the pro-Palestinian supporters Israel is an occupying force and those retaliating against them are fighting for their freedoms.

Except that the land that the pro-palestinians claim is land that Jews had before the Roman empire attempted a ethnic cleansing of the Jews from that land.

To go along with your US example and compare it to what I'm referring to, its like if after one thousand years of the foundation of the US, the Native Americans[1] had support from Europe and had a part of the US carved out for them so that they could live on their ancestral land. The US might be pissed, but the land was taken from the Native Americans.

[1] Who have faced similar if not worse treatment than Jews.

RUINER ACTUAL:
Don't worry about fully understanding it. No one does and no one can. You're dealing with people who think they are nothing but entitled to a seemingly arbitrary piece of land. I just hope they don't drag the US into another war in the Middle East. I fully condemn both countries and peoples for what they've done, what they want to do, and what they will do. The ideal solution is they simply wipe each other out, but the situation is so complex and convoluted, with multiple treaties and promises made by past generations that will drag us into a war like WWI did.

.
"You're dealing with people who think they are nothing but entitled to a seemingly arbitrary piece of land."
"The ideal solution is they simply wipe each other out,"

Generalization, AHOY!
Just had to mention that you shouldn't generalize a whole people...or wish for their destruction.
.

ElectroJosh:
One other thing to notice is that Israel was a state created last century and given land from an existing country. In the minds of the pro-Palestinian supporters Israel is an occupying force and those retaliating against them are fighting for their freedoms.

To give it context: What if another ethnic group needed a homeland and it was decided that they would take half of the USA (if you aren't from there feel free to substitute your own country into this scenario)? The USA wasn't happy but they (for the sake of argument) weren't given a choice. This new state kept taking more land off the USA and forcing the US citizens to live behind large fences with little or no access to the other areas (the citizens of this new country could come and go as they pleased). They also began settling more and more of the lands that weren't granted to them originally and, if the local US citizens protested with any show of force, they cracked down on them swiftly and then claimed those new territories as necessary buffer land to protect their citizens.

Most other nations weren't impressed with what happened but this new nation was backed by the Russio-chinese empire and so no one would openly challenge them (except at one point Canada, Mexico, along with the Spanish-speaking Central and south American countries attacked this new nation and were defeated; this was hailed as a great victory by this nation and proved to them and their backer that God was on their side).

What would be the right reaction for the US citizens who didn't like this new state of affairs? What would be wrong?

.
A few issues.
"...and given land from an existing country"-Nope! That makes your USA comparison null and void, BTW!
"...They also began settling more and more of the lands that weren't granted to them originally and," - Granted by whom?
"..protested with any show of force..." - Surely you don't equate suicide bombing with protests, right?
You're right that Israel got into a semi-euphoric state after 1967, but 6 years later it was crushed in 1973 at a war that was nearly a defeat of Israel , so... I dunno.
.

Shaoken:

-snip-
Let's see here:

* One of these entities is an actual country with a legally regonised government.
* The other is a group of terrorists not legally regonised by much of the world as being a legitimate governing body.

So you're complaing that the international body governing countries is condeming a country while ignoring an illegal entity that has no formal regonition by said body?

.
Example - The day General Ban Ki-Moon was to leave the conflict zone via the Tel-Aviv international airport in Israel, a bus bombing occurred within the city. Hamas took responsibility for it, with operatives working from within Israel (perpetrator was an Israeli citizen). Luckily nobody was killed, but 19 were injured. He brought this issue to the security council and asked them to condemn this action against Israel.
Nothing. They said nothing.

madwarper:

Champthrax:
This article is what got me thinking about this today http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/12/10/where-was-the-outrage-as-hundreds-of-thousands-hamas-chief-in-gaza-world-remains-silent-israel/
Worth a look imo, tell me what you think

I cannot claim to fully understand the conflict, so is there something I am not getting here? The Palestinians seem to act far more abhorrently than the Israelis, yet they get all the sympathy.

Consider the source...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Post#The_Post_today

Since Izzy Asper's acquisition of the National Post, the paper has become a strong voice in support of the state of Israel and its government. The Post was one of the few Canadian papers to offer unreserved support to Israel during its conflict with Hezbollah in Lebanon during 2006.

If you're looking for information that isn't biased, look for an unbiased source. The National Post clearly isn't one.

.
Is an unbiased source one that agrees with your opinions? Ideally you should draw your information from more than a few news outlets, as each will usually have its own agenda with different authors and editors in charge.

Israel is a state, until very recently Palestine was not one(still debatable if it is recognized as one) . There are rules concerning the actions of states-Israel routinely breaks most of these-the UN tries to call them out on it-the US vetoes the bill.Moreover with no Palestinian statehood it is difficult to draw responsibility of actions from individual terrorist groups to a central authority, while the atrocities committed by the Israeli army are the sole responsibility of the Israeli government. Furthermore Israel is far more powerful then Palestine and tends to abuse its superiority to pretty much do and take what it wishes, part of the role of the UN is to act as a power equalizer to protect the weaker nations(or whatever one should call Palestine these days) from the stronger ones.

The fact that they are several Muslim states in the SC who do tend to bring up Israels violations(while other nations similar violations are all to often ignored) is admittedly a flaw, but that does not mean that Israels violations should be ignored.

Ultimately it bogs down to Palestinian crimes are often done by a small group of people, while Israels crimes are committed by the Israeli government which can and should be held responsible for its actions(which it unfortunately isn't as of yet).

I do however feel that the UN could get better in calling out organizations such as Hamas, when they orchestrate terrorist attacks, then again as pretty much all SC bills against Israel are vetoed a case can be made that the UN doesn't do much against either side.

Gashad:
Ultimately it bogs down to Palestinian crimes are often done by a small group of people,

That small group of people was voted into power by the Palestinian people and enjoys the support of the majority of the Muslim world. They are also now somewhat of a state considering the appeal to the UN recently, and thus should bear the exact same responsibility and accountability. Guess what? They won't, because the UN is biased as fuck, and they can get away with anything.

Given, the same goes for Israel because no-one will (nor should they) step in. The ball imo really does lie with the Palestinian people and rejecting the extremists they embraced.

double post muckup, sorry.

Gashad:
Israel is a state, until very recently Palestine was not one(still debatable if it is recognized as one) . There are rules concerning the actions of states-Israel routinely breaks most of these-the UN tries to call them out on it-the US vetoes the bill.Moreover with no Palestinian statehood it is difficult to draw responsibility of actions from individual terrorist groups to a central authority, while the atrocities committed by the Israeli army are the sole responsibility of the Israeli government. Furthermore Israel is far more powerful then Palestine and tends to abuse its superiority to pretty much do and take what it wishes, part of the role of the UN is to act as a power equalizer to protect the weaker nations(or whatever one should call Palestine these days) from the stronger ones.

The fact that they are several Muslim states in the SC who do tend to bring up Israels violations(while other nations similar violations are all to often ignored) is admittedly a flaw, but that does not mean that Israels violations should be ignored.

Ultimately it bogs down to Palestinian crimes are often done by a small group of people, while Israels crimes are committed by the Israeli government which can and should be held responsible for its actions(which it unfortunately isn't as of yet).

I do however feel that the UN could get better in calling out organizations such as Hamas, when they orchestrate terrorist attacks, then again as pretty much all SC bills against Israel are vetoed a case can be made that the UN doesn't do much against either side.

.
"There are rules concerning the actions of states-Israel routinely breaks most of these-the UN tries to call them out on it-the US vetoes the bill" - You mean when the automatic majority in the UN general assembly bullies Israel for every move it makes while it ignores the 101 other injustices in the world that lie within those countries that criticize Israel and its behavior?

"Moreover with no Palestinian statehood it is difficult to draw responsibility of actions from individual terrorist groups to a central authority, while the atrocities committed by the Israeli army are the sole responsibility of the Israeli government." - No. Do you blame Roosevalt for the war-crimes some of his American soldiers committed, or do you try these criminals in court?
Israel and the its allies recognized the PLO as the sole organization that represents the Palestinian people in '91 and later '93. The PLO is an umbrella organization containing various smaller factions that work as a united coalition. The actions of people affiliated with the PLO are the PLO's responsibility if they've been ordered to do A, B or C. You're correct that you can't blame it for actions made by other fringe groups, but recently Hamas had taken a third of the Palestinian population "hostage". What is there to do with that issue?

"but that does not mean that Israels violations should be ignored." - Israel's violations aren't ignored - they're mostly made up. When they cry out "war crimes", they are unfamiliar with the laws they claim Israel breaks and call every civilian casualty a crime against humanity.

"then again as pretty much all SC bills against Israel are vetoed a case can be made that the UN doesn't do much against either side." - For 16 years Zionism was considered Racism. That made Israel a racist country by default according to the UN. The only reason why the UN amended this was because Israel demanded it if it was to recognize the PLO and enter peace negotiations (they also lead to a peace treaty with Jordan). Many people still consider Zionism Racist, even though it's fucking ridiculous. DO you think that the USA rushed to Israel's aid? These decisions made in the general council can't be vetoed. Only the security council has a seat for the USA where it can veto decisions.

TheIronRuler:

"Moreover with no Palestinian statehood it is difficult to draw responsibility of actions from individual terrorist groups to a central authority, while the atrocities committed by the Israeli army are the sole responsibility of the Israeli government." - No. Do you blame Roosevalt for the war-crimes some of his American soldiers committed, or do you try these criminals in court?

As commander in chief and President of the US Roosevelt was ultimately responsible for the actions of his soldiers. If he would have taken his responsibility and seen that those soldiers who committed the war crimes were tried and punished as well as taken measures to prevent further war crimes he would have had fulfilled his responsibilities. Failure to do this would however mean that he would have been responsible for the crimes.

Israel has a poor record of policing its own military, in Israeli investigations the innocence of the Israeli army is generally a forgone conclusion hence little is done to punish the armies excesses which transfers responsibility to the government.

TheIronRuler:

Israel and the its allies recognized the PLO as the sole organization that represents the Palestinian people in '91 and later '93. The PLO is an umbrella organization containing various smaller factions that work as a united coalition. The actions of people affiliated with the PLO are the PLO's responsibility if they've been ordered to do A, B or C. You're correct that you can't blame it for actions made by other fringe groups, but recently Hamas had taken a third of the Palestinian population "hostage". What is there to do with that issue?

I believe that the US and EU were correct in declaring Hamas a terrorist organization. Ultimately Hamas derives it support and strength from Palestinian hatred of Israel. As long as Israel keeps bombing Palestinians, settling people on the west bank, evicting Palestinians from Jerusalem, as well as enforcing a cruel blockade on Gaza while building an extremely disruptive barrier across the west bank this hatred will endure and so will Hamas. Hence I would argue that pressure on Israel to lift its inhumane policies is the best method of combating Hamas.

TheIronRuler:

"but that does not mean that Israels violations should be ignored." - Israel's violations aren't ignored - they're mostly made up. When they cry out "war crimes", they are unfamiliar with the laws they claim Israel breaks and call every civilian casualty a crime against humanity.

Denying millions of Palestinians the right of return. Continuously evicting thousands of Palestinians from Jerusalem. Enforcing disruptive blockades and barriers crippling the Palestinians possibilities of improving there economy. Denying Palestinians the right to a trial while keeping thousand arrested indefinitely(or just killing them). Continued settlement of the west bank-now taking steps to split it in two, making it impossible to create a Palestinian state there. And now we can add the theft of money from the Palestinian people to that considering their refusal to hand over the Palestinians taxes. These are just some of Israels offenses...

It's a question of moral legitimacy. Israel is 'one of us' so we are doubly harsh when it does anything we think is wrong, so that we can avoid criticisms of bias or hypocrisy when we later want to condemn China or Iran. It's like a kids Ref, who gives more penalties against his own kids so that none of the other parents complain about him.

Europe took the side of Palestine because the U.S. took the side of Israel.
Politics is warfare continued with words.

Gashad:

TheIronRuler:

"Moreover with no Palestinian statehood it is difficult to draw responsibility of actions from individual terrorist groups to a central authority, while the atrocities committed by the Israeli army are the sole responsibility of the Israeli government." - No. Do you blame Roosevalt for the war-crimes some of his American soldiers committed, or do you try these criminals in court?

As commander in chief and President of the US Roosevelt was ultimately responsible for the actions of his soldiers. If he would have taken his responsibility and seen that those soldiers who committed the war crimes were tried and punished as well as taken measures to prevent further war crimes he would have had fulfilled his responsibilities. Failure to do this would however mean that he would have been responsible for the crimes.

Israel has a poor record of policing its own military, in Israeli investigations the innocence of the Israeli army is generally a forgone conclusion hence little is done to punish the armies excesses which transfers responsibility to the government.

"Israel has a poor record of policing its own military, in Israeli investigations the innocence of the Israeli army is generally a forgone conclusion hence little is done to punish the armies excesses which transfers responsibility to the government. " - Where are you pulling this information from? What do you compare the Israeli investigations into their own soldier's conduct to?
.

TheIronRuler:

Israel and the its allies recognized the PLO as the sole organization that represents the Palestinian people in '91 and later '93. The PLO is an umbrella organization containing various smaller factions that work as a united coalition. The actions of people affiliated with the PLO are the PLO's responsibility if they've been ordered to do A, B or C. You're correct that you can't blame it for actions made by other fringe groups, but recently Hamas had taken a third of the Palestinian population "hostage". What is there to do with that issue?

I believe that the US and EU were correct in declaring Hamas a terrorist organization. Ultimately Hamas derives it support and strength from Palestinian hatred of Israel. As long as Israel keeps bombing Palestinians, settling people on the west bank, evicting Palestinians from Jerusalem, as well as enforcing a cruel blockade on Gaza while building an extremely disruptive barrier across the west bank this hatred will endure and so will Hamas. Hence I would argue that pressure on Israel to lift its inhumane policies is the best method of combating Hamas.

.
Inhumane policies? Israel thinks of its civilians first and foremost, like any other country would.

So Israel should sit idly by while Hamas&other organizations in Gaza fire at them or should they retaliate?

Israel can restrict trade as it wants and impose an embargo if it so desires, and right now Gaza is being controlled by a terrorist organization. Why isn't there any rage against Egypt that had been blockading Gaza as well? Well, there is. Look at the operations in Sinai in recent months.

That "extremely disruptive barrier" is in place because it was too damned easy for locals to infiltrate the border, get into Israel and proceed with bus bombing, suicide bombing, stabbings, shooting sprees, etc. against Israeli local population. If you fence the damn border it would be very hard for them to go through and Israel could better police its borders.

These actions aggravate the Palestinians, but so does the very existence of the state of Israel and its '49 armistice borders. They never agreed to Israel existing, but they lost the war of its annihilation.
.

TheIronRuler:

"but that does not mean that Israels violations should be ignored." - Israel's violations aren't ignored - they're mostly made up. When they cry out "war crimes", they are unfamiliar with the laws they claim Israel breaks and call every civilian casualty a crime against humanity.

Denying millions of Palestinians the right of return. Continuously evicting thousands of Palestinians from Jerusalem. Enforcing disruptive blockades and barriers crippling the Palestinians possibilities of improving there economy. Denying Palestinians the right to a trial while keeping thousand arrested indefinitely(or just killing them). Continued settlement of the west bank-now taking steps to split it in two, making it impossible to create a Palestinian state there. And now we can add the theft of money from the Palestinian people to that considering their refusal to hand over the Palestinians taxes. These are just some of Israels offenses...

.
"Denying millions of Palestinians the right of return. " - Why. Why should Israel admit those people back to its country, why was a special status given to Palestinians as opposed to any other refugee? Why do they insist on denying Palestinians the ability to live in other countries and stop being refugees? If a Sudanese escapes his war-torn country and finds itself in Greece, is he kept in camps,denied citizenship and basic rights and services until the Sudanese government agrees to take him back?

"Continuously evicting thousands of Palestinians from Jerusalem." - Jerusalem, as 'the city', or its vicinity? As far as I'm concerned, there is no organized Israeli plan or action to evict Palestinians from Jerusalem. Had there been one it would have already been empty of Muslims by now.

"Enforcing disruptive blockades and barriers crippling the Palestinians possibilities of improving there economy." - Do you mean the blockade on Gaza or the checkpoints in the west bank? Gaza is understandable, as I have explained earlier. The civilian population supports Hamas and Hamas reigns over it. The problems in the west bank are profound - it's suffering from the economic collapse of 2008, as aid is dwindling over the years and their economy is slowing down. Blaming the Jews is just fine when you can't take responsibility for your own economy that can't sustain itself and needs aid from outside. When the aid drys out, there's nothing you can do.

"Denying Palestinians the right to a trial while keeping thousand arrested indefinitely(or just killing them). " - Yep. There is a name for that, Administrative detention. Other countries do it as well.
From the article:

Unlike criminal incarceration (imprisonment) imposed upon on conviction following a trial, administrative detention is a forward-looking mechanism. While criminal proceedings have a retrospective focus - they seek to determine whether a defendant committed an offense in the past - the reasoning behind administrative detention often is based upon contentions that the suspect is likely to pose a threat in the future. It is meant to be preventive in nature rather than punitive (see preventive detention). The practice has been criticized by human rights organizations as a breach of civil and political rights.

"Continued settlement of the west bank-now taking steps to split it in two, making it impossible to create a Palestinian state there." - The E1 area between East Jerusalem and the settlement of Ma'ale Adumim is an area where a road connects the north part of the Palestinian controlled west bank and the southern part of the Palestinian controlled west bank. Palestine is already divided, with Gaza and the West bank standing separated by Israeli territory, yet this haven't been presented as an obstacle for peace as much as this step was.
The building in this area was postponed since 2004 because of requests by the EU and the USA to try and facilitate a long-lasting peace deal between Israel and the PLO. After the PLO unilaterally announced itself a country with the '49 armistice borders, east Jerusalem as its capital and Palestinian refugees returning to Israel, Israel made this step in response. A unilateral decision is answered by another one, yet only Israel is criticized for "stifling peace" for its actions while the Palestinian declaration isn't. The building in E1 was only announced. It can be a political stunt, but I'm not sure about that. This is a sign by Israel, signalling them that Jerusalem will not be divided for them by building in this area that will stop a Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital.
It does not cut the west bank in half. There are other areas eastward that connect the two, and a network of roads can be made there. It's simply underdeveloped at the moment.

"And now we can add the theft of money from the Palestinian people to that considering their refusal to hand over the Palestinians taxes." - Bullshit. This is the money Israel collects on behalf of the PLO for its exports that it moves through Israel's ports. The PLO also uses the trading agreements Israel has with a large part of the world, that give its produce favorable conditions in the EU and USA (recently also Latin America). The PLO owes a large debt to the Israeli electrical company, it's a government owned corporation that is the sole provider of electricity in Israel. Had it not been for Israel's business, there would have been much less electricity in the west bank, which would stifle its economic growth significantly. Since it's good business, the company trades with the PLO, but it had accumulated a debt over time with the company. Israel not takes the taxes it collected on behalf of the PLO and uses it to pay for its debt to the Israeli electrical company.
Hey, if you've had a bank account which was overdrawn and you finally got your paycheck, would you be outraged that some of your money was used to pay for your debt?

Like I said earlier: "Israel's violations aren't ignored - they're mostly made up. ".

Champthrax:

The vast majority of UN resolution and reports condemn Israel, and they give Palestinians only passing mentions or the equivalent of "oh you scamps", whereas Israel gets condemned more than every other country. It is a farce that Israel gets condemned more than some of the most despotic regimes in the world, and in my mind showcases the UNs dysfunction and ineptitude.

There are two issues here.

Firstly, there's the political aspect that a lot more countries are in some way opposed to Israel than for it. This is often not antipathy towards Israel per se, but opposition to the West generally. It's a simple way of reacting against Israel's allies (chiefly the USA). Another strong factor is memory of colonialism: it is easy for many in the developing world to view Israel as a European colony built at the expense of the natives; so as they fought for independence from the West, so they feel some kinship with the Palestinians doing the same.

Secondly, because the UN works at the level of international dealings and minimal interference in internal national politics.
Thus if a tyrant or junta wishes to brutalise their own population, it's generally just not much within the remit of the UN. However, as Israel is not recognised to own the West Bank and Gaza, it is effectively an international matter rather than Israel's internal politics.

Schizocorpse:

Gashad:
Ultimately it bogs down to Palestinian crimes are often done by a small group of people,

That small group of people was voted into power by the Palestinian people and enjoys the support of the majority of the Muslim world. They are also now somewhat of a state considering the appeal to the UN recently, and thus should bear the exact same responsibility and accountability. Guess what? They won't, because the UN is biased as fuck, and they can get away with anything.

Given, the same goes for Israel because no-one will (nor should they) step in. The ball imo really does lie with the Palestinian people and rejecting the extremists they embraced.

You're confusing Hamas with the PLO.

Since someone else kinda nailed it earlier, I'm going to re-quote his post.

Shaoken:

Let's see here:

* One of these entities is an actual country with a legally recognised government.
* The other is a group of terrorists not legally recognised by much of the world as being a legitimate governing body.

So you're complaining that the international body governing countries is condemning a country while ignoring an illegal entity that has no formal recognition by said body?

Bureaucracy \o/

Resolutions passed against Palestine can't do anything because Palestine is not a member of the bundle of international treaties that is the UN.

I emphasise the "inter" part to show why the UN puts ridiculous people on things like human rights councils. It's also procedure: every state gets a turn eventually on all councils. That's just how the machine works- it's not some anti-Jewish conspiracy.

Zionism being labelled racist isn't just a political ploy to get at the USA- although it may well be that as well (I have no idea where that propaganda video gets its information from). Even looking just at wikipedia citations, there's a body of work to support the view. I know that when I heard about it when I was small I instantly thought it was racist without any outside influence. It struck me as very peculiar.

Durban was the re-statement of an earlier resolution that meant that Israel was considered racist back in 1975, along with South Africa and Zimbabwe.

Agema:

Champthrax:

The vast majority of UN resolution and reports condemn Israel, and they give Palestinians only passing mentions or the equivalent of "oh you scamps", whereas Israel gets condemned more than every other country. It is a farce that Israel gets condemned more than some of the most despotic regimes in the world, and in my mind showcases the UNs dysfunction and ineptitude.

There are two issues here.

Firstly, there's the political aspect that a lot more countries are in some way opposed to Israel than for it. This is often not antipathy towards Israel per se, but opposition to the West generally. It's a simple way of reacting against Israel's allies (chiefly the USA). Another strong factor is memory of colonialism: it is easy for many in the developing world to view Israel as a European colony built at the expense of the natives; so as they fought for independence from the West, so they feel some kinship with the Palestinians doing the same.

Secondly, because the UN works at the level of international dealings and minimal interference in internal national politics.
Thus if a tyrant or junta wishes to brutalise their own population, it's generally just not much within the remit of the UN. However, as Israel is not recognised to own the West Bank and Gaza, it is effectively an international matter rather than Israel's internal politics.

.
Again with the "UN is responsible for Palestine" deal. I think I've explained to you earlier how that makes little sense.

It's because of Spiderman.

The United Nations condemns Israeli military excesses more often than they condemn Palestinian terrorist operations for the simple reason that the IDF is the dominant partner in this particular relationship. As a nation-state with an established and organised military and an envious win record, they hold all the power. Consequently, they're subjected to a greater standard of responsibility. They're expected to refrain from rolling tanks up the Gaza Strip precisely because they could turn it to glass in a week with minimal effort.

The fact that Israeli reprisals typically inflict massively disproportionate casualties to the terrorist attacks they're responding to is a prime example of why you shouldn't break the Uncle Ben Rule. Because the UN knows what's up, you get this double standard where Palestinian terrorists are whitewashed and Israeli human rights violations are condemned. They're expected to do better than the Palestinians because they're capable of doing so much worse.

Gashad:
There are rules concerning the actions of states-Israel routinely breaks most of these-

Such as....?

And for god sakes don't bring up something like 'colonising land', I'd hate to have to rewind the same old explanation about how international law is rather outdated and allows you to do pretty much anything to anyone, pull major dickmoves, unless it's against a universally recognized sovereign state.

Gashad:
Furthermore Israel is far more powerful then Palestine and tends to abuse its superiority to pretty much do and take what it wishes

It looks a lot like basic security and peace on their own terms are what Israel wants, and unilaterally strives for despite the Palestinian refusal to negotiate about anything.

I don't see anything wrong with that. You can't fault the motives nor most of the methods.

Danny Ocean:
You're confusing Hamas with the PLO.

The PLO? What's that? Wasn't that a bunch of family clans working together to pocket as much UN subsidies and Israel tax allowances as they could, while occasionally shouting something vague about wanting land back? I remember vaguely something about a dude belonging to that faction dying, leaving a widow in a monumental property in the middle of Paris with billions of dollars to spend on luxury.

So what does this PLO hedgefund-like thingie have to do with the conflict between the Palestinians and Israel? I mean, I'm sure the PLO fund offer great returns for your money considering how much free money they've been attracting and slushfunding, I should probably open an account there myself and get filthy rich, but I don't see their relevance to this conflict?

TheIronRuler:

Again with the "UN is responsible for Palestine" deal. I think I've explained to you earlier how that makes little sense.

You can explain anything you like. It doesn't mean that I have to agree with you or that you are right.

Given the amount of time the UN spends on Israel/Palestine, it certainly seems to me that the UN itself believes it has some sort of relevant opinion, particularly on international law.

Agema:

TheIronRuler:

Again with the "UN is responsible for Palestine" deal. I think I've explained to you earlier how that makes little sense.

You can explain anything you like. It doesn't mean that I have to agree with you or that you are right.

Given the amount of time the UN spends on Israel/Palestine, it certainly seems to me that the UN itself believes it has some sort of relevant opinion, particularly on international law.

.
You said I was correct, if I recall.

The time the UN spends on Israel alone shows that a quarter of the world simply can't deal with Israel existing, that's why.

I guess I don't understand all of this "international law" stuff. Hitler's genocide of the Jews was perfectly legal. Slavery was legal. Jim Crow was legal.

Jews have said that they will not allow people to say good things about them over their graves. "Never Again". I think we need to be concerned with, what needs to happen?

The Palestinians are Arab Muslims. There are over a dozen Arab Muslim nations. Some, like Iran, kicked hundreds of thousands of Jews off property they were born upon. Sad, violent world.

Like India and Pakistan, I worry that the Jews of Israel and the Muslims of Gaza and the West Bank cannot live together and need to be separated for their own safety. The Arab Muslims of Gaza and the West Bank have over a dozen countries they can go to as Arab Muslims. The Jews of Israel: No Other.

If Jews are not going to be murdered and have the land they often purchased at 10 times its value, were born upon and developed, stolen from them, we need to side with them. They may all be dead men walking anyway, but I'd like to have sided with the angels.

What really gets me about the conflict are the people suffering and dying over whose imaginary friend is more "real".

Blablahb:

Danny Ocean:
You're confusing Hamas with the PLO.

The PLO? What's that? Wasn't that a bunch of family clans working together to pocket as much UN subsidies and Israel tax allowances as they could, while occasionally shouting something vague about wanting land back? I remember vaguely something about a dude belonging to that faction dying, leaving a widow in a monumental property in the middle of Paris with billions of dollars to spend on luxury.

So what does this PLO hedgefund-like thingie have to do with the conflict between the Palestinians and Israel? I mean, I'm sure the PLO fund offer great returns for your money considering how much free money they've been attracting and slushfunding, I should probably open an account there myself and get filthy rich, but I don't see their relevance to this conflict?

Can you go a single discussion about this without being belligerent in conversation? Just be calm, for god sake. I've struck through everything that didn't need to be said to show you how much fluff I perceive you to be typing.

Whether you like them or not, the PLO are the group that recently had their status elevated at the UN to non-member observer status, and as such come the closest to being recognized as a country. Hell, that pretty much recognizes their sovereignty, but doesn't involve them in the international agreements that protect it. Quoting the earlier post:

That small group of people was voted into power by the Palestinian people and enjoys the support of the majority of the Muslim world. They are also now somewhat of a state considering the appeal to the UN recently, and thus should bear the exact same responsibility and accountability.

I assumed that by "That small group of people" who commit most of the "crimes"(see post), he meant Hamas, seeing as they're the ones who keep attacking Israel out of the Gaza strip.

He then says that they are somewhat of a state given the appeal to the UN. The appeal to the UN was made by the PNA on behalf of the PLO, and not Hamas, this claim is incorrect. It results from a conflation of the more legitimate Palestinian governments outside the Gaza strip with Hamas inside the Gaza strip. That's what they have to do with this conflict.

Gorfias:
The Arab Muslims of Gaza and the West Bank have over a dozen countries they can go to as Arab Muslims. The Jews of Israel: No Other.

BULLSHIT


USA, UK, France, Germany, Belgium, Holland, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Iceland, Ireland, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Switzerland, Canada, Brazil, Argentina, Australia, India, Japan, S.Korea, and probably more.

They are not backed into a corner with no-where to go, they deliberately put themselves in that location. That was the whole point. There's plenty of places those individuals could migrate to, but they persist out of ideological conviction.

By the way, you sound like a proper demagogue-- Look at your rhetoric in the next paragraph!

If Jews are not going to be murdered and have the land they often purchased at 10 times its value, were born upon and developed, stolen from them, we need to side with them. They may all be dead men walking anyway, but I'd like to have sided with the angels.

Emphasis mine. Italics and bold highlight what's probably unintentional rhetoric fueled by your emotion, underlines represent what must have been conscious decisions. The red bit is just ridiculous.

wut, Gorfias? Does this mean Arab Muslims are Demons? Do you realize how this sounds? It's like you're in some kind of alternate reality!

If you don't redact, clarify, or justify that last bit of emotive language you'll end up looking absolutely fucking delusional.

Gorfias:
I guess I don't understand all of this "international law" stuff. Hitler's genocide of the Jews was perfectly legal. Slavery was legal. Jim Crow was legal.

The holocaust was not legal-- loads of high-up Nazis were prosecuted for war crimes at the Nuremberg hearings.

Slavery occurred at a time before international law even existed-- it only really became a thing after the first world war.

Jim Crow was a domestic policy of some parts of the USA.

Don't try and misrepresent it just because you disagree with how it's used to condemn Israel.

It's not complicated. The clue is in the name. If the action takes place inter (between) nationally (states) it is subject to international law, not national (local) laws.

itsthesheppy:
What really gets me about the conflict are the people suffering and dying over whose imaginary friend is more "real".

.
Tell that to the atheists on both sides.

I'm an Israeli and I'm an atheist. I still support my country. What do you have to say about tat?

Danny Ocean:

-snip-

.
I think he was talking about this:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4007251.stm

Do note that this is old - it refers to the PLO under Arafat.

TheIronRuler:

itsthesheppy:
What really gets me about the conflict are the people suffering and dying over whose imaginary friend is more "real".

.
Tell that to the atheists on both sides.

I'm an Israeli and I'm an atheist. I still support my country. What do you have to say about tat?

What do I say about that? I say I'm sorry your country is a tango partner in a rocks-for-brains stupid tribal conflict borne out of religious stupidity that's been going on for hundreds of years, and which seems primed to continue for hundreds more, for as long as both sides think that a creator of the universe has them specially in mind, and cares about what tracts of land in some rocky landscape they live on.

TheIronRuler:
You said I was correct, if I recall.

I said you were correct on something else. With regard to this, I said that I had not made myself clear and you had consequently misunderstood. I don't actually think our differences were more than a few shades of grey.

The time the UN spends on Israel alone shows that a quarter of the world simply can't deal with Israel existing, that's why.

Most of the world has no problem with Israel existing. Bar a couple of exceptions (like Iran), even those largely hostile to Israel accept its existence as an irreversible fait accompli that is not going to be undone.

They have a problem with what they perceive as the immoral oppression of Palestinians and denial of their full independence.

 Pages 1 2 3 4 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked