Get Used to It: Israel Is Here to Stay

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, Billo_Really, toastman, et al,

I hear the complaint, but I don't see substance.

I might have misunderstood your original post.

You're saying that when the Zionists arrived to Mandatory Palestine, that they automatically had more right then the Palestinian Arabs ?

I'm saying the opposite of that. That they didn't have more rights than Palestinian Arabs who were already living there. And for that matter, they didn't have more rights than Palestinian Jews who were already living there.

I don't know what so confusing about this very simple principle? If you moved into a neighborhood, would you think you had more rights than the current homeowners in said neighborhood?

Indeed, the Zionists violated the rights of the native Jews.

(QUESTION)

What rights are being trampled?
What specific rights are we talking about?

v/r
R

 

[Kondor3]

"..."

Your 'defense' of the Soviet Union's grab for territory - and it being allowed, post-WWII, to retain its conquests via subterfuge and subversion - by saying that the land was seized during WWII, is on legal ice as thin as that on which the Israelis stand.

A solid case can be made that the Soviets capitalized upon their conquests after June 1945 (when the UN Charter was signed) in violation of the land-grab provisions of the UN Charter and in violation of their trusteeship of lands liberated from German occupation.

But that would get us too far off-topic; we can have at that, another time.

----------

Yes... all of those examples I gave (Argentina, Vietnam, etc.) were illegal, but only a couple of them triggered a UN response.

The UN left the rest to fend for themselves; including instance(s) of civil war.

My point is, the UN enforces that Law very arbitrarily and inconsistently.

----------

"...It's not a 'farcical Prohibition', it's the basic principle of international law. Have you ever heard of the Nuremburg Principles?..."

If a 'prohibition' is enforced sporadically, arbitrarily and inconsistently, then, it's a farce; I don't much care how 'foundational' the principle is, nor what label gets hung on it.

"...There's nothing wrong with that, as long as it's done respecting the inalienable rights of the indigenous population of arabs living in that area for generations..."

There's nothing wrong with that ( the Jews carving-out their own homeland ) so long...?

For all practical purposes, it was impossible for the Jews to carve-out their own homeland without setting aside the land-ownership right of many native Muslim-Arab Palestinians.

The Jews believe they hold a Prior Claim to the Land and they took matters into their own hands in pursuit of that claim.

They pursued that claim on the battlefield and were successful.

The UN accepted this fiat accompli in its recognition of the State of Israel.

All of the post facto side-chatter by the UN about the rights of Palestinians have proven to be just that; side-chatter, background noise that failed to yield what it was intended to.

We are now long-since past that.

You are entirely correct in your analysis of former legal status and violations.

However, victory on the battlefield, failure to intervene decades ago while there was still time, and subsequent events and custom and usage and possession, have all served to negate those old status and violations, sufficient to render them inoperative and un-enforceable.

Translation: they no longer matter enough to excite the imagination of the world or to trigger a UN interventional response to belatedly enforce old status and understandings and sanctions. They no longer matter.

"...I'm sorry, but it's not 'considered' a civil war..."

A solid case can be made that it is exactly that; a war between indigenous population elements; reinforced by outsiders on both sides; a state of affairs in which the outsiders on one side (Israel) decided to remain in-place and to reside within, after their initial victories.

"...It is legally defined as a belligerent 'occupation'..."

Given that the UN is largely a Toothless Old Ladies Debating Society with respect to both Israel and a great many other troubles that disturb the peace, I don't think that the UN's anti-Israel -bias -based classification is causing the Israelis to lose much sleep.

For our purposes here, Israel's turning-over to the Palestinians' own militias and police, of the peacekeeping within both the West Bank and Gaza, serve to largely set aside the UN's classification; in large part, if not entirely.

"...A war is between two opposing army's..."

Or between an Army and an Organized Resistance Movement.

"...In the case of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, you have on one side, the most militarized country on the planet and on the other, an entire population of people that are not even allowed to have weapons to defend themselves..."

We have, on one hand, the IDF, and, on the other hand, the Palestinian militias (Hamas, Hezbollah, Fatah) - their Oragnized Resistance Movement(s).

"...I'm sorry, it doesn't work that way. IHL treats war crimes, as separate entities from all other crimes. They did this deliberately so no one can say, 'I'm just doing what he did! He got away with it, why can't I?' Crimes against humanity, are unacceptable at any time, by any one, for any reason. Period. There is no derrogoration for this..."

You seem to be operating under the impression that the ICC or other authority is going to effectively prosecute Israel for IHL violations. The Israelis themselves are sufficiently adept at wrapping their actions in a cloak of marginal compliance and the US and other Western friends give them sufficient political cover to ensure that such efforts will be ineffective.

"...So you're saying "your side", is against 'consistant treatment'?..."

Nope. I'm saying that the UN and other international bodies have already created a track record of lax and arbitrary and inconsistent enforcement and that the Israelis and their friends merely need to point to that track record in order to derail such efforts against Israel before they gain sufficient traction so as to allow such enforcement against them. Even if you're right, it doesn't really matter. Nothing is going to come of it.

"...You do realize all that talk of a 'chosen' people, is bullshit, don't you?..."

Personally, I've never put much stock in that; thinking, instead, that if there IS a God, and if that God ever conveyed such an idea (the Jews being a Chosen People), that that Choice was probably merely a Choice to introduce Monotheism to the Peoples of the Mediterranean Basin and Europe, rather than a Choice to make them Masters of the Planet.

"...Everyone is equal in the eyes of God. Including the Pals..."

True. And, insofar as the Israelis are concerned, those Palestinians can live as Equal Children of God, in some place other than the newly-restored Jewish Homeland.

"...Well, they way you're carving out that homeland, is by shitting on the memory of all those who perished during the Holocaust..."

Disagree. Reasoning follows, below.

"...Because IHL, the United Nations, Nuremburg Principles and subsequent Geneva Conventions, have all been written and created to prevent another Holocaust..."

Nonsense. The Jews have suffered thousands of years of persecution at the hands of Christians, Muslims and Pagans, and have been 'protected' by dozens of Treaties and Assurances and Declarations and policies over time, only to be ultimately betrayed.

None of those were created to prevent another Holocaust, but for the preservation of the general peace of the world, with the Jews as collateral beneficiaries here-and-there.

"...So when you violate them, you are compromising their intent and making the lives of all Holocaust victims, to have died in vain."

Only within the realm of self-serving sophistry.

In truth, could we conjure the shades or spirits of the Holocaust Dead, and bring them up to speed on the existence and history of the State of Israel and the Jewish-Muslim conflict, and then ask them whether aggressive pursuit of a Jewish Homeland somehow diminished their memory and their sacrifice, I am guessing that the average Holocaust Shade would say something more akin to:

"Remember the songs we sang on the way to the gas chambers? 'Next year in Jerusalem'? The only way our lives and sacrifice would be wasted and the only way in which you would insult our memory is by allowing Eretz Yisrael to fall again. Stay on course, Remain strong. We are watching you, we are with you, and we bless you."

But someone with a greater stake in the Jewish/Israeli perspective may be able to do a better job of this than I just did.

IMHO.

 

[toastman]

I might have misunderstood your original post.

You're saying that when the Zionists arrived to Mandatory Palestine, that they automatically had more right then the Palestinian Arabs ?

I'm saying the opposite of that. That they didn't have more rights than Palestinian Arabs who were already living there. And for that matter, they didn't have more rights than Palestinian Jews who were already living there.

I don't know what so confusing about this very simple principle? If you moved into a neighborhood, would you think you had more rights than the current homeowners in said neighborhood?

Indeed, the Zionists violated the rights of the native Jews.

More nonsense claims without backing them up. Typical Tinnie Talk.

It has a ring to it !

Typical Tinnie Talk

 

[toastman]

I might have misunderstood your original post.

You're saying that when the Zionists arrived to Mandatory Palestine, that they automatically had more right then the Palestinian Arabs ?

I'm saying the opposite of that. That they didn't have more rights than Palestinian Arabs who were already living there. And for that matter, they didn't have more rights than Palestinian Jews who were already living there.

I don't know what so confusing about this very simple principle? If you moved into a neighborhood, would you think you had more rights than the current homeowners in said neighborhood?

But that IS what you're saying !!

You claim that when the Zionist immigrated there, that they had more rights then the natives , but that they shouldn't have had.

 

[PrometheusBound]

"...It probably all belongs to the Kurds because Saladin took Jerusalem from the Crusaders."

Belongs to the Kurds? No whey!

They have just as much claim to the land of Solomon and Jesus as any other Muzzies have.

 

[Billo_Really]

But that IS what you're saying !!

You claim that when the Zionist immigrated there, that they had more rights then the natives , but that they shouldn't have had.

That's not what I'm saying. I haven't said in any way, they had more rights than the indigenous population, whether that be arab or jew. I'm saying they "acted" like they did and everyone who defends them "acts" like they did, but the reality is, they didn't.

It's not that they "shouldn't" have; it's that they "didn't" have.

You can claim all you want that they "did" have, I have no problem with that. But at least be honest about my position. Don't twist it into something I didn't say. There's nothing wrong with saying, "I understand your position, I just don't agree with it".

But to say, I said they had more rights, is just not true.

 

[toastman]

But that IS what you're saying !!

You claim that when the Zionist immigrated there, that they had more rights then the natives , but that they shouldn't have had.

That's not what I'm saying. I haven't said in any way, they had more rights than the indigenous population, whether that be arab or jew. I'm saying they "acted" like they did and everyone who defends them "acts" like they did, but the reality is, they didn't.

It's not that they "shouldn't" have; it's that they "didn't" have.

You can claim all you want that they "did" have, I have no problem with that. But at least be honest about my position. Don't twist it into something I didn't say. There's nothing wrong with saying, "I understand your position, I just don't agree with it".

But to say, I said they had more rights, is just not true.

But I'm not twisting what you're saying, I just misunderstood what you said in your post "You cannot move into a place and AUTOMATICALLY have more rights than the natives"

Anyway, this post clarified your position, I got it now.

 

[Billo_Really]

What rights are being trampled?
What specific rights are we talking about?

When zionists stood up in 1948 and declared Israel a "jewish state", it automatically disenfranchised all the indigenous arabs living in that area and denied them their inalienable right to self-determination.

 

[toastman]

What rights are being trampled?
What specific rights are we talking about?

When zionists stood up in 1948 and declared Israel a "jewish state", it automatically disenfranchised all the indigenous arabs living in that area and denied them their inalienable right to self-determination.

Read Tinmores post again that Rocco quoted

 

[PrometheusBound]

I don't recall that ever being the case before Israel declared Independence

What do you think created all the hostility?

People don't get mad for no reason!

The Arabs don't need any reason. Like snakes and sharks, they are born bloodthirsty. Get rid of the Jews and their addiction to violence will drive them into sectarian violence. Let one sect win and the desert bandits will go tribe against tribe or invade their Arab neighbors. This is their history, this is their DNA.

 

[PrometheusBound]

I don't recall that ever being the case before Israel declared Independence

What do you think created all the hostility?

People don't get mad for no reason!

I might have misunderstood your original post.

You're saying that when the Zionists arrived to Mandatory Palestine, that they automatically had more right then the Palestinian Arabs ?

The Arabs had forfeited their rights by not taking their homeland back from the Turks, perhaps because it was never a homeland but a pit stop for desert nomads. The British owned the land after ending the 600-year Turkish-led jihad. They had the right because of their sacrifice for Western Civilization and gave the practically barren territory to the Zionists as a decoy against the next jihad, which erupted with the Arab Oil Embargo of 1973.

 

[PrometheusBound]

I don't recall that ever being the case before Israel declared Independence

What do you think created all the hostility?

People don't get mad for no reason!

I've heard that sort of argument before: "The Jews must be really bad people, otherwise the Germans would not have wanted to kill them all." It never worked with me.

People do get mad for any reason and no reason. Particularly Muslims. Many went mad with rage because a writer called Salman Rushdie wrote a book they didn't like.

Don't forget those killer Danish cartoons they massacred dozens over!

 

[Billo_Really]

Your 'defense' of the Soviet Union's grab for territory - and it being allowed, post-WWII, to retain its conquests via subterfuge and subversion - by saying that the land was seized during WWII, is on legal ice as thin as that on which the Israelis stand.

A solid case can be made that the Soviets capitalized upon their conquests after June 1945 (when the UN Charter was signed) in violation of the land-grab provisions of the UN Charter and in violation of their trusteeship of lands liberated from German occupation.

But that would get us too far off-topic; we can have at that, another time.

I wasn't defending their actions. I was saying that occured prior to the creation of the UN and IHL.

Yes... all of those examples I gave (Argentina, Vietnam, etc.) were illegal, but only a couple of them triggered a UN response.

The UN left the rest to fend for themselves; including instance(s) of civil war.

My point is, the UN enforces that Law very arbitrarily and inconsistently.

That's because member states refuse to honor their "word", when they are an "interested party" of a particular issue.

But that doesn't negate the law.

If a 'prohibition' is enforced sporadically, arbitrarily and inconsistently, then, it's a farce; I don't much care how 'foundational' the principle is, nor what label gets hung on it.

How convenient.

There's nothing wrong with that ( the Jews carving-out their own homeland ) so long...?

For all practical purposes, it was impossible for the Jews to carve-out their own homeland without setting aside the land-ownership right of many native Muslim-Arab Palestinians.

Yes it was. And they certainly didn't have to treat the arabs like garbage.

The Jews believe they hold a Prior Claim to the Land and they took matters into their own hands in pursuit of that claim.

What happened 2000 years ago, don't mean shit today.

They pursued that claim on the battlefield and were successful.

The UN accepted this fiat accompli in its recognition of the State of Israel.

All of the post facto side-chatter by the UN about the rights of Palestinians have proven to be just that; side-chatter, background noise that failed to yield what it was intended to.

We are now long-since past that.

Let me get this straight, it's okay to point to the UN when they "recognize" Israel, but it's not okay to point to the UN when they "recognize" the Palestinian's? One is an acceptance of "this fiat accompli", the other is just mere "chatter"?

You are entirely correct in your analysis of former legal status and violations.

It's not former.

However, victory on the battlefield, failure to intervene decades ago while there was still time, and subsequent events and custom and usage and possession, have all served to negate those old status and violations, sufficient to render them inoperative and un-enforceable.

They're not negated, they're just not respected.

Translation: they no longer matter enough to excite the imagination of the world or to trigger a UN interventional response to belatedly enforce old status and understandings and sanctions. They no longer matter.

Not yet.

A solid case can be made that it is exactly that; a war between indigenous population elements; reinforced by outsiders on both sides; a state of affairs in which the outsiders on one side (Israel) decided to remain in-place and to reside within, after their initial victories.

The occupation, is not a debatable issue.

Given that the UN is largely a Toothless Old Ladies Debating Society with respect to both Israel and a great many other troubles that disturb the peace, I don't think that the UN's anti-Israel -bias -based classification is causing the Israelis to lose much sleep.

Your personal opinion of the UN has nothing to do with IHL.

For our purposes here, Israel's turning-over to the Palestinians' own militias and police, of the peacekeeping within both the West Bank and Gaza, serve to largely set aside the UN's classification; in large part, if not entirely.

There's no "turning-over" of anything, it's not Israel's decision to make. They just need to get the fuck off land that isn't there's. They'll either do that willingly, or eventually be forced to. Just like Poland.

Or between an Army and an Organized Resistance Movement.

Resistance to a occupational force, is not a war.

We have, on one hand, the IDF, and, on the other hand, the Palestinian militias (Hamas, Hezbollah, Fatah) - their Oragnized Resistance Movement(s).

Hezbollah is in Lebanon and Fatah is an Israeli bitch organization.

You seem to be operating under the impression that the ICC or other authority is going to effectively prosecute Israel for IHL violations. The Israelis themselves are sufficiently adept at wrapping their actions in a cloak of marginal compliance and the US and other Western friends give them sufficient political cover to ensure that such efforts will be ineffective.

That's irrelevant. Israel agreed to honor the UN Charter when it became a member, but their word doesn't mean shit. They don't walk their talk.

Nope. I'm saying that the UN and other international bodies have already created a track record of lax and arbitrary and inconsistent enforcement and that the Israelis and their friends merely need to point to that track record in order to derail such efforts against Israel before they gain sufficient traction so as to allow such enforcement against them. Even if you're right, it doesn't really matter. Nothing is going to come of it.

Whether something comes from it or not, doesn't change the illegality of the act.

True. And, insofar as the Israelis are concerned, those Palestinians can live as Equal Children of God, in some place other than the newly-restored Jewish Homeland.

That's called "ethnic cleansing". 60 years ago, they called it the "final solution".

Nonsense. The Jews have suffered thousands of years of persecution at the hands of Christians, Muslims and Pagans, and have been 'protected' by dozens of Treaties and Assurances and Declarations and policies over time, only to be ultimately betrayed.

None of those were created to prevent another Holocaust, but for the preservation of the general peace of the world, with the Jews as collateral beneficiaries here-and-there.

"Aggression" is defined in the Nuremburg Principles as the highest crime a nation can commit, because it has the collective evil of all the rest. That includes the factors that led to the Holocaust.

Only within the realm of self-serving sophistry.

In truth, could we conjure the shades or spirits of the Holocaust Dead, and bring them up to speed on the existence and history of the State of Israel and the Jewish-Muslim conflict, and then ask them whether aggressive pursuit of a Jewish Homeland somehow diminished their memory and their sacrifice, I am guessing that the average Holocaust Shade would say something more akin to:

"Remember the songs we sang on the way to the gas chambers? 'Next year in Jerusalem'? The only way our lives and sacrifice would be wasted and the only way in which you would insult our memory is by allowing Eretz Yisrael to fall again. Stay on course, Remain strong. We are watching you, we are with you, and we bless you."

But someone with a greater stake in the Jewish/Israeli perspective may be able to do a better job of this than I just did.

IMHO.

If you could conjure up all those Holocaust victims, they would say to you, "Why are you treating the Palestinian's, like the nazis treated us?"

"You demonize them at every turn"
"You enact laws that make them 2nd class citizens"
"You think nothing of bulldozing their homes, fields and businesses"
"You lock up thousands who've committed no crimes"
"You blame them for all your problems"​

"It was wrong when the nazis did that to us, it's still wrong for you to do that to them".

That's what they'd say!

 

[PrometheusBound]

The UN is a petting zoo for decadent Hate Whitey multiculties. The League of Nations proved that such an organization never should have been formed.

Israel doesn't owe its existence to the illegitimate UN. It owes its existence to the British Mandate and the will, intelligence, and bravery of the Zionists who forced the resurgent Appeasement Generation of British leaders to honor the promise made by the Churchill Generation.

 

[Billo_Really]

The UN is a petting zoo for decadent Hate Whitey multiculties. The League of Nations proved that such an organization never should have been formed.

Israel doesn't owe its existence to the illegitimate UN. It owes its existence to the British Mandate and the will, intelligence, and bravery of the Zionists who forced the resurgent Appeasement Generation of British leaders to honor the promise made by the Churchill Generation.

Are you aware that the League of Nations transferred all its authority (which includes the Mandate) over to the UN?

And did you also know that the Mandate had a caveat that zionists could have a jewish homeland in Palestine, as long as they didn't compromise the rights of all the non-jews living in the area?

 

[RoccoR]

et al,

OK, old man syndrome! Where are we now? What's the allegation?

v/r
R

 

[toastman]

et al,

OK, old man syndrome! Where are we now? What's the allegation?

v/r
R

Seems like we're back in 1948 again, discussing the legality and morality of the Jews declaring Independence and blaming everything negative that happened to the Palestinian Arabs on Israel

 

[Billo_Really]

et al,

OK, old man syndrome!

I don't know what the fuck that means.

Where are we now?

Same place we were 47 years ago with an illegal occupation that needs to end. There's nothing to negotiate, nothing to agree on, just get your occupational forces and all those settler insurgents and completely vacate the Golan Heights, Gaza, West Bank and East Jerusalem. That's the only option on the table.

I would think after almost a half-century with no country on the planet recognizing Israel's right to that land, it would be obvious. Israel needs to catch the clue, it is not your land and it never will be your land.

What's the allegation?

Israel is in violation of international law and doesn't give a damn about human rights.

 

[Kondor3]

"...

Where are we now?

Same place we were 47 years ago with an illegal occupation that needs to end. There's nothing to negotiate, nothing to agree on, just get your occupational forces and all those settler insurgents and completely vacate the Golan Heights, Gaza, West Bank and East Jerusalem. That's the only option on the table..."

No.

That's the only answer on the table.

No surrender of the Golan.

No surrender of Jerusalem.

No surrender of the West Bank (beyond some minor and interim concessions on local autonomy).

No surrender of Gaza (beyond some minor and interim concessions on local autonomy).

Don't like that answer?

Then you must come and take them back by force of arms, if you can.

(one US-sponsored Security Council Veto on Intervention comin' right up)

(one US military intervention to aid Israel in case they start to lose, at US taxpayer expense [thank you for your contribution], sittin' on the back burner, already planned and warmed-up, ready to sortie)

Meanwhile, what's left of Rump Palestine continues to fragment and shrink, as a largely detached world continues to turn a blind eye, as it has throughout most of that timeframe.

Brave words and legal tom-fool-ery aside... the Battle for Palestine is long over... the Muslim-Arabs lost... the Israeli-Jews won.

 

[toastman]

et al,

OK, old man syndrome!

I don't know what the fuck that means.

Where are we now?

Same place we were 47 years ago with an illegal occupation that needs to end. There's nothing to negotiate, nothing to agree on, just get your occupational forces and all those settler insurgents and completely vacate the Golan Heights, Gaza, West Bank and East Jerusalem. That's the only option on the table.

I would think after almost a half-century with no country on the planet recognizing Israel's right to that land, it would be obvious. Israel needs to catch the clue, it is not your land and it never will be your land.

What's the allegation?

Israel is in violation of international law and doesn't give a damn about human rights.

LOL in what world are you living in ?

You really think the Israelis are going to surrender to the great nation of Palestine, and just pick up and leave ??