UN: Israel committed "Complete Massacre" and "the worst ever" in Gaza

[Sherlock Holmes]

Within the framework of international law as it pertains to all other countries, what would this look like? Examples: Americans are free to travel between Washington State and Alaska, but there is no legal obligation for Canada to provide access through its sovereign territory. Europeans and non-citizens are free to travel within the EU without border controls.

Or do you intend that Israel (or other countries) cede territory for this purpose?

Yes, there are UN resolutions to that effect, Israel could comply with them, it chooses not to, there is no reason for it to either because it is free to act with impunity because of the US, that's not an equitable state of affairs, to have legal means of correcting these injustices that are unenforced.

Borders are both legal and normal between nations. Why would this be different between Gaza and Israel?

Because the West Bank is land locked, the occupants of Gaza and the West Bank demand freedom of movement between the two isolated territorial regions. Nobody expects no border security, I can drive to Mexico for example from my home in Arizona, I can go back and forth, no need for explicit permission, there are a set of established checks that people must comply with and that's pretty much that.

Of course. Same as any other sovereign country.

Do you mean the refugees or the refugees and all of their descendants? The latter would be practically impossible. Would apply the same conditions to the Jewish people? All the refugees and all of their descendants?

Every illegal settlement should be vacated by the Israelis, every single one, as itemized in the relevant UN resolutions.

Of course. No violence, no blockade.

Of course. Same as any other sovereign country.

Certainly. Same as any other country.

I wasn't aware you were negotiating on behalf of Israel? you are presuming their agreement with all of these conditions.

I am using this hypothetical to demonstrate how ridiculously easy it is to solve this conflict.

Which is the exact opposite of reality. You need to factor in Israeli intransigence. Israel refuses to comply with a long list of UN resolutions. Israel continue to create new illegal settlements despite its illegality, they simply don't care. Israel long ago chose expansion over and above security. There's no pressure on Israel from any source on earth, they are protected from the law by the United States, they act with impunity, unaccountable, completely unaccountable. The only option to influence Israel seems to be terrorism, given the stalemate that is the UN today, I simply do not see any other option for the Palestinian people other than complete capitulation or just accept the current state of affairs and suffer in silence - would you do that? did the Jews do that in Warsaw during WW2?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Every illegal settlement should be vacated by the Israelis, every single one, as itemized in the relevant UN resolutions.

They aren't illegal. The UN has no authority.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

They aren't illegal. The UN has no authority.

The UN has authority over its member states, they accept that authority when they become UN members. That authority arises from the security council which has authority to enforce resolutions. This was the reason the United States and the other four victors of WW2 created the UN. That authority was used for example to forcibly expel Iraqi troops from Kuwait.

Were you truly not aware of all this?

 

[Man With A Plan]

View attachment 862700

Do you not get the difference between what happened in Germany and what's happening in the Middle East now? German Jews didn't slaughter over a thousand innocent German civilians like Hamas did in Israel. What Hitler and the Nazis did to Jews was genocide. What Hamas did in Israel was genocide as well. During WWII the Allies defeated the Nazis and in the process millions of civilians died. This is a military response by Israel itself because Israel had the military capacity to defend itself unlike German Jews during the 1930's and 40's.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The UN has authority over its member states, they accept that authority when they become UN members. That authority arises from the security council which has authority to enforce resolutions. This was the reason the United States and the other four victors of WW2 created the UN. That authority was used for example to forcibly expel Iraqi troops from Kuwait.

Were you truly not aware of all this?

The UN has authority over its member states,

There is no Palestine. There is no occupied Palestinian territory.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

The UN has authority over its member states,

There is no Palestine. There is no occupied Palestinian territory.

I thought you were arguing that the UN has no authority, now you want to talk about something else. Israel is a member of the UN and (like all members) is subject to it's authority.

Resolution 2334 was passed in 2016, it states that Israel's settlements are a "flagrant violation" of international law and have no "legal validity". The United States did not veto this resolution, so it was passed. Therefore the highest authority has spoken and Israel is in violation of international law, that's not arguable, it's a statement of fact.

Why not read it, here it is: Resolution 2334 (2016)

Israel is a rogue state.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Do you not get the difference between what happened in Germany and what's happening in the Middle East now? German Jews didn't slaughter over a thousand innocent German civilians like Hamas did in Israel. What Hitler and the Nazis did to Jews was genocide. What Hamas did in Israel was genocide as well. During WWII the Allies defeated the Nazis and in the process millions of civilians died. This is a military response by Israel itself because Israel had the military capacity to defend itself unlike German Jews during the 1930's and 40's.

It's instructive to look at similarities between Israel and the former Third Reich, they have some important characteristics in common.

But as to the Nazis, technically they did not commit genocide, there was no such law at the time. They did what the United States had done in the past, namely seize territory and expel the existing population and commit mass murder to reduce their numbers and establish a slave labor workforce, this is well known Hitler modelled all this using the United States as his example.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I thought you were arguing that the UN has no authority, now you want to talk about something else. Israel is a member of the UN and (like all members) is subject to it's authority.

Resolution 2334 was passed in 2016, it states that Israel's settlements are a "flagrant violation" of international law and have no "legal validity". The United States did not veto this resolution, so it was passed. Therefore the highest authority has spoken and Israel is in violation of international law, that's not arguable, it's a statement of fact.

Why not read it, here it is: Resolution 2334 (2016)

Israel is a rogue state.

I thought you were arguing that the UN has no authority, now you want to talk about something else. Israel is a member of the UN and (like all members) is subject to it's authority.

UN authority? That's funny.

Resolution 2334 was passed in 2016, it states that Israel's settlements are a "flagrant violation" of international law and have no "legal validity".

And?

Therefore the highest authority has spoken and Israel is in violation of international law,

Did anyone listen?

Israel is a rogue state.

According to a vote by a bunch of Muslim shitholes.

 

[Shusha]

Yes, there are UN resolutions to that effect, Israel could comply with them, it chooses not to, there is no reason for it to either because it is free to act with impunity because of the US, that's not an equitable state of affairs, to have legal means of correcting these injustices that are unenforced.

The UN has absolutely no authority to force a State to cede it's own territory to a foreign State or to abandon its own territory to non-State actors. Indeed, there is NO legal framework anywhere outside the UN which can compel a State to cede territory. Territorial integrity is one of the foundations of international law. The only legal path for a State's territory to be reduced is by treaty.

Because the West Bank is land locked,

Irrelevant. Plenty of countries are land-locked. Being land-locked does not prevent the formation of a State.

the occupants of Gaza and the West Bank demand freedom of movement between the two isolated territorial regions. Nobody expects no border security, I can drive to Mexico for example from my home in Arizona, I can go back and forth, no need for explicit permission, there are a set of established checks that people must comply with and that's pretty much that.

Exactly. So a normal international border between Israel and Gaza and Israel and the West Bank, with each State determining entry into their own State.

Every illegal settlement should be vacated by the Israelis, every single one, as itemized in the relevant UN resolutions.

Removal of populations based on ethnicity is ethnic cleansing. Are you suggesting that ethnic cleansing is permissible for Jews, but only for Jews?

I wasn't aware you were negotiating on behalf of Israel? you are presuming their agreement with all of these conditions.

Well, I am arguing for legal solutions to the conflict. I can't see how Israel would or could say no, within the context of non-violence. It's the solution the "whole world" has been calling for for a hundred years.

 

[Shusha]

Resolution 2334 was passed in 2016, it states that Israel's settlements are a "flagrant violation" of international law and have no "legal validity". The United States did not veto this resolution, so it was passed. Therefore the highest authority has spoken and Israel is in violation of international law, that's not arguable, it's a statement of fact.

This is not correct. First, the UN does not create law. This resolution incorrectly interprets international law (deliberately, in order to create a set of standards against Israel that no other State is held to). The UN must not be permitted to create different standards of law for different countries.

 

[Man With A Plan]

It's instructive to look at similarities between Israel and the former Third Reich, they have some important characteristics in common.

But as to the Nazis, technically they did not commit genocide, there was no such law at the time. They did what the United States had done in the past, namely seize territory and expel the existing population and commit mass murder to reduce their numbers and establish a slave labor workforce, this is well known Hitler modelled all this using the United States as his example.

Speaking as a history major, Sherlock? That's the dumbest statement I've EVER heard! It's well known that Hitler modeled the Third Reich after the United States? Are you kidding me? Nobody can be THAT ignorant!

 

[Man With A Plan]

It's instructive to look at similarities between Israel and the former Third Reich, they have some important characteristics in common.

But as to the Nazis, technically they did not commit genocide, there was no such law at the time. They did what the United States had done in the past, namely seize territory and expel the existing population and commit mass murder to reduce their numbers and establish a slave labor workforce, this is well known Hitler modelled all this using the United States as his example.

As for the way Israel and the Third Reich conduct themselves? Do you think the Nazis cared about civilian casualties when they invaded the Soviet Union? Do you know ANYTHING about the way that the Nazis waged that war? Do you know how they responded to attacks by partisan groups? They were NOTHING like the Israelis!

 

[Shusha]

Which is the exact opposite of reality.

It is not. There is an easy-to-implement and legal solution to this conflict. It could be implemented tomorrow.

You need to factor in Israeli intransigence. Israel refuses to comply with a long list of UN resolutions. Israel continue to create new illegal settlements despite its illegality, they simply don't care. Israel long ago chose expansion over and above security.

Not so. This is an inversion of the truth. Israel has repeatedly chosen to reduce her territory in exchange for an end to violence.

There's no pressure on Israel from any source on earth,

There is plenty of internal pressure on the Israeli government from Israeli citizens. There is plenty of demographic incentive NOT to assert sovereignty over all of Israel. There is plenty of developmental incentive within the region. And there is no end to the global political pressure.

Where there is no pressure is upon the political parties in Gaza and the West Bank to form an effective government and then negotiate and ACCEPT a peace treaty.

, given the stalemate that is the UN today, I simply do not see any other option for the Palestinian people other than complete capitulation...

Yes. If by capitulation, you mean having their own sovereign State(s), self-determination, regional peace, economic prosperity.

 

[Man With A Plan]

It is not. There is an easy-to-implement and legal solution to this conflict. It could be implemented tomorrow.

Not so. This is an inversion of the truth. Israel has repeatedly chosen to reduce her territory in exchange for an end to violence.

There is plenty of internal pressure on the Israeli government from Israeli citizens. There is plenty of demographic incentive NOT to assert sovereignty over all of Israel. There is plenty of developmental incentive within the region. And there is no end to the global political pressure.

Where there is no pressure is upon the political parties in Gaza and the West Bank to form an effective government and then negotiate and ACCEPT a peace treaty.

Yes. If by capitulation, you mean having their own sovereign State(s), self-determination, regional peace, economic prosperity.

For someone who has chosen for their Avatar one of the most intelligent figures in fictional history...Sherlock comes across as woefully uninformed.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Speaking as a history major, Sherlock? That's the dumbest statement I've EVER heard! It's well known that Hitler modeled the Third Reich after the United States? Are you kidding me? Nobody can be THAT ignorant!

What was Hitler’s rationale for the Holocaust?​

Excerpts

Why did Hitler and the Nazi party in Germany want to exterminate European Jews? Was it just rabid insanity, or was there a rationale, a logic, to the Nazi murder of six million Jews and countless other Europeans?

So Hitler’s plan was for Germany to emulate the United States, first by seizing large tracts of productive land by pushing the indigenous populations out. If those natives could not be pushed out, they were to be killed. And then slave labor was to be employed to produce the food necessary to support industrialization and militarization, just as the United States had done.

Nazi ideology embraced virulent European anti-semitism, but not originally with the intent to exterminate the Jews. Nazi planners hoped to deport European Jews to the remote island of Madagascar, or alternatively after the defeat of Stalin’s Soviet Union, to push Europe’s Jews east of the Ural mountains into Soviet Asia.

New scholarship supports Hitler’s understanding of how the American republic came to industrialize and prosper through expulsion of indigenous people and, especially, through the institution of slavery, which is now understood to have been central to America’s economic development.

An important point here is that Hitler stated reasons for the extermination of Jews, he tried to justify it with existential arguments much as Israel today is justifying its mass slaughter in Gaza while the world's media nod in approval and the masses of humanity watching it consider it uncontroversial.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

This is not correct. First, the UN does not create law. This resolution incorrectly interprets international law (deliberately, in order to create a set of standards against Israel that no other State is held to). The UN must not be permitted to create different standards of law for different countries.

What's incorrect? I read your reply and my included post to which it was a response, and everything I wrote is true, anyone can check.

 

[Grau]

Which studies? Real studies, or Palestinian studies?

What do you think?

You're entirely unable to refute a word I've written so far and can only come up with insults and off topic evasions.

After all, who would try to claim that hexamine is the same as an alloy except for, as you say, a moron.

"HMTA"

HMTA - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

HMTA could refer to:

• Heavy Metal - Tungsten Alloy - a tungsten alloy used in dense inert metal explosive bombs.
• The organic compound hexamethylenetetramine also called hexamine.
• Hazardous Materials Transportation Act (1975)

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

As for the way Israel and the Third Reich conduct themselves? Do you think the Nazis cared about civilian casualties when they invaded the Soviet Union? Do you know ANYTHING about the way that the Nazis waged that war? Do you know how they responded to attacks by partisan groups? They were NOTHING like the Israelis!

Of course there are differences, I never said they were identical, I said they have some important characteristics in common.
Here's a quick list of similarities

• The Third Reich justified its necessity by a prior national catastrophe - the Versailles Treaty, defeat in WW1
• The Zionist state justifies its necessity by a prior national catastrophe - the Holocaust, antisemitism
• The Third Reich embraced a doctrine of a superior race - the Aryans
• The Zionist state embrace the doctrine of racial supremacy - the Jews
• The Third Reich embraced a doctrine of territorial entitlement - Poland, Sudetenland...
• The Zionist state embraces the doctrine of territorial entitlement - West Bank, Golan...
• The Third Reich was committed to the destruction of another race - Jews
• The Zionist state is committed to the destruction of another race - Palestinians
• The Third Reich justified its necessity by declaring an existential threat - Bolshevism, Jewry
• The Zionist state justifies its necessity by declaring an existential threat - Islam, Arab nationalism
• The Third Reich had an arbitrary detention policy - protective custody
• The Zionist state has an arbitrary detention policy - administrative detention
• The Third Reich committed atrocities with impunity - Execution of UK/US prisoners of war
• The Zionist state committed atrocities with impunity - Execution of Egyptian prisoners who dug their own graves

Every one of these is true, go and check.

 

[Shusha]

What's incorrect? I read your reply and my included post to which it was a response, and everything I wrote is true, anyone can check.

The incorrect parts in bold:

I thought you were arguing that the UN has no authority, now you want to talk about something else. Israel is a member of the UN and (like all members) is subject to it's authority.

Resolution 2334 was passed in 2016, it states that Israel's settlements are a "flagrant violation" of international law and have no "legal validity". The United States did not veto this resolution, so it was passed. Therefore the highest authority has spoken and Israel is in violation of international law, that's not arguable, it's a statement of fact.

Again, the UN's authority is very limited. The UN can not create international law. The UN can not interpret international law. The UN can, but obviously should not, violate international law, nor act in contravention of international law, nor make recommendations against international law.

There is no territory where Israelis live that can be legally differentiated from other territory where Israelis live. There is no legal way to define a "settlement". There is no occupation, therefore no territory where Israelis are prohibited from residing. There is no violation of law.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

The incorrect parts in bold:

Again, the UN's authority is very limited. The UN can not create international law. The UN can not interpret international law. The UN can, but obviously should not, violate international law, nor act in contravention of international law, nor make recommendations against international law.

Well that's a different thing to me being wrong, now you acknowledge the authority and say its limited, so you accept what I said now.

There is no territory where Israelis live that can be legally differentiated from other territory where Israelis live. There is no legal way to define a "settlement". There is no occupation, therefore no territory where Israelis are prohibited from residing. There is no violation of law.

Well that's just a reaction to the UN ruling, the fact is the resolution says what it says and the resolution was passed, again that's what I said.

Here's the full text of the UN charter, I seriously suggest you print it and carefully read it and make notes and so on, few people have read the charter and speak as if they have, as if they know what member obligations are, but this specifically should be noted:

The UN has authority over every member state, each member state has agreed to that by virtue of signing the charter, Israel (and every other member) has granted the UN the right to impose its authority in accordance with the procedures defined in the charter.

So those here who keep parroting "The UN has no authority" are quite simply, wrong.