Middle East Discussion


#81
A lot of group think going on here as per usual.

You won’t find a better article on the topic than this one: https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2016/12/26/opinions/us-role-in-israel-un-vote-was-hypocritical-goldfeder/index.html


An opinion piece which opens with a personal attack isn’t worth reading.
Either are most of the posts you've made on the topic. You don't bother to do any research or offer anything of substance - just snide remarks.

Whether you agree with IT or not, atleast he actually bothers to make a cogent argument.

Keep building settlements and Israel will be forced to give the Palestinian population full rights as citizens. Pretty sure that's not the outcome you're after.

#82
A lot of group think going on here as per usual.

You won’t find a better article on the topic than this one: https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2016/12/26/opinions/us-role-in-israel-un-vote-was-hypocritical-goldfeder/index.html

A better article?

Ok, for starters, its an opinion piece. Which is fine. But he treats the opinion of , for instance, Kontorovich that the Mandate continues under international law to grant legal ownership of the land as unassailable. When in fact it’s not. There is much dissenting from this view in international law circles.

But even if true, Israel is being incredibly disingenuous and selective. The Golan Heights were never within the British Mandate. They fell inside French territory and therefore became Syrian. The capture of this area cannot be claimed as re-taking but were instead an outright conquest and annexation. As such, the settlement program in this zone, to my mind, absolutely contravenes the 4th Geneva provisions and whilst i totally support the right of Israel to exist, i find it troubling that Jews are looking for technical ways around Geneva Acords.

As to East Jerusalem, personally i fail to see how Israel didnt undermine its own legal claim re the Mandate by formally agreeing to split the city with Jordan in 1948. Note that the UN had declared Jerusalem an International city to be held by neither party and that both warring nations had to fight their way to it and then negotiate a deal. Which I’d have thought then made the seizure of it in 1967 an armed conquest and once again brings it under the Geneva rules. But of course, im not a lawyer. Either way Israel simply rejects that it applies and instead arbitrarily decides which parts to abide by and which parts to ignore. Again, that bothers me. Then we have Netanyahu declaring that “the western wall isnt an occupation”. Except that its not just the Wall. Its also suburbs that sprawl well to the North and East and now encompass some pretty draconian residency requirements on Arabs not to lose their rights to even dwell there (Rights that should be protected by the Mandate if one is to continue to afford it any credibility on the other matters it is being used to justify.)

As to the first part of the article, an entirely personal and poorly built (imo) ramble, the thing that stood out most to me was this:

“who waited until there was absolutely zero political accountability before reversing his previously held position on vetoing anti-Israel Security Council resolutions”.

You could easily suggest from this that its actually only "political accountability " that keeps the US position. Which raises the obvious question as to whether its actually “right” in any moral sense.

Im far far from an ‘expert’ but i think perhaps the above sums up the problems all round. Its an ugly mess of quasi legal, political and religious bigotry from all parties and humanity too easily forgotten.

Yeah yeah yeah, but that aside something something middle east discussion terrorism something


#83

Netanyahu doing the big dummy spit by suspending relations with the 12 countries on the Security Council that voted for a halt to the settlements, isn’t going to help anyone’s cause. l tried to read the article G-Unit posted, l stopped after the first paragraph. l could see where it was going, so full of bias that it wasn’t worth reading any further.


#84

Laughed at that.
NZ will be devo.


#85

He actually told NZ that Israel considered it an act of war.
Clown.
Dangerous clown.


#86
He actually told NZ that Israel considered it an act of war. Clown. Dangerous clown.

And criticism of Israel and it’s actions is seen as criticism of its very existence. Its bullshit.


#87
He actually told NZ that Israel considered it an act of war. Clown. Dangerous clown.

LOL!
They should invade!

What a farking ■■■■.


#88
He actually told NZ that Israel considered it an act of war. Clown. Dangerous clown.

And criticism of Israel and it’s actions is seen as criticism of its very existence. Its bullshit.

True. I’ve said it before, but it would be silly to completely ignore what the Jews went through and why they would want their own state. Two wrongs don’t make a right however. UN are a puppett organisation anyway. All their voting and talking in the world means nothing because we know where the real power lies, and that’s who determines whether or not they actually “act”.


#89

There’s a fellow, Henry Cotter, who provided a run-down of the situation on Google Groups:

[quote]

After the 1967 Six Day War, Israel found itself in possession of
considerable areas of land won in battle from Jordan, Syria and Egypt.
Israel subsequently annexed the Golan Heights and East Jerusalem. The
remainder of the territories (Gaza, West Bank and Sinai) remained with
an undermined status pending resolution through peace agreements.
After 1967 the Government of Israel supported settlement building in
certain strategically key areas of the Territories. The Likud government
elected in 1977, increased settlement building in other areas of the
West Bank and Gaza.

In the peace agreement with Egypt (1979) the Sinai was returned to Egypt
and the settlements on it were dismantled.

Accusation: Israeli Settlements are illegal and in violation of the Oslo
peace agreements

Rebuttal: When Israel captured the Territories in 1967 they took over
administration from powers who themselves did not have sovereignty over
the areas. The Palestinian leadership, it will be remembered, themselves
rejected sovereignty in these areas when they rejected the 1947
Partition Plan. These areas cannot therefore be considered occupied
territories as they were not occupied from another nation with
legitimate sovereignty. A more accurate term would be ‘disputed
territories’ whose future Israel is committed to resolving through
negotiations.

The main basis for suggestions of illegality appears to be Article 49 of
the Fourth Geneva Convention. It states “Individual or mass forcible
transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied
territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any
other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their
motive”. In other words a population may not be forcibly moved from the
occupied areas to other lands. But the settlements involve the voluntary
movement of individuals into the so-called occupied areas, not out of
them. The native population is not displaced by the settlements either.
There is no attempt, nor has there ever been, to remove the Palestinian
population from the West Bank or Gaza strip areas.

The Fourth Geneva Convention goes on to state that “The Occupying Power
shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into
the territory it occupies”, a clause inserted to prevent what is now
referred to as ‘ethnic cleansing’. This passage applies to involuntary
transfer, and so it doesn’t apply to the Israeli case.

It is important to note that the Fourth Geneva Convention only applies
to cases of occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party to
the Convention. As mentioned above, the last lawful sovereignty over the
Territories before Israel took control over them was that of the League
of Nations Mandate. This means that that Convention does not apply to
the Israeli presence in the Territories.

The agreements between the Palestinians and the Israelis refer to the
settlements as an issue to be resolved in the final status negotiations.
(The point at which talks ultimately stalled).

There are no restrictions on settlement building in any of the signed
agreements. All they say is that no party can seek to change the status
of the West Bank or Gaza Strip. A change of status would be the
annexation of the land or a unilateral declaration of statehood.

Accusation: The Settlements are the main obstacle to Peace.

Rebuttal: Settlements have never been the major obstacle to peace.
Before 1967 there were no settlements and still no peace agreement. The
Likud Government, elected in 1977, was committed to greater settlement
building. Even so within two years of coming to power it signed a peace
agreement with Egypt. The agreement included the dismantlement of
settlements in Sinai. In the 1994 peace agreement with Jordan
settlements were not an issue.

Israel has made it clear that it is prepared to negotiate over
settlements, but it is not prepared to pre-judge the outcome of
negotiations by dismantling settlements before negotiations are even
begun.

Senator Mitchell’s report on the causes of the “Al Aqsa” Intafada
recommended a settlement freeze among other confidence building
measures, but also made it clear that the violence and collapse of the
peace process were not due to settlement activity. The Mitchell Report
also categorically dismissed the link between ceasing settlement
activity and ceasing violence.

Accusation: The Red Cross declared the settlements a war crime.

Rebuttal: The Jerusalem representative of the International Red Cross
Rene Kosimik, said on May 17, 2001, “The installation of a population of
the occupying power in occupied territory is considered an illegal move,
it is a grave breach. In principal it is a war crime.” However the
President of the International Red Cross, Jakob Kellenberger, responded
to complaints about this by saying “The expression ‘war crime’ has not
been used by the IRC in relation to Israeli settlements in the Occupied
Territories in the past and will not be used anymore in the present
context
. The reference made to it on May 17 was inappropriate and will
not be repeated.”

Accusation: Israel has no legitimacy and no claim in the West Bank and
Gaza strip.

Rebuttal: The West Bank and Gaza Strip is best regarded as territory
over which there are competing claims, which should be resolved in peace
process negotiations. Israel has valid claims to title in this territory
based not only on its historic and religious connection to the land, and
its recognized security needs, but also on the fact that the territory
was not under the sovereignty of any state and came under Israeli
control in a war of self-defence, imposed upon Israel. At the same time,
Israel recognizes that the Palestinians also entertain legitimate claims
to the area. Indeed, the very fact that the parties have agreed to
conduct negotiations on settlements indicates that they envisage a
compromise on this issue.

Accusation: Israeli settlements are a provocation. The continued
settlement expansion causes the Palestinian violence.

Rebuttal: Palestinians have claimed that their current violence was
provoked by Sharon’s visit to the Temple Mount. This is why it came to
be called the Al Aqsa Intafada. Then they claimed that it was settlement
activity that provoked the violence, which could only stop when the
settlements did. In reality since Sharon’s election no new settlements
have been built. Construction is limited to natural growth (e.g. as a
result of families expanding and requiring bigger homes). This is part
of Sharon’s coalition agreement with Labour.

Israeli politicians have resisted an absolute freeze on territory
expansion, as this would presume the final result of negotiations before
they have even been entered into.

A solution to the settlement issue and a Palestinian state was offered
at Camp David. Barak offered to dismantle all the Gaza settlements. He
offered the Palestinians 95% of the West Bank. This would have solved
the settlement issue but the Palestinians rejected the offer and chose
violence instead, in the hope that they would achieve more.
Settlements, like Sharon’s walk about on the Temple Mount, are simply
used as a convenient excuse for violence.

Diverse Opinions

It is important to note that Israeli public opinion on settlements is
divided. Not all Israelis support settlements and many believe that they
are counterproductive to Israel’s interests.

Some people oppose settlements because they believe that they will make
peace with the Palestinians harder to achieve. However it is clear that
whether or not the settlements should be there, they are not a
legitimate target for terror. Nor can they serve as an excuse for
terrorism. The status of settlements must be discussed, and not fought
over.

What’s in a Word?

‘Settlement’ vs. ‘suburb’ vs. ‘village’ vs. ‘rural community’ vs.
‘planned community’.


My own thoughts:

Putting aside Israel’s case for having a legal claim to the settlements, Israel has declared time and time again that they are willing to negotiate a two state solution and hand over certain settlements to the Palestinians. But it can’t be a one-way street. The Palestinians must accept Israel’s right to exist (they don’t), and they must also respect Israel’s right to safe and defensible borders. That is why under any planned peace agreement, there would need to be land swaps. Israel is a tiny country (something like 7 times smaller than Tasmania) so it would be sucidal to act any differently.

What is damaging to the prospect for peace is the UN constantly singling out and harrassing Israel to make even greater concessions with absolutely no responsibilty or expectation placed on the Palestinians. It is a sad indictment on the UN that with hundreds of thousands of people being brutally slaughted in Syria and elsewhere, they continue to fixate on Israel. Clearly there can be no greater crime that a Jew adding a third bedroom and a second toilet to an apartment in their historic homeland!

Have you ever stopped to ask yourself why there is no public pressure placed on the Palestinians? Why are their no UN resolutions aimed at stopping terror activity, condemning the funding for terrorists and their families in jail, arguing against the ongoing indoctrination of Palestiniation youth to hate and value death over life, the naming of their streets and stadiums after suicide bombers… etc.

The UN are sending a dangerous message that Israeli obstinance is the only obstacle to peace when nothing could be further from the truth. And by doing so they are legitimising terror and encouraging the Palestinians to continue down the same road of digging in their heels. After all, what incentive is their to make concessions when you can get what you want without having to do so?

Israel has sacrificed in the name of peace before. The withdrawal from Gaza being a clear case in point. Vacating Gaza was meant to bring Israel one step closer to peace with the Palestinians but it only brought about more terror and bombs. Israel has also negotiated a successful and enduring peace with Egypt which involved handing back the Sinai so they have proven themselves willing partners for peace.

The only way to achieving peace is to encourage direct negotation between both parties. There needs to be compromise. This bullying tactic of applying political pressure not only will not work, it will drive an even deeper wedge.


#90

I sometimes wonder if the apologists for Palestine have ever read Hams’s charter. Some are as follows:

Article 8 The Hamas document reiterates the Muslim Brotherhood’s slogan of "Allah is its goal, the Prophet is the model, the Qur’an its constitution, jihad its path, and death for the sake of Allah its most sublime belief.

Article 11 Palestine is sacred (waqf) for all Muslims for all time, and it cannot be relinquished by anyone.

Article 13 There is no negotiated settlement possible. Jihad is the only answer

On the Destruction of Israel:
‘Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it.’

The Call to Jihad:
‘The day the enemies usurp part of Moslem land, Jihad becomes the individual duty of every Moslem. In the face of the Jews’ usurpation, it is compulsory that the banner of Jihad be raised.’ (Article 15)

Rejection of a Negotiated Peace Settlement:
‘[Peace] initiatives, and so-called peaceful solutions and international conferences are in contradiction to the principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement… Those conferences are no more than a means to appoint the infidels as arbitrators in the lands of Islam… There is no solution for the Palestinian problem except by Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are but a waste of time, an exercise in futility.’ (Article 13)

(Article 7) 'The Day of Judgment will not come about until Moslems fight Jews and kill them. Then, the Jews will hide behind rocks and trees, and the rocks and trees will cry out: ‘O Moslem, there is a Jew hiding behind me, come and kill him.’

There will never be a negotiated settlement. Palestine simply will not wear it until they have it all.


#91

Think that the guy you have quoted is being a bit mischievous and rewriting history to suggest that Israel has valid historic claims to land on the West Bank and in Gaza. Check how many “Jews” were living there before 1920, and actually check how many “Jews” were living in Israel in 1949.

Israeli or Jew is not a race, and while some inhabitants of the region were Jewish over 100 years ago, the area was sparsely populated and predominately owned by Arabs.

Israel has only ever given up land it conquered and has sacrificed nothing. I have been to Israel many times, have some great Israeli friends, and all of them see these new settlements as a poor way to get peace and security. They have no fear of Palestine or Arabs, and will use nukes if pushed. None of them believe that the events of WW2, define who they are, but it will not happen again.

And there will never be compromise from the hardliners of both sides, and they hold all the power.


#92

Honestly i’m not sure what you are arguing about (it goes over my head and I accept that) but surely you can see the irony that you folk can’t see eye to eye or even discuss the topic without being open to the others then the real negotiations has pretty much no hope as well.

Is this really about you vs me or is it simply people in power being arseholes to each other?


#93


#94

Cute map but of course it’s a complete lie.

Read some of the responses on this thread or do your own research.

https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-Palestinian-Loss-of-Land-1946-2000-map-What-does-it-want-to-say-show


#95

The big issue in the Middle East is nasty Israel building settlements on disputed territory. Not the systematic subjugation of hundreds of millions of women, thousand of child soldiers being sent on suicide missions, theocratic regimes brutally enforcing fundamentalist dogma, ethic cleansing of minority groups, hostile ‘governments’ pledging to annihilate their neighbor through any means etc… But putting all that noise aside, did you hear what Netanyahu said?


#96

Yeah, I did.
He called a vote by New Zealand an act of war.
What a farking ■■■■.

And yes, I understand your point. But this is what every Israel discussion comes down to.
What they do excuses Everything we do.

It would certainly appease some people if others didn’t constantly try to rationalise.
If they could just say, yeah…that was the act of a seriously deluded individual.
Deity knows that if friggin’ Obama did it…

And if he did everyone would be in agreement.
They’d say that’s farking insane.

Ohhhhhh, but when this guy does it it’s all…but, but, but…


#97
The big issue in the Middle East is nasty Israel building settlements on disputed territory. Not the systematic subjugation of hundreds of millions of women, thousand of child soldiers being sent on suicide missions, theocratic regimes brutally enforcing fundamentalist dogma, ethic cleansing of minority groups, hostile 'governments' pledging to annihilate their neighbor through any means etc... But putting all that noise aside, did you hear what Netanyahu said?

It’s is an important issue. Not the only one of course, and I’m not sure if anyone is advocating it is?

The press and some vocal pollies are plenty anti-muslim/Islam so don’t get your knickers in a knot in a rare show of criticism for Israel.


#98

Oh, and I said this a few years ago.
It ■■■■■■ people off then, but it remains just as true now.
When you compare Israel to that, it means you think they’re comparable to that.


#99
Yeah, I did. He called a vote by New Zealand an act of war. What a farking ■■■■.

And yes, I understand your point. But this is what every Israel discussion comes down to.
What they do excuses Everything we do.

It would certainly appease some people if others didn’t constantly try to rationalise.
If they could just say, yeah…that was the act of a seriously deluded individual.
Deity knows that if friggin’ Obama did it…

And if he did everyone would be in agreement.
They’d say that’s farking insane.

Ohhhhhh, but when this guy does it it’s all…but, but, but…

You’re right, Netanyahu is a ■■■■. You won’t get any arguments from me there.

My point is that Israel is held to a completely different standard to others in the region. At least on Blitz anyway. I don’t venture into politics threads often. I realise the futility of arguing with people who are so entrenched in their position. But if I was to fish for likes, I’d come here and bash Israel.


#100
The big issue in the Middle East is nasty Israel building settlements on disputed territory. Not the systematic subjugation of hundreds of millions of women, thousand of child soldiers being sent on suicide missions, theocratic regimes brutally enforcing fundamentalist dogma, ethic cleansing of minority groups, hostile 'governments' pledging to annihilate their neighbor through any means etc... But putting all that noise aside, did you hear what Netanyahu said?

It’s is an important issue. Not the only one of course, and I’m not sure if anyone is advocating it is?

The press and some vocal pollies are plenty anti-muslim/Islam so don’t get your knickers in a knot in a rare show of criticism for Israel.

What’s an important issue?

And a rare show of criticism for Israel? Really? Typically it’s G-Unit or IT against the mob around here.