So apparently Israel isn't an occupying force in the West Bank

[danny]

The Israeli government is horrible only for not doing the things recommended by this commission already. I just hope Bibi grows a spine and follows the recommendations of the commission.

[danny]

The Israeli government is horrible only for not doing the things recommended by this commission already. I just hope Bibi grows a spine and follows the recommendations of the commission.

Not a very high opinion of the legal, moral, and logical problems with the recommendations?

The committee thinks it is legal, but in any case, Laws should be changed to fit the wishes of the public (through elected officials) and that way made to fit in with government policy, not the other way round.

I think it is the logical and moral position, so no.

[danny]

Rule of law, rule according to a higher law, or rule according to the law of nations don't do it for you? Also, what public? Certainly not that of the West Bank.

Rule of law- Yes, rule of law as legislated by an elected legislative branch.

Rule according to higher law- No, this is either a form of dictatorship by whomever gets to decide what higher law is, or just forcing a old laws on the population.

Rule according to the law of nations- I am against this.

Define 'to occupy', as you understand it.

Taking control of a territory that is not previously your's through force of arms and then ruling over it.

[danny]

The Israeli government is horrible only for not doing the things recommended by this commission already. I just hope Bibi grows a spine and follows the recommendations of the commission.

And you people still wonder why the Palestinians hate you so much.

The Palestinian hate for us has very little to do with this.

[danny]

...what was Palestine.

Really? when was this?

The Palestinians through suicide attacks are only resisting the extermination of their people.

How do these suicide attacks actually prevent Israel from doing anything to the Palestinians?

The Israeli occupation of Palestine is equivalent to the white American destruction  of the Native Americans.

Are you Native American?

If not, then why are you still occupying native land?
If you are, then why are you not resisting resisting the occupation of your land via suicide bombing?

[danny]

Are you disputing the 'ruling over it' part or the 'not previously yours' part or both?

The land in question was never the Palestinian's in the first, it was conquered from two countries who have both renounced any claims to the land, so in that sense there is no one is being occupied, since it wasn't anyone's land in the first place.

Having said that, there are a group of people who live on the land who consider themselves to be a nation, and the land theirs. We could call this an occupation against them, however, I still think that it is justified.

[danny]

Are you disputing the 'ruling over it' part or the 'not previously yours' part or both?

The land in question was never the Palestinian's in the first, it was conquered from two countries who have both renounced any claims to the land, so in that sense there is no one is being occupied, since it wasn't anyone's land in the first place.

Having said that, there are a group of people who live on the land who consider themselves to be a nation, and the land theirs. We could call this an occupation against them, however, I still think that it is justified.

Not so.  From Article 22 of the Treaty of Versailles.  "Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognised subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone."

Palestine was established as a Class A mandate under this provision, and as far as international law is concerned, the recognition of the nation of Palestine dates to 1 July 1920, when the British transferred control from a military to a civil administration.

Israel itself could count as the independent nation.

And anyway, I don't really care about the agreements different colonial powers made amongst themselves 90 years ago, and as I previously stated, I am opposed to all international law anyway,so it seems a silly point to argue.

[danny]

I am opposed to all international law anyway,so it seems a silly point to argue.

Of course, since international law is an inconvenience for the state of Israel.

I oppose international law on principle, regardless of how it applies to Israel, and the Palestinians certainly have no problem breaking international law anyway.

[danny]

The Israeli government forces many Arabs to carry IDs that Israelis don't need,

What is this referring to?

they build Israeli homes in territory that they themselves promised to the Palestinians,

We did? What is it that we promised?

they have created a de facto police state society,

We have? I live here and this is news to me.

[danny]

I oppose international law on principle, regardless of how it applies to Israel, and the Palestinians certainly have no problem breaking international law anyway.

Of course. As international law shouldn't apply to the superior "chosen ones", does it?

No, it shouldn't apply to anyone.

[danny]

A key thing about the Secular vs. Haredi conflict is that there's a big split within the Haredi community as well. The Zionist Haredi wing, led by Moshe Feiglin, is fiercely patriotic, serves in the military, and works within Likud and the other right wing parties to bring religion more into politics. The other Haredi, the more extreme religious ones, are often less interested in politics, don't serve in the military and prefer to devote themselves 100% to Torah study, and some actually oppose Israel's existence on religious grounds.

It's unlikely that the Haredi would be able to unite enough to pose a threat to continued Secular Zionist government.

Feiglin is not Haredi, he is from a group that would be called "religious Zionist" or "national religious" and he certainly doesn't lead that group, he is just leader of a certain faction within it.

But your right about the fact that their politics can range from one extreme to another.

[danny]

Hmmm... well, this isn't the source I found it from, but it seems that Palestinians need to carry ID cards; I didn't know that Israelis themselves had to have their own IDs. Anyway, the point is that they aren't treated as citizens nor as neighbors.

All Israeli citizens, regardless of religion, get Israeli ID cards. Palestinians are not Israeli citizens and so, naturally, don't have these. Instead they use Palestinian ID cards made by the Palestinians themselves.

As for the homes, again, this is not where I found it the issue about the Israel homes in Palestinian territory, but here's an example.

Israel certainly builds in settlements, but it wasn't promised to the
Palestinians.

As for the "police state" thing, what about that Gaza flotilla raid that happened in 2010? Surely an attack on a flotilla that was trying to get supplies to a blockaded city is something close to authoritarian, right?

A blockade is a military maneuver, it has little to do with being a police state. A police state means when a state controls all the sources of information and doesn't allow dissenting thoughts. Israel doesn't prevent either Israelis nor Palestinians from speaking their mind. Publically disagreeing with the Israeli government is the norm in both the Palestinian territories and Israel.

[danny]

I oppose international law on principle, regardless of how it applies to Israel, and the Palestinians certainly have no problem breaking international law anyway.

Of course. As international law shouldn't apply to the superior "chosen ones", does it?

No, it shouldn't apply to anyone.

I'm genuinely baffled as to how you can possibly in good conscience believe this.

I believe in a democracy where the people can make their own laws via elections. International law takes this away by giving the legislative power to unelected officials, and thus takes the world further away from democracy.

[danny]

I oppose international law on principle, regardless of how it applies to Israel, and the Palestinians certainly have no problem breaking international law anyway.

Of course. As international law shouldn't apply to the superior "chosen ones", does it?

No, it shouldn't apply to anyone.

I'm genuinely baffled as to how you can possibly in good conscience believe this.

I believe in a democracy where the people can make their own laws via elections. International law takes this away by giving the legislative power to unelected officials, and thus takes the world further away from democracy.

If democracy means allowing genociders and occupiers to get away with it around the world, then you know what?   democracy.

It's not as if international law stops genociders from getting away with it.