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

[Vosem]

Nope, the Israeli government isn't horrible at all. 

No, it isn't!

Define 'to occupy', as you understand it.

To take control of land belonging to another nation by military force. The problem with this is that the West Bank has been under military control, of one kind or another, since 1917, and the nation that it belonged to before 1917 is gone. The land is terra nullis; it is disputed. Discounting East Jerusalem, the West Bank is perhaps 3/4 Palestinian and 1/4 Israeli. Forcing hundreds of thousands of people to leave their homes in the West Bank simply because they are Israeli is unjust (and you know it) -- the final peace settlement should keep this in mind. (I've already noted my views on how this might be achieved.)

So you're in favor of a form of rule of law in which, uh, the Knesset can do whatever it wants? I don't think that's what the phrase 'rule of law' is supposed to indicate. I think it usually means something different, especially since the actions being suggested here are not exactly limited in their compass or import to people who the Knesset represents.

Erm...yes, it's rather reasonable to suggest the Knesset or the U.S. Congress or the f**king Massachusetts state legislature can enact the laws that are the reason they were elected. There's a reason in the US, for instance, we can amend our Constitution.

I'm not even going to get into how you apparently oppose the existence of international law, since if you really want to live in a geopolitical Mad Max (or Madlax, or both) I guess that's your prerogative.

The reason someone from Israel might reasonably oppose the existence of international law is that the United Nations has pretty much consistently unfairly singled out Israel -- even if you do think that the 'occupation' of Palestine is a horrible, horrible crime, certainly it deserves at least as much attention as, say, the genocide in Darfur did, or the dictatorship in North Korea? Here's a convenient pie chart of UN resolutions in 2006:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:GA_resolutions_2006.JPG

There's also the fact that the whole point of the UN is to stop conflicts, something it has failed to do from Day One and that the LoN failed to do before it. Seriously. Name one conflict that the UN intervened to stop.

[Vosem]

There's also the fact that the whole point of the UN is to stop conflicts, something it has failed to do from Day One and that the LoN failed to do before it. Seriously. Name one conflict that the UN intervened to stop.

Libya, Bosnia, Haiti, Sierra Leone...

Libya - Resolution 1973 allowed NATO to intervene on the civil war, making it longer and bloodier (but allowing the "good guys" to win).

Bosnia - Funny how UN resolutions were passed in 1992 and 1993 but the actual war (and killing) kept going until 1995, when an agreement unrelated to the UN was hammered out.

Haiti - What conflict was there in Haiti?

Sierra Leone - A classic example of how the UN was totally ignored and the war just kept going till 2002.

[Vosem]

Oh come on Vosem, how can you dispute that the Libyan rebels were the "good guys", and least compared to their enemies? The other side was Muammar Gaddafi. The man slaughtered thousands of his own people, sponsored terrorism, and basically distributed all of Libya's oil wealth amongst his family and his tribe.

I don't think I can...I just think intervening in Libya was a stupid decision when we really didn't know who the rebels were, when Gaddafi was coming over to our side on the War on Terror (it sends a bad message to other countries...be on the US's side and we'll support rebels against you anyway), and the Assad regime in Syria was way worse and we just ignored stuff going on there, and this was before Russia had a coherent Syria policy -- if we had acted faster, Assad and Gaddafi could have been in opposite positions now. And f**king al-Qaeda-in-the-Islamic-Maghreb would never have been able to take over Azawad (a whole country) without weapons stolen from the aftermath of Gaddafi's downfall -- that too wouldn't've happened without Gaddafi's fall.

It's honestly, in my mind, one of Obama's biggest f**k-ups, equal to the health-care bill. This is why I support Romney.

[Vosem]

And, of course whatever disliking the people of the Occupied Territories have for the state of Israel has to do with this.  Stop being a racist zionist turd.

It rather does, since they're launching suicide bombings and they want to kick all the Jews out of the West Bank and s**t. Stop being a racist pro-Palestinian turd.

[Vosem]

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

True.  Besides, Israel only has another century or two before it fades away like the Crusader states before them that tried to colonize the region.  Israel will not be able to maintain military superiority forever.  Once the Arabs obtain military parity and unity, Israel is toast.  I just hope it isn't nuclear toast.

The Crusades are rather a bad analogy; the Crusades only failed because they overthrew the Byzantines (their most important ally) in the Fourth Crusade, which was a really weird one-off. Otherwise they could well have stood the test of time. The analogy would be Israel occupying D.C., carving off large sections of the U.S. into puppet-states, and then leaving a small section existing so it can fight off the Canadian invaders. That's rather unlikely.

Israel doesn't have to maintain military parity or superiority; Israel has to maintain enough strength that if it truly looks like Israel will fall, Israel can look at its opponents and say, "We're taking you with us." Israel's present tech will be sufficient for that until Asimov's nuclear force-field defense is invented.

And Israel's Arab states won't catch up to Israel within the foreseeable future -- I want to say 'our lifetimes' but the history can be weird (see: Fourth Crusade) and many of us are very young.

I just remembered, hahaha: the Catholic Church formally apologized for the Fourth Crusade...in 2004!

Both sides are HP's. Simple as that.

Israel seems like a pretty obvious good guy to me.

[Vosem]

Israel doesn't have to maintain military parity or superiority; Israel has to maintain enough strength that if it truly looks like Israel will fall, Israel can look at its opponents and say, "We're taking you with us." Israel's present tech will be sufficient for that until Asimov's nuclear force-field defense is invented.

And Israel's Arab states won't catch up to Israel within the foreseeable future -- I want to say 'our lifetimes' but the history can be weird (see: Fourth Crusade) and many of us are very young.

MAD only works if the other side thinks he will take more damage than destroying you is worth.

That said, even if the Arabs continue to think Armageddon is a bad idea, it won't take a nuclear force-field defense to put them in a position to wipe Israel off the map.  With comparable technology to what Israel has and comparable per capita military spending, the Arabs would have sufficient air supremacy over Israel that the Israeli nukes would not be getting through in sufficient numbers to be a deterrent, especially if the Arabs attack first.  The Arabs are not currently capable of that, but the current state of affairs won't last forever, tho I agree that it won't change anytime soon.

I expect Israel will likely last until the 22nd century unless one of its neighbors decides Armageddon is merely an express pass to Heaven.  Reaching the 23rd century is rather more problematic, and the 24th century is unlikely in my opinion.

(The entire next paragraph is written for the very-long term) The problem is that a coalition of Israel's-Arab-enemies that manages to achieve superiority over Israel, they'll make other enemies fast -- and those may be willing to intervene. Certainly, religious conservatives/Jews in America won't stand for a conquest of Israel -- and there aren't really any existential threats to the either group. Israel has lots of powerful friends, pretty much everywhere.

I agree that Israel in its current form may not reach the 23rd/24th century (what government styles really last for centuries? shut up, San Marino!), but it's more likely to be replaced by some kind of Israel-successor-state than by majority-Arab states. The problem of secular Israelis vs. Haredis is also one that is much more significant than many people realize.

[Vosem]

(The entire next paragraph is written for the very-long term) The problem is that a coalition of Israel's-Arab-enemies that manages to achieve superiority over Israel, they'll make other enemies fast -- and those may be willing to intervene.

Why should they make those enemies?  Other than the United States, there isn't a single country today that would act to help Israel if the Arabs started to be in a position to push Israel around.  From a realpolitik viewpoint, the only country that might be likely to care would be Iran, and only under a completely different government that what is in control there now.

Because lots of groups have ambitions in that area and might not like a significant change to the status quo? From a realpolitik view, it makes sense to support Israel; a very powerful Arab bloc could grow and become a rival to you, the hypothetical great power of the future, but Israel won't because it's all boxed in by opponents, is a convenient block to the Arabs, and is also conveniently strategically located for a puppet state. Let's also keep in mind that 'Arabs' are probably not a unified polity in this distant future, and some regimes may be willing to subtly prop up Israel to keep other regimes from taking over the area.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Friends in the US, but not elsewhere.   Their other relationships are more in the nature of business arrangements, and if the Arabs achieve military parity with Israel, I think those others would be happy enough to deal with the Arabs instead of the Jews.  Nor is it inevitable that the current implicit guarantee the US provides Israel will last,  I doubt we'd tilt pro-Arab, but a return to traditional American isolationism to the point that Israel would be totally on its own in an Arab-Israeli war is quite possible, especially in the timeframe I'm talking about.

Israel has friends around the Western World, not just in the US, and while some of Israel's friends would be just as happy to deal with the Arabs, the question of whether the Arabs would be happy to deal with Israel's former "friends" is also worth asking. (Where Israel's friends will be in the hypothetical future is also up for debate). Also, unless either Jews or religious conservatives stop mattering in American politics, America will continue backing Israel -- both groups have enough influence on their own to guarantee it, and taken together it's a certainty.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If the Haredis take overt control of Israel, I expect that there would be significant emigration of the secular Israelis and a consequent reduction in external support for Israel.  If the Haredis take over, then the final days of the State of Israel will come from war as the region gets to see a replay of Zealots v. Romans, with the Arabs cast in the role of Rome.

I doubt if the Haredis will take over there will be such wide-scale reforms as to force secular Jews out of Israel, but I was merely alluding to societal disruptions, riots, culture wars, '60s-US problems, and the like. I suppose, at a stretch a civil war is possible, but that is rather doubtful -- I don't think the splits are that significant. Again, the Arabs can't be Rome, because it's very doubtful they're unified. The Siege of Troy might be a good example -- even if there are a lot of you, if your opponent is well-armed enough and has supplies coming in you can't stop, he can totally hold out forever. (Jews won't fall for horses, and in fact they probably wouldn't've when the Siege of Troy itself was going on).

[Vosem]

(The entire next paragraph is written for the very-long term) The problem is that a coalition of Israel's-Arab-enemies that manages to achieve superiority over Israel, they'll make other enemies fast -- and those may be willing to intervene.

Why should they make those enemies?  Other than the United States, there isn't a single country today that would act to help Israel if the Arabs started to be in a position to push Israel around.  From a realpolitik viewpoint, the only country that might be likely to care would be Iran, and only under a completely different government that what is in control there now.

Because lots of groups have ambitions in that area and might not like a significant change to the status quo? From a realpolitik view, it makes sense to support Israel; a very powerful Arab bloc could grow and become a rival to you, the hypothetical great power of the future, but Israel won't because it's all boxed in by opponents, is a convenient block to the Arabs, and is also conveniently strategically located for a puppet state. Let's also keep in mind that 'Arabs' are probably not a unified polity in this distant future, and some regimes may be willing to subtly prop up Israel to keep other regimes from taking over the area.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Friends in the US, but not elsewhere.   Their other relationships are more in the nature of business arrangements, and if the Arabs achieve military parity with Israel, I think those others would be happy enough to deal with the Arabs instead of the Jews.  Nor is it inevitable that the current implicit guarantee the US provides Israel will last,  I doubt we'd tilt pro-Arab, but a return to traditional American isolationism to the point that Israel would be totally on its own in an Arab-Israeli war is quite possible, especially in the timeframe I'm talking about.

Israel has friends around the Western World, not just in the US, and while some of Israel's friends would be just as happy to deal with the Arabs, the question of whether the Arabs would be happy to deal with Israel's former "friends" is also worth asking. (Where Israel's friends will be in the hypothetical future is also up for debate). Also, unless either Jews or religious conservatives stop mattering in American politics, America will continue backing Israel -- both groups have enough influence on their own to guarantee it, and taken together it's a certainty.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If the Haredis take overt control of Israel, I expect that there would be significant emigration of the secular Israelis and a consequent reduction in external support for Israel.  If the Haredis take over, then the final days of the State of Israel will come from war as the region gets to see a replay of Zealots v. Romans, with the Arabs cast in the role of Rome.

I doubt if the Haredis will take over there will be such wide-scale reforms as to force secular Jews out of Israel, but I was merely alluding to societal disruptions, riots, culture wars, '60s-US problems, and the like. I suppose, at a stretch a civil war is possible, but that is rather doubtful -- I don't think the splits are that significant. Again, the Arabs can't be Rome, because it's very doubtful they're unified. The Siege of Troy might be a good example -- even if there are a lot of you, if your opponent is well-armed enough and has supplies coming in you can't stop, he can totally hold out forever. (Jews won't fall for horses, and in fact they probably wouldn't've when the Siege of Troy itself was going on).

I would write a reply to PioneerProgress, but I think danny can do it more eloquently than me. Suffice it to say that the idea that the Gaza raid was authoritarian is bulls**t, and that polls of Israeli Arabs seem to suggest most of them want to stay in Israel.