Talk Elections

According to the Levy commission, which is composed of right-wingers appointed by Netanyahu.

And the commission also recommends legalizing the settlements that even Israel thinks are illegal (http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2012/07/201279152247338500.html).

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

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.

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.


Define 'to occupy', as you understand it.

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.


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

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.

Rule according to a higher law just means that there are in fact constitutional or supraconstitutional principles that can't be changed on a whim to legitimate things that had previously been recognized as illegal under those principles (among other types of dick moves).

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.


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

No, it isn't! :)


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.)


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.


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.

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.

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.

Of course it's unjust and I never claimed otherwise. What was your idea for the final peace settlement?

I'm leery of accepting terra nullius as an argument here. The real issue is that this is an area that has at least two reasonably arguable indigenous populations, which do live in different areas, one of which is asserting varying levels of control over the other (which is also not run by hugely nice people, obviously).


Okay, I'll let you know when the Massachusetts General Court starts amending the US and Massachusetts constitutions for reasons pertaining to an area that's 3:1 Rhode Islanders and Bay Staters.


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:[/quote]

Bullsh**t. International law predates the UN and is the basis for its existence. The questionable priorities of the UN General Assembly notwithstanding, you can't just decide that the law of nations, which wasn't created ex nihilo by a single body in 1946, doesn't apply to you, lest other countries start to decide the same.


BRTD has already done so.

This isn't surprising at all given the right-wing government in Israel. And with the Arab Revolutions happening in neighboring countries I suspect Benny to become hardline on the Palestinian issue then he already is.

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

     The right-wing's just about everyone over in Israel, then. Among Israelis, only Hadash & Meretz are on the correct side of the issue. Neither of them are that big or powerful.

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

No, we really don't. It's pretty clear.

There's a 4,000 year trail of blood indicating that anti-semites are very rarely placated.

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.

All of you people are ridiculous.

I'm not racist.

The zionists who claim that the West Bank is their land because they're Jewish, who turn a blind eye to the abuse of the Palestinian people, are the racists.

Okay, you've gone out of line, seriously, "bloodsuckers"? That combined with your Gaddafi photo in your signature means you're not welcome on a reasonable forum like this.

That's not racist either...

Really? when was this?


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


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?

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.

This being the kernel of your observation - ZING!  Can't get any more blood-soaked and reprehensible than us.

There are few things that repulse me more than white people who decide to play "white knight" for the Palestinians while being venomously opposed to Israel and casting Jewish Israelis as "White Europeans" in order to make their point.

I always love the irony of the Jewish nation trying to expand it's living space to the East and expel the undesirables.

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.

Both sides are HP's. Simple as that.

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.

     Which is a red herring, since one does not have to be a "white knight" for the Palestinians to see an issue here. Philosophically, I think that people should be able to choose the government they live under. The Palestinians do not want to be a part of the Israeli nation-state and that people are so cavalier about forcing them to be a part of it disturbs me.

     Considering the deep-seeded mutual antipathy that exists between the Israelis and the Palestinians, I don't see anything other than a two-state solution succeeding (not to say that that is a surefire winner either). Israel should exist as a sovereign nation, and so should Palestine.

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!



Israel seems like a pretty obvious good guy to me.

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


HURR

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.

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

(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.

Literally both sides are horrible; the Palestinian leaders aren't doing the least bit to start a new dialogue and prevent their people from committing terrorism, but Israel is just as bad. The Israeli government forces many Arabs to carry IDs that Israelis don't need, they build Israeli homes in territory that they themselves promised to the Palestinians, they have created a de facto police state society, and they otherwise act incredibly bigoted towards all Arabs. In fact, from what I understand, some Israelis in positions of power have threatened to wipe the Palestinians off the map. Sound familiar?

Neither side is innocent here, but the Israelis have more power, so they abuse it more, and thus are closest to being the "bad guy" in this situation (though more misguided than cacklingly evil). If it was the country of Palestine and scattered bits of a mini Israel, then I would have exactly the same opinion.

What is this referring to?


We did? What is it that we promised?


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

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

No, it shouldn't apply to anyone.

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.


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.


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.

Hmmm... well, this (http://www.osaarchivum.org/galeria/the_divide/cpt09files/jm_part4.pdf) 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.

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 (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/william-hague-condemns-israeli-homes-plan-7830940.html).

As for the "police state" thing, what about that  Gaza flotilla raid (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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? And if (probably anti-authoritarian by default, since they're teenagers) Israeli teenagers think that Arabs don't deserve equal rights... (http://www.haaretz.com/news/national/poll-half-of-israeli-teens-don-t-want-arab-students-in-their-class-1.312479)

I might have chosen too strong of words, and I'm sorry if I'm assuming things (as I have never been to Israel, and I'm neither Israeli or Palestinian) but my point is that neither side is innocent (though Free Palestine goes way too far with the "Israel is evil" meme), neither Israel nor Palestine. Again, I'm not trying to be arrogant and I'm not trying to generalize things. I'm simply saying that neither your country, nor Palestine is innocent in this conflict.

EDIT: Crap, I'm just digging myself into a deeper hole, aren't I? My bad for commenting on this; Israel/Palestine is not one of the issues I think about that much, besides listening to people who either know a lot more or a lot less on the issue than myself.

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.


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.


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).

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.


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.


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.

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.

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

Fifty years ago religious conservatives didn't matter much in American politics, so their decline in influence in another fifty to hundred years is very much within the realm of possibility.  There's also the chance that the evangelicals and the Jews end up on the same side of the partisan divide in which case they would have no influence when the other side is in power.  Then there's the outside possibility that in another hundred years, the evangelicals stop being as enamored of Dispensationalism as they are now, in which case their devotion to there being a Jewish state would be less.  Then there's the fact that if the US goes broke, then even if we want to help, we might not be able to.

Really? Why so? I'm not saying one can't argue for international law or anything, but it is a bit of a silly concept.

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.

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.


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


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.

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.

I don't get why people care discussing the issue here, the Israeli could ground up the Palestenians as dog fooder and sell it to USA, and people like Vosem would defend it. As for Danny for many years I supported Israel, mostly because I saw the Palestinians as scum and their supporters as obnoxious (I still see their supporters as obnoxious), but people like him have convinced me that Israel isn't worth supporting. It's a disgusting state inheritor of the worst tendency in late 19th century Central European ideology and thoughts.

As for the whole only Democracy in the Middleeast, it's a bunch of crap, Lebanon have as good right to call itself a democracy as Israel, not that it keep some people from defending the slaughter of Lebanese civilians by the Israeli. It's clear that at best the foreign defence of Israel at best is pure racism (toward the Arabs/Muslims; see Breivik as the worst case of this attitude) or in case non-Israeli Jews pure supremacism and at worst is some kind of delusional idiocy based on sectarian and radical Christian doctrine. Of course for some it's to some degree of holdover from a time when being pro-Israeli wasn't as putrid as today.

We know what the alternative has historically looked like. It's called the right of the conqueror and if danny thinks that it's somehow more amenable to democracy and self-determination than is international law then I'd like to hear his argument.

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

Why buddy?  It just shows we know our own history.

Because for a very long time, including the Holocaust, the persecution of Jews has centered around the fact that our oppressors do not consider us "white" in the sense of European descent.

So now, to try to frame Israelis as "white colonialists" to delegitimize the Zionist cause is pretty warped.

The Israeli/Palestinian conflict is an ongoing territorial conflict between two people of Middle Eastern descent who lived on the land at different times.