Menu
Jump to content

What's with the ads?

goldberry

An Israel Question

Recommended Posts

I'm curious to understand the other side of this argument.  

 

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/12/18/571653304/u-s-vetoes-u-n-security-council-resolution-voiding-trumps-jerusalem-move?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

 

This article has to do with the recent UN veto, but that's not what my question is about.  It's about the 2016 resolution:

 

That resolution, which had 14 votes in favor, "reaffirmed ... that Israel's establishment of settlements in Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, had no legal validity, constituting a flagrant violation under international law and a major obstacle to the vision of two States living side-by-side in peace and security, within internationally recognized borders."

 

The resolution also said that the Council would not recognize any changes to the June 4, 1967 lines, "including with regard to Jerusalem, other than those agreed by the two sides through negotiations."

 

"Given the chance to vote again," said Haley to the Council, "I can say with complete confidence, we would vote no and exercise our veto power."

 

What is the argument that Israel's claiming territory after 1967 is legal and should be recognized?  Is there an argument to that effect, or is it mostly that the US is just "on Israel's side" so we're going to ignore that part?  I don't understand what the argument is.  Even my very conservative Army vet Republican father thinks that Israel violated international law.  I'm interested in hearing another perspective though.

 

 

Edited by goldberry
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm no lawyer or politician, but I think it's a recognition that countries seize territories in war often and that the land passes back and forth like this routinely.  Much like the USA seized some of it's territories and parts of the USA through force in the past.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Google Eugene Kontorovich and you'll find a lot of articles or videos discussing his legal arguments in favor of Israel on this topic.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They won it in the Six Day War.  When you gain territory in a defensive war, it is yours fair and square.   

 

 

One thing interesting on the territory in that area.   Several years ago, National Geographic did one of their pretty multi-colored centerfold spreads on maps of Israel at each conference.  For every conference, they had the PLO-offer, current and Israel-Offer,.   They were in that order, so that the Isreal-offer of the previous conference was just to the left of the PLO-offer.    In each and every one, the PLO-offer gave them less territory than the previous conferences Israel-offer.   

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Geneva_Convention

 

The international community believes the settlements are illegal because of the Fourth Geneva Convention. Israel claims the Fourth doesn’t apply to them. So it’s basically the whole world is in agreement vs Israel and the US government.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They won it in the Six Day War. When you gain territory in a defensive war, it is yours fair and square.

 

 

.

Good grief, the world is not as simple as this. There are international laws, and while I know Americans and Israel, among other places, often think they are above such laws, the international community keeps trying. Google the Fourth Geneva Convention, which I linked upthread. This is what Israel is disputing. Edited by Dotwithaperiod
  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good grief, the world is not as simple as this. There are international laws, and while I know Americans and Israel, among other places, often think they are above such laws, the international community keeps trying. Google the Fourth Geneva Convention, which I linked upthread. This is what Israel is disputing.

 

OP's question was inquiring about how people could think differently than she did.   I presented part of the other side's viewpoint.    There is no reason to get snippy.    I know about the Fourth Geneva Convention, and there are reasonable arguments for why it isn't applicable.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The international community believes the settlements are illegal because of the Fourth Geneva Convention. Israel claims the Fourth doesn’t apply to them. So it’s basically the whole world is in agreement vs Israel and the US government.

 

This seems to be true.  

 

From reading about it, it seems that Resolution 242 was purposely left a bit vague so that the two parties could negotiate a border.  Instead, Israel has proceeded to create settlements in all those areas, so it would now be pretty much impossible to have a decent border that would not result in relocation for tons of people.  Is that somewhat accurate?

 

I read the arguments about why Israel thinks Fourth Convention doesn't apply, but no one really agrees with them except the U.S., and the U.S. only on occasion. 

 

All the strife and killing and bad mojo throughout the Middle East over this one area.  So much stubbornness on both sides. 

 

How many times when humans try to "fix things" they make things worse?  Nice idea, giving Jews their own country.  Nice ideas don't always work out though.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They won it in the Six Day War.  When you gain territory in a defensive war, it is yours fair and square. 

 

Aside from the fact that this isn't true, the fact of the matter is that Israel attacked first. What the hell sort of defensive war is that when you're the one attacking them!?

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aside from the fact that this isn't true, the fact of the matter is that Israel attacked first. What the hell sort of defensive war is that when you're the one attacking them!?

Your link isn't working. To answer your question, the pre-emptive strike is a defensive war when you look at the events leading up to the strike.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This seems to be true.

 

From reading about it, it seems that Resolution 242 was purposely left a bit vague so that the two parties could negotiate a border. Instead, Israel has proceeded to create settlements in all those areas, so it would now be pretty much impossible to have a decent border that would not result in relocation for tons of people. Is that somewhat accurate?

 

I read the arguments about why Israel thinks Fourth Convention doesn't apply, but no one really agrees with them except the U.S., and the U.S. only on occasion.

 

All the strife and killing and bad mojo throughout the Middle East over this one area. So much stubbornness on both sides.

 

How many times when humans try to "fix things" they make things worse? Nice idea, giving Jews their own country. Nice ideas don't always work out though.

No one was trying to be nice. No western countries wanted the displaced Jews, so they created a separate place for them.
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When you win a war, you get the spoils. Also, in general, I think a country decides to get to decide their own capitol.  It is a complicated matter.  Israel is a great ally of the US,  Palestinian territories are not.  I am of mixed mind about this.  But then, many complicated issues are not easy.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your link isn't working. To answer your question, the pre-emptive strike is a defensive war when you look at the events leading up to the strike.

This was my admittedly simplistic understanding. That they were on the brink of war anyway. Militarily it was a good move but obviously not politically.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No one was trying to be nice. No western countries wanted the displaced Jews, so they created a separate place for them.

Unfortunately, a separate place wasn’t found, since there are now over seven million displaced Palestinians. Trading one group of displaced people for another isn’t a workable solution, and not surprisingly, Palestinians didn’t feel it was their responsibility to solve Europe’s problem with anti-Semitism after WWII.

 

(Responding in general now to the direction the discussion has gone, not specially to the quoted post.)

 

In the end, this isn’t about land, but about people. Even if all Palestinians living outside Israeli territory gave up their UN-protected right to return, there are still over 4 million Palestinians living on Israeli territory who cannot become citizens of Israel and who have nowhere else to go. It is an untenable situation. Israel may control the land, but I think we need a higher standard for the *people* who are victims (not spoils) of war. This is something Israel and the US has yet to truly grapple with.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have heard that without the Golan Heights part of the occupied territories Israel is militarily quite vulnerable; that that land is strategically crucial to defense.  I have not checked that out personally though.

 

Regarding the Western countries supposedly not wanting the Jews so they gave them already occupied land, I think that that is an immensely misleading POV.  Jewish people had been buying up and developing land in Israel for decades before the formation of the State of Israel.

 

And I don't see any Arabic countries giving portions of their (quite ample) land to the Palestinians, actually.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

And I don't see any Arabic countries giving portions of their (quite ample) land to the Palestinians, actually.

 

I know very little of the subject so I don't know whether land has been offered (beyond the land in neighbouring countries where Palestinians already live as refugees), but it seems odd to offer this as a solution. 

 

'You and your ancestors are from France, but Italy is offering you land, so that's okay then.'

 

Edited by Laura Corin
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, there are millions of Palestinians living in Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria. I meet Palestinians living here in Saudi all the time. And most Palestinians want to live in the land they fled from because of war, as is their right as refugees under UN conventions. Again, moving one displaced population and displacing another population isn’t a defensible solution.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know very little of the subject so I don't know whether land has been offered (beyond the land in neighbouring countries where Palestinians already live as refugees), but it seems odd to offer this as a solution. 

 

I did not offer this as a solution; merely as an analogy to the other argument, which was expressed rather misleadingly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's interesting that the same people will argue for repatriation in some circumstances but not in others.  That makes it seem more about whose ox is being gored.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have heard that without the Golan Heights part of the occupied territories Israel is militarily quite vulnerable; that that land is strategically crucial to defense. I have not checked that out personally though.

 

Regarding the Western countries supposedly not wanting the Jews so they gave them already occupied land, I think that that is an immensely misleading POV. Jewish people had been buying up and developing land in Israel for decades before the formation of the State of Israel.

 

And I don't see any Arabic countries giving portions of their (quite ample) land to the Palestinians, actually.

Was this land grab via purchasing power happening while the Jewish People were being herded up and shipped to concentration camps?

 

When the State of Israel was being created a 2 state solution was offered. The Arab leaders of the time rejected the offer as they didn't want Israel to be created at all. Yet, somehow the Jewish People are at fault for the lack of a Homeland.

 

I don't like anyone being displaced from the place they call home. There are very real people who are just trying to be good people. Roof over their head, food on the table, and healthy family. Too many people are swept up in situations caused by governments. I wish I knew what the solution is but I fear there is too much hatred by sects of people right now for an effective solution to be reached at this time.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's interesting that the same people will argue for repatriation in some circumstances but not in others. That makes it seem more about whose ox is being gored.

Would you elaborate on this with some more specific examples? I’m curious what you are referring to.
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know very little of the subject so I don't know whether land has been offered (beyond the land in neighbouring countries where Palestinians already live as refugees), but it seems odd to offer this as a solution. 

 

'You and your ancestors are from France, but Italy is offering you land, so that's okay then.'

 

 

"And you're both Catholic, so it makes total sense." Is also part of the equation. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Was this land grab via purchasing power happening while the Jewish People were being herded up and shipped to concentration camps?

 

When the State of Israel was being created a 2 state solution was offered. The Arab leaders of the time rejected the offer as they didn't want Israel to be created at all. Yet, somehow the Jewish People are at fault for the lack of a Homeland.

 

I don't like anyone being displaced from the place they call home. There are very real people who are just trying to be good people. Roof over their head, food on the table, and healthy family. Too many people are swept up in situations caused by governments. I wish I knew what the solution is but I fear there is too much hatred by sects of people right now for an effective solution to be reached at this time.

The Jewish people aren’t at fault for a lack of a home land. They also aren’t at fault for England’s colonial ugliness. They also aren’t at fault for Israel’s war crimes.

 

 

But Israel is accountable for its war crimes. And its ‘fair and square’ accumulations in ‘defensive’ wars are , quite fairly, a sticky point of contention. It’s a very unfortunate situation.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No one was trying to be nice. No western countries wanted the displaced Jews, so they created a separate place for them.

 

I didn't think they were being nice, I meant it seemed like a good idea, "hey, let's put them here back where they used to be long ago, then that will solve things."  Like so many political plans, it wasn't thought through, it wasn't planned out properly.  Humans are ridiculously short-sighted.  It ended up destabilizing an entire region.

 

 

Unfortunately, a separate place wasn’t found, since there are now over seven million displaced Palestinians. Trading one group of displaced people for another isn’t a workable solution, and not surprisingly, Palestinians didn’t feel it was their responsibility to solve Europe’s problem with anti-Semitism after WWII.

 

(Responding in general now to the direction the discussion has gone, not specially to the quoted post.)

 

In the end, this isn’t about land, but about people. Even if all Palestinians living outside Israeli territory gave up their UN-protected right to return, there are still over 4 million Palestinians living on Israeli territory who cannot become citizens of Israel and who have nowhere else to go. It is an untenable situation. Israel may control the land, but I think we need a higher standard for the *people* who are victims (not spoils) of war. This is something Israel and the US has yet to truly grapple with.

 

This is the core of the problem.  And I agree it's not a valid solution that they can just go live with other Arabs/Muslims.  

 

It's a very sad situation for all the actual people involved.  As I said, there was and is stubbornness on both sides.

 

Related to the specific topic of the borders after 1967, it seems to me a solution would have been much easier if Israel had followed international law and refrained from creating settlements in those areas until an agreement could be reached.  My Army dad says it's clear that Israel created those settlements specifically to make it harder for the Palestinians to get the land back.  Now the price is being paid because no agreement can be reached.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have heard that without the Golan Heights part of the occupied territories Israel is militarily quite vulnerable; that that land is strategically crucial to defense. I have not checked that out personally though.

 

Regarding the Western countries supposedly not wanting the Jews so they gave them already occupied land, I think that that is an immensely misleading POV. Jewish people had been buying up and developing land in Israel for decades before the formation of the State of Israel.

 

And I don't see any Arabic countries giving portions of their (quite ample) land to the Palestinians, actually.

I can’t even wrap my head around this. I like land for defense, so I take it. Never mind that it isn’t mine. Golan Heights is Syria. You don’t get to take it just because you like it.

Palestians have a home. They don’t need anybody to give them land. They just need people to stop stealing theirs.

 

How about we move French people to Germany (they are all Christian Europeans) or the vice versa and give them that land? No?

 

I think at the end of it, a human being is a human being. They deserve equal rights, Palestinian or Jewish, which really isn’t the case there.

 

And who gives the right to Europeans to decide who gets the land that doesn’t even belong to them to begins with?

Edited by Roadrunner
  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Your link isn't working. To answer your question, the pre-emptive strike is a defensive war when you look at the events leading up to the strike.

 

Well, it's wikipedia. So look for it.

 

And once you've made a pre-emptive strike, you lose the moral high ground and you can no longer call it a defensive war. Maybe there was a diplomatic solution, but now we'll never know.

 

And *even if* it was a defensive war, which is a dubious claim, it still doesn't work like "we won a defensive war, so we get to take your land".

 

And I don't see any Arabic countries giving portions of their (quite ample) land to the Palestinians, actually.

 

Yes, there's a lot of blame to go around on all sides, and moving Palestinians out of refugee camps and marginal places and into citizenship where they already are would help a lot. But "oh, the other countries aren't doing their job" doesn't make Israel's actions right.

 

When the State of Israel was being created a 2 state solution was offered. The Arab leaders of the time rejected the offer as they didn't want Israel to be created at all. Yet, somehow the Jewish People are at fault for the lack of a Homeland.

 

The Kurds don't "have a homeland". The Roma don't "have a homeland". The Rohingya don't "have a homeland". Nobody says "Welp, you folks over there, cede your territory so they can govern themselves where you currently live", and certainly not "Great, cede your territory so they can be a bit more defensible".

 

Edited by Tanaqui
  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is an unfortunate situation all around and I think the blame (if blame has to be assigned) goes to everyone to some extent (though I am not as familiar with the details as I should be). However, it doesn't really matter now whose fault it was so much - somehow the mess needs to be resolved in a way everyone can live with and with the least possible disruption. And unfortunately that means both sides (and maybe others) have to be willing to sit down together, look at this realistically, give up part of their hopes/rights etc. and find a solution that is doable and sustainable.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can’t even wrap my head around this. I like land for defense, so I take it. Never mind that it isn’t mine. Golan Heights is Syria. You don’t get to take it just because you like it.

Palestians have a home. They don’t need anybody to give them land. They just need people to stop stealing theirs.

 

How about we move French people to Germany (they are all Christian Europeans) or the vice versa and give them that land? No?

 

I think at the end of it, a human being is a human being. They deserve equal rights, Palestinian or Jewish, which really isn’t the case there.

 

And who gives the right to Europeans to decide who gets the land that doesn’t even belong to them to begins with?

 

Isn't this just like what happened in the Trail of Tears?  People are occupying a piece of land you want, so lets move them off to somewhere far away.  

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as destabilising goes I think that goes back further in a way. Because it was all part of the Ottoman Turkish empire. When that lost its power the region was already somewhat destabilised.

 

As far as "giving people a home land". It wasn't totally just a case of Europeans deciding that. There had been a movement within Jewish people worldwide seeking that for over 100 years. There was talk of creating one in Uganda and also in Northwest Australia. The reason Israel ended up being the place was because it had historical and religious significance and at the time government policy briefly allowed for significant land purchases in the region. It wasn't just a case of European nations deciding to "give them a homeland". The people migrated there in large numbers. For a long time Uk saw what was happening and tried to stop the immigration but it continued to happen illegally. Jewish immigrants were detained in illegal immigration camps. So it was more a case of figuring out what to do with people who were already determined to go there.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, it's wikipedia. So look for it.

 

And once you've made a pre-emptive strike, you lose the moral high ground and you can no longer call it a defensive war. Maybe there was a diplomatic solution, but now we'll never know.

 

And *even if* it was a defensive war, which is a dubious claim, it still doesn't work like "we won a defensive war, so we get to take your land".

 

 

Yes, there's a lot of blame to go around on all sides, and moving Palestinians out of refugee camps and marginal places and into citizenship where they already are would help a lot. But "oh, the other countries aren't doing their job" doesn't make Israel's actions right.

 

 

The Kurds don't "have a homeland". The Roma don't "have a homeland". The Rohingya don't "have a homeland". Nobody says "Welp, you folks over there, cede your territory so they can govern themselves where you currently live", and certainly not "Great, cede your territory so they can be a bit more defensible".

I think the Kurds do have a home land in a way. They have a place where they have lived for years. What they don't have is independent control or the ability to self govern in that area? I may be wrong as I don't know all of the history.

 

I feel like this is somewhat similar to the Palestinians. They didn't have a governing body at the time but they'd lived in the region for many years under other governments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is an unfortunate situation all around and I think the blame (if blame has to be assigned) goes to everyone to some extent (though I am not as familiar with the details as I should be). However, it doesn't really matter now whose fault it was so much - somehow the mess needs to be resolved in a way everyone can live with and with the least possible disruption. And unfortunately that means both sides (and maybe others) have to be willing to sit down together, look at this realistically, give up part of their hopes/rights etc. and find a solution that is doable and sustainable.

 

Imagine negotiating for a solution with the 9/11 terrorists.  I don't mean one side of the other is as bad as those terrorists, I mean, imagine yourself negotiating with people who despise you, who you despise. Who have killed a lot of innocent people including children (remember Bin Laden's stated reason for the attack was US military interference in the Muslim world, including starving children). Imagine the terrorism was ongoing for years.  Then you need to negotiate so you can live side by side.  And you'd have to trying to convince your neighbors that peaceful co-existence is a good idea.  It's really, really, really hard.  

 

I'm not saying this in favor of either side, I just am really glad i don't have to walk in those shoes.

Edited by poppy
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...