Settlements only "illegal" for Jews

[Shusha]

They believe their right to exist in the 'holy land' comes from their God

The Jewish people believe that they, like all other peoples, have a right to national self-determination and self-government. That right arises from moral and legal principles developed by the international community over the past hundred years or so.

If we were to respectfully discuss tenets of faith (and no, I don't think its possible with you), I would say your comment above is a terrible misinterpretation of the Jewish beliefs concerning their relationship with Eretz Israel.

Their parliamentary rules were written by a zionist

Their parliamentary rules were written by a person who believes in the right of self-determination for the Jewish peoples? The HORROR!

Here we have nearly all countries where Islam prevails calling themselves Islamic Republics, yet here he is continuously stating that Israel is a theocracy despite the obvious fact it is not.

In thinking of the reasons for this, I have whittled down the possibilities to one explanation. I can think of no others.

IMO, he is misunderstanding and misrepresenting Judaism and its beliefs. Its pretty easy for people raised in a Xtian culture, to see Judaism through Xtian-colored glasses, and make the incorrect assumption that Judaism is just like Xtianity and Islam in worldview. Therefore, he boils the Jewish peoples relationship to Eretz Israel as "G-d said so" without giving consideration to history, ancestry, the origins of Jewish culture in that place, the thousand years old monuments, the agriculture and the turning of the seasons, and all the other connections.

One could copy / paste that onto any mono-culture that's ever existed Shusha

Perhaps you should review it's history >>>

Israel has evolved from democracy to theocracy

~S~

Yes, exactly. It could be said of many cultures. That's why reducing any rich culture, including Israel's, to "but G-d said so" is inappropriate.

And that's a pretty expansive definition of theocracy. By that definition, the US is a theocracy too.

 

[sparky]

That's why reducing any rich culture, including Israel's, to "but G-d said so" is inappropriate.

Apparently not when Israel declares 'holy land' theirs by way of God while standing on Deuteronomy 1:8

And that's a pretty expansive definition of theocracy. By that definition, the US is a theocracy too.

definitions are nefarious, i'll grant you that

and to be truthful , we've been slipping into theocratic territory for some time now

which should absolutely terrify anyone

~S~

 

[ForeverYoung436]

That's why reducing any rich culture, including Israel's, to "but G-d said so" is inappropriate.

Apparently not when Israel declares 'holy land' theirs by way of God while standing on Deuteronomy 1:8

And that's a pretty expansive definition of theocracy. By that definition, the US is a theocracy too.

definitions are nefarious, i'll grant you that

and to be truthful , we've been slipping into theocratic territory for some time now

which should absolutely terrify anyone

~S~

You're reducing Zionism to "G-d gave us the Land" is very simplistic. In fact, many of the early Zionists were atheists, to be truthful about it. When Israel's Declaration of Independence was written, there was a fierce debate among its signers whether to put G-d's Name in there. In the end, a compromise was reached, whereby only the term "the Rock of Israel" was used. This vague term could be interpreted to mean G-d, history, ancestry, tradition, archaeology, or whatever else one likes.

 

[Spartacactcus]

What exactly are you saying here? That a sovereign nation of almost 80 years can be disassembled?

Well I think it's true to say that states have no divine right to continue being states and there are plenty of examples of states that no longer exist , East Germany , Yugoslavia , United Arab Republic but you can relax , it's not what I am saying should happen to Israel. The state of Israel is a recognized state and I have no issue with the reality of its existence even if I think it's creation was unjust wrt the Arabs that have suffered as a result .

So no calls for it being " disassembled " from me, just the recognition of it within the pre june 67 lines and the support for the creation of a Palestinian state in the OPTs in line with the overwhelming international consensus currently being scuppered because of the US veto at the UN.

 

[Spartacactcus]

Do you have a list of countries to which you are NOT PERMITTED TO TRAVEL? Because of your religious faith, your ethnicity or because you once visited Israel?

Do you have a list of countries your GOD permits you to occupy , because of your religious faith / ethnicity ?

~S~

No, just one and that is Israel. How many Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu or Shinto countries are there, with no problem at all? Why can't the world tolerate just one Jewish country?

 

[sparky]

You're reducing Zionism to "G-d gave us the Land" is very simplistic.

It's what i'm told, I didn't invent it

In fact, many of the early Zionists were atheists, to be truthful about it

Then there's been an evolution in the term Zionist does not surprise me

https://www.history.com/topics/middle-east/zionism

~S~

 

[Coyote]

They believe their right to exist in the 'holy land' comes from their God

The Jewish people believe that they, like all other peoples, have a right to national self-determination and self-government. That right arises from moral and legal principles developed by the international community over the past hundred years or so.

If we were to respectfully discuss tenets of faith (and no, I don't think its possible with you), I would say your comment above is a terrible misinterpretation of the Jewish beliefs concerning their relationship with Eretz Israel.

Their parliamentary rules were written by a zionist

Their parliamentary rules were written by a person who believes in the right of self-determination for the Jewish peoples? The HORROR!

Here we have nearly all countries where Islam prevails calling themselves Islamic Republics, yet here he is continuously stating that Israel is a theocracy despite the obvious fact it is not.

In thinking of the reasons for this, I have whittled down the possibilities to one explanation. I can think of no others.

IMO, he is misunderstanding and misrepresenting Judaism and its beliefs. Its pretty easy for people raised in a Xtian culture, to see Judaism through Xtian-colored glasses, and make the incorrect assumption that Judaism is just like Xtianity and Islam in worldview. Therefore, he boils the Jewish peoples relationship to Eretz Israel as "G-d said so" without giving consideration to history, ancestry, the origins of Jewish culture in that place, the thousand years old monuments, the agriculture and the turning of the seasons, and all the other connections.

One could copy / paste that onto any mono-culture that's ever existed Shusha

Perhaps you should review it's history >>>

Israel has evolved from democracy to theocracy

~S~

But she is right. There is a deity involved, but also a whole lot more, and if I understand Judaism correctly (which I acknowledge is a limited knowledge), the expulsion from and return to “the land of Zion” is integral to their entire culture and history as a people, not a religion.

If comparisons could be made, I would venture to guess it is like Mecca to Islam and no one ever questions the tie of Muslims to that area or denies it.

 

[Spartacactcus]

No, just one and that is Israel. How many Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu or Shinto countries are there, with no problem at all? Why can't the world tolerate just one Jewish country?

It seems you want to focus only on conflicts that involve Muslims. If you look back over just the last 30-40 years you will see , if you look , that there have been numerous conflicts that involve those religious groups you mention above. Conflict is a human norm , sadly , and is not confined to any religious group or nationality.

The world does acknowledge the Jewish state but within the borders/lines established after the conflict 47-49. It then wishes to see,if the votes in the UN are anything to go by, a Palestinian state in the remaining 22 percent of the partition plan region and I think that is the best, most just resolution of the I/P we can hope for .

 

[sparky]

If comparisons could be made, I would venture to guess it is like Mecca to Islam and no one ever questions the tie of Muslims to that area or denies it.

indeed so Coyote

Islam openly acknowledges itself a theocracy , zionism and zionists preferring to cloak their religious motives behind parliamentary rule.

Despite calling themselves a Jewish nation ....not secularist at all

This is no less revealing were that the USofA called itself a christian nation

~S~

 

[sparky]

When Israel's Declaration of Independence was written, there was a fierce debate among its signers whether to put G-d's Name in there. In the end, a compromise was reached, whereby only the term "the Rock of Israel" was used. This vague term could be interpreted to mean G-d, history, ancestry, tradition, archaeology, or whatever else one likes.

We've a certain poster here (name purposely with held) insistent on the USofA being a christian nation by the white race, for the white race

He's actually rather savvy with legalese , providing what were the first English explorers of the 'new world' , who lived under English theocracy

they actually viewed themselves as Israelites referring to their quest to 'new Israel'

there's a few centuries of explorers, trade, settlers , etc, up until ONE brief moment in our history that stood out , which was the creation and signing of our Declaration of Independence

a generation after this, the religmo's infiltrated , coerced, capitulated and conned their way back into what was pristine secularism

there really is no worse control freakism than religion in governance

POINT? and i don't say this unkindly to you, but the history of Israel reads very much the same

~S~

 

[Spartacactcus]

You make some interesting points, which I put in bold.

On the first...there are some issues.

First...the rights of a people to self determination. Both the Palestinian people and the Jewish people have those rights. When you bring in the argument of immigration from all around the world, you ignore some basic facts. One, that the Jewish people have long inhabited that region, predating the other cultures.

That is well documented in archeological evidence and the fact that there has always been a continuous Jewish presence in that region. Certainly, given the many groups struggling for a national presence in post-Mandate Middle East, the Jews deserve a piece of that pie. Judaism is a religion, but it is also an ethnicity. So why are they treated differently than other ethnic groups or peoples seeking self determination?

If immigration is an issue, the Palestinians themselves are comprised of those people who’s ancestors have lived there since before Islam, peoples who have immigrated in at later times, and people who immigrated much more recently from Egypt and other surrounding areas to work.

So it seems if immigration is somehow a disqualifier for having a state you would have to apply the same to both sides.

I have no issue with both peoples having the right to self determination. At present one has and one hasn't , that's the issue for me.

I don't ignore the fact that there has been a Jewish presence in the region, I just refuse to accept that it negates the right of the Palestinians to authentic self determination.

I also don't subscribe to the Jewish people being an ethnically homogenous group and see them as a religious group made up of different ethnicities. Hence we see sephardi Jews who are the descendants of the Jews from Spain and Portugal. Ashkenazi Jews with their roots in Europe and we had the hullabalu when the black Jews wanted in on the Jewish state. To me its as daft as saying Christianity is an ethnic group. Would you support the ousting of some indigenous people to create the Christian state within it's borders? Or what about telling the Eskimos to make way for one for Jehovahs witnesses?

Maybe that's why there is some discussion about ethnicity but to me it is largely irrelevant now and all's we have to do is concentrate on ending the conflict in the most just and pragmatic way we can, which to me is a two state solution on the 67 lines.

My point about immigration is that it is unreasonable to me that

A. A Jewish person from anywhere in the world can " return " to a place they have had no discernible connection with for millenia in a physical way but a person whose entire family have lived there for centuries prior to the advent of zionism has that right denied to them by said person. Sure immigration is an issue for both groups but can you honestly tell me that the above can be seen as just ?

B That those "returning" actually maintain a dual nationality whilst the Palestinians have no such option because their right to a state of their own is being continually denied them? One group can be the citizen of two nations and the other hasn't even a state to call their own in reality. Does that seem just to you ?

 

[Spartacactcus]

If you have a valid legal argument for Israel not having sovereign claim to the territory, then present it instead of making negative personal comments. I've been discussing this issue for decades and have NEVER seen one.

The valid legal argument is the applicability of the 4th GC to the Israeli occupation and illegal settlement of the territories it captured and has tried to annexe ( flatly rejected internationally ) in the wake of the 1967 conflict. You will know this and you will know that a great many legal scholars along with most HR organisations hold the view that it applies to the Israeli occupation and settlement. If you want to dismiss that as " never " having seen one you are just confirming what I said.

At the beginning I stated a wish to see this very question , the very argument , put to the likes of the ICJ so as to set the stage for meaningful negotiations aimed at a just resolution of the conflict. That means exactly what it says, that I accept there are different POV that have some validity , you cannot even get that far

 

[ForeverYoung436]

If you have a valid legal argument for Israel not having sovereign claim to the territory, then present it instead of making negative personal comments. I've been discussing this issue for decades and have NEVER seen one.

The valid legal argument is the applicability of the 4th GC to the Israeli occupation and illegal settlement of the territories it captured and has tried to annexe ( flatly rejected internationally ) in the wake of the 1967 conflict. You will know this and you will know that a great many legal scholars along with most HR organisations hold the view that it applies to the Israeli occupation and settlement. If you want to dismiss that as " never " having seen one you are just confirming what I said.

At the beginning I stated a wish to see this very question , the very argument , put to the likes of the ICJ so as to set the stage for meaningful negotiations aimed at a just resolution of the conflict. That means exactly what it says, that I accept there are different POV that have some validity , you cannot even get that far

Israel has never tried to annex the West Bank and Gaza. She did annex East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights.

 

[Spartacactcus]

Do you have a list of countries to which you are NOT PERMITTED TO TRAVEL? Because of your religious faith, your ethnicity or because you once visited Israel?

Do you have a list of countries your GOD permits you to occupy , because of your religious faith / ethnicity ?

~S~

Every peoples has the right to self-determination. That is the whole of my position on this topic.

It's how that 'right' is concluded Shusha

which quantifies both position and topic....

~S~

Okay, I'll bite. How should a right to self-determination be concluded?

Two states for two peoples , one each as per the overwhelming international consensus based on th 67 lines with genuine autonomy for both peoples

 

[Spartacactcus]

Israel has never tried to annex the West Bank and Gaza. She did annex East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights.

Really ?

You know exactly what Israel wants to annexe from the WB by where the annexation wall strays from the internationallly recognized borders.

For the two examples you gave , nobody except Trump has recognized the legitimacy of Israeli attempts to annexe those regions. And if you allow Trump to set your compasses forget the law altogether imo

 

[Spartacactcus]

1. You make the prior assumption that settlement is illegal, yet this is what we are trying to determine.

Correct because I think the 4thGC applies to them

2. You bring up annexation with no definition of what is being annexed and from whom.

The Golan is being annexed ,along with East Jerusalem and the major illegal settlement blocks as per where the annexation wall strays from the internationally recognized borders.

From the Syrians and the Palestinians

3. You fail to define the "territory of another people" and lay out the legal claim to such.

See above , Syrians and Palestinians

4. You throw in "security needs" without explaining how that is relevant to the legal claims.

It's what Israel and its supporters say is the reason for the occupation and thus what legitimizes it , IE the right to self defence

5. You label the conflict as a religious conflict.

I actually view it more of a nationalist conflict

6. You claim, not in evidence, that Israel denies a people a right to self determination and seeks to supplant them.

Correct , the continuing occupation of the OPTs is denying them their right to self determination and , additionally , is a mass violation of many other human rights affecting millons of individuals

 

[Spartacactcus]

1. Who has legal title to the territory in question?

Imo the Syrians have legal title to the Golan and the Palestinians , after their occupation by Egypt and Jordan should have legal title to those territories occupied by Israel since 1967

2. Is the "occupier" laying claim outside their own international borders?

Imo yes, the recognized international borders are the pre June 67 borders in the post 4th GC period

3. Are the individuals moving into the territory voluntarily?

Yes, with a massive subsidy from the state of Israel as an enticement. They are actually human shields for territorial expansion imo

4. Is there an historical connection of the people with that territory?

Absolutely , much more so in a physical sense than many who are relying on a biblical justification

5. Are there unresolved issues of self-determination for one or more peoples?

Yep, one people have it the others are being denied it

 

[Coyote]

No, just one and that is Israel. How many Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu or Shinto countries are there, with no problem at all? Why can't the world tolerate just one Jewish country?

It seems you want to focus only on conflicts that involve Muslims. If you look back over just the last 30-40 years you will see , if you look , that there have been numerous conflicts that involve those religious groups you mention above. Conflict is a human norm , sadly , and is not confined to any religious group or nationality.

Indeed. It seems once a religion becomes a dominant political power, it becomes less tolerant.

IMO - government works best as a secular institution, at least in a pluralistic state.

 

[Spartacactcus]

If you have a valid legal argument for Israel not having sovereign claim to the territory, then present it instead of making negative personal comments. I've been discussing this issue for decades and have NEVER seen one.

Well , we do have the view from the legal advisor to the Israeli govt at the time to consider and it doesn't do your case much good. He doesn't even attempt to justify Israeli settlement of the Golan and has this to say about Israeli settlement of the Palestinian territories in September 1967

The prohibition therefore is categorical and not conditional upon the motives for the transfer or its objectives. Its purpose is to prevent settlement in occupied territory of citizens of the occupying state. If it is decided to go ahead with Jewish settlement in the administered territories, it seems to me vital, therefore, that settlement is carried out by military and not civilian entities. It is also important, in my view, that such settlement is in the framework of camps and is, on the face of it, of a temporary rather than permanent nature.

.

https://www.soas.ac.uk/lawpeacemideast/resources/file48485.pdf

 

[Coyote]

Israel has never tried to annex the West Bank and Gaza. She did annex East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights.

Actually Israel has and is trying to annex the West Bank through a deliberate campaign of demographic change..."facts on the ground". Once the population shift is favorable to annexation, I suspect that will occur. I think it's dishonest to pretend that it wasn't planned or that Israel wasn't intending just that.

They should just do it and be done with it. At least then the Palestinians residing there might have a chance of citizenship, and the same benefits of subsidized planning and expansion the Jews get.