Criticism of Israel

[Shusha]

I understand what you are saying but I think it is more likely to build barriers. In the current climate it is being used to stifle legitimate criticism..

I disagree. I think it is being used to thinly disguise antisemitism as legitimate criticism. But it should be easy enough to test, as I have suggested in this thread. Any legitimate criticism of Israel, like any country, would focus on specific actions, rather than characterizations.

The anti semites are easy enough to spot.

Well, yes and no. It would seem easy enough. But even today, on this thread, one poster suggested that calling for the genocide of the Jewish people depends on the "context" and the "interpretation". That one seems as clear cut to me as it can possibly get.

People struggle a LOT with understanding that applying a higher standard to Israel than the standard applied to all other states is a form of antisemitism. This is obvious to me, not so much to others.

They tend to use the same tropes and are generally crazy.

And this is why definitions are useful. Which tropes? What is "crazy"? By defining those things, rather than waving vaguely at them, we can begin to understand what antisemitism looks like.

But people who have a problem with land stealing on the west bank have a legit beef.

I'd argue that "land stealing" is a characterization, rather than an action. And that the act of characterizing it as "land stealing" is itself a barrier to fruitful conversation. The characterization shapes and frames the parameters of the dialogue. What if we readjusted the lens, and it turns out that Israel isn't stealing anything?

Be specific about the action you are calling out. What do you actually have a beef with here? Is it that Israel might choose to apply sovereignty over territory where Israelis live, even though she hasn't? Is it that Israelis aren't permitted to live in certain places? Where? Why? Is it that any territory which might eventually belong to a State of Palestine must be free of Israeli citizens or Jews?

Note: I wouldn't say that claiming Israel is "stealing land" is antisemitic, of itself, in isolation, even though it is a double standard. Mostly this particular claim is made based on repeating sound bytes without understanding the full legal scope of the conflict.

Trying to silence them by throwing the anti semite label around is disingenuous.. Its just a way to silence dissent.. Legit dissent.

No one is trying to silence them. Look at all of us right here holding dialogue on this thread, discussing antisemitism and what it looks like. Indeed, as Coyote will surely tell you if she see this, I have been begging for years to engage in constructive dialogue and criticism about Israel. So many here just want to throw slurs and demonizations around.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

I disagree. I think it is being used to thinly disguise antisemitism as legitimate criticism. But it should be easy enough to test, as I have suggested in this thread. Any legitimate criticism of Israel, like any country, would focus on specific actions, rather than characterizations.

Well, yes and no. It would seem easy enough. But even today, on this thread, one poster suggested that calling for the genocide of the Jewish people depends on the "context" and the "interpretation". That one seems as clear cut to me as it can possibly get.

People struggle a LOT with understanding that applying a higher standard to Israel than the standard applied to all other states is a form of antisemitism. This is obvious to me, not so much to others.

And this is why definitions are useful. Which tropes? What is "crazy"? By defining those things, rather than waving vaguely at them, we can begin to understand what antisemitism looks like.

I'd argue that "land stealing" is a characterization, rather than an action. And that the act of characterizing it as "land stealing" is itself a barrier to fruitful conversation. The characterization shapes and frames the parameters of the dialogue. What if we readjusted the lens, and it turns out that Israel isn't stealing anything?

Be specific about the action you are calling out. What do you actually have a beef with here? Is it that Israel might choose to apply sovereignty over territory where Israelis live, even though she hasn't? Is it that Israelis aren't permitted to live in certain places? Where? Why? Is it that any territory which might eventually belong to a State of Palestine must be free of Israeli citizens or Jews?

Note: I wouldn't say that claiming Israel is "stealing land" is antisemitic, of itself, in isolation, even though it is a double standard. Mostly this particular claim is made based on repeating sound bytes without understanding the full legal scope of the conflict.

No one is trying to silence them. Look at all of us right here holding dialogue on this thread, discussing antisemitism and what it looks like. Indeed, as Coyote will surely tell you if she see this, I have been begging for years to engage in constructive dialogue and criticism about Israel. So many here just want to throw slurs and demonizations around.

Land stealing is what it is. And it seems to be done with the blessing of the govt.
You seem opaque on Israels actions.

Is it that Israel might choose to apply sovereignty over territory where Israelis live, even though she hasn't? Is it that Israelis aren't permitted to live in certain places

Your definition of applying sovereigntty seems to be shooting the owners and driving them off the land at gunpoint.

This land theft doesnt happen anywhere else in the civilised world.Israelis can live anywhere they want to provide they buy the land from a willing seller.

And I do not apply a higher standard to Israel. I cant see where I have ever done that. Sweden isnt bombing kids in hospitals.

Maybe if you take off your goggles you might see things a bit clearer.?

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Well, yes and no. It would seem easy enough. But even today, on this thread, one poster suggested that calling for the genocide of the Jewish people depends on the "context" and the "interpretation". That one seems as clear cut to me as it can possibly get.

That was probably me and I'm happy to discuss this and support what I posted with rational argument, so if you want to go that route you can, ball's in your court. It's telling too you how you avoided quoting what I actually argued, preferring instead to inaccurately paraphrase me.

 

[ShahdagMountains]

Land stealing is what it is. And it seems to be done with the blessing of the govt.
You seem opaque on Israels actions.

Is it that Israel might choose to apply sovereignty over territory where Israelis live, even though she hasn't? Is it that Israelis aren't permitted to live in certain places

Your definition of applying sovereigntty seems to be shooting the owners and driving them off the land at gunpoint.

This land theft doesnt happen anywhere else in the civilised world.Israelis can live anywhere they want to provide they buy the land from a willing seller.

And I do not apply a higher standard to Israel. I cant see where I have ever done that. Sweden isnt bombing kids in hospitals.

Maybe if you take off your goggles you might see things a bit clearer.?

More guff from you.

 

[ShahdagMountains]

I disagree. I think it is being used to thinly disguise antisemitism as legitimate criticism. But it should be easy enough to test, as I have suggested in this thread. Any legitimate criticism of Israel, like any country, would focus on specific actions, rather than characterizations.

Well, yes and no. It would seem easy enough. But even today, on this thread, one poster suggested that calling for the genocide of the Jewish people depends on the "context" and the "interpretation". That one seems as clear cut to me as it can possibly get.

People struggle a LOT with understanding that applying a higher standard to Israel than the standard applied to all other states is a form of antisemitism. This is obvious to me, not so much to others.

And this is why definitions are useful. Which tropes? What is "crazy"? By defining those things, rather than waving vaguely at them, we can begin to understand what antisemitism looks like.

I'd argue that "land stealing" is a characterization, rather than an action. And that the act of characterizing it as "land stealing" is itself a barrier to fruitful conversation. The characterization shapes and frames the parameters of the dialogue. What if we readjusted the lens, and it turns out that Israel isn't stealing anything?

Be specific about the action you are calling out. What do you actually have a beef with here? Is it that Israel might choose to apply sovereignty over territory where Israelis live, even though she hasn't? Is it that Israelis aren't permitted to live in certain places? Where? Why? Is it that any territory which might eventually belong to a State of Palestine must be free of Israeli citizens or Jews?

Note: I wouldn't say that claiming Israel is "stealing land" is antisemitic, of itself, in isolation, even though it is a double standard. Mostly this particular claim is made based on repeating sound bytes without understanding the full legal scope of the conflict.

No one is trying to silence them. Look at all of us right here holding dialogue on this thread, discussing antisemitism and what it looks like. Indeed, as Coyote will surely tell you if she see this, I have been begging for years to engage in constructive dialogue and criticism about Israel. So many here just want to throw slurs and demonizations around.

You think you can “discuss” these issues with the majority here?

They all follow the same cliched dialogue and stereotyped argument as each other.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Or Palestine. They don't even have P sound in their alphabet. Scandal!

Alphabets don't contain phonemes. I think you meant to say "they don't have a P phoneme in their language".

 

[toomuchtime_]

Land stealing is what it is. And it seems to be done with the blessing of the govt.
You seem opaque on Israels actions.

Is it that Israel might choose to apply sovereignty over territory where Israelis live, even though she hasn't? Is it that Israelis aren't permitted to live in certain places

Your definition of applying sovereigntty seems to be shooting the owners and driving them off the land at gunpoint.

This land theft doesnt happen anywhere else in the civilised world.Israelis can live anywhere they want to provide they buy the land from a willing seller.

And I do not apply a higher standard to Israel. I cant see where I have ever done that. Sweden isnt bombing kids in hospitals.

Maybe if you take off your goggles you might see things a bit clearer.?

An entirely bogus claim. All of the Israeli settlements in the West Bank take up only 3.6% of the West Bank

How Israeli Settlements Impede the Two-State Solution

Israeli settlement expansion in the West Bank is imperiling the viability of a two-state solution and destroying any chance for peace in the Middle East.

carnegieendowment.org

and there have never been official plans to expand the settlements beyond 8% of the West Bank. All of the settlements are built in on state land in area C which Oslo assigned to Israeli civil and security control until a final agreement between Israel and the PA is realized.

All governments seize privately owned land when they deem it necessary - to build roads or for urban renewal projects, for example - but no privately owned Palestinian land has been seized in the West Bank to make way for new settlements, and in 2006 Israel began a thorough ongoing investigation of all Arab claims of land theft and as a result some settlements have been closed and some Arabs have received negotiated settlements.

For over 100 years the Arabs have been bellowing about land theft by Jews and it has never been true. The only large scale land theft that has occurred there was committed by the Arabs when the ethnically cleansed all the Jews from the West Bank and looted all their property during the Mandate.

 

[Lisa558]

You think you can “discuss” these issues with the majority here?

They all follow the same cliched dialogue and stereotyped argument as each other.

And while the antisemites lie about “land stealing,” here’s a map of the entire MidEast - essentially Judenfrei other than the 0.5% sliver of land called Israel. There were thriving Jewish communities in ALL these Arab lands 100 years ago, and now all the Jews’ land is in the hands of the Muslims.

 

[Lisa558]

An entirely bogus claim. All of the Israeli settlements in the West Bank take up only 3.6% of the West Bank

How Israeli Settlements Impede the Two-State Solution

Israeli settlement expansion in the West Bank is imperiling the viability of a two-state solution and destroying any chance for peace in the Middle East.

carnegieendowment.org

and there have never been official plans to expand the settlements beyond 8% of the West Bank. All of the settlements are built in on state land in area C which Oslo assigned to Israeli civil and security control until a final agreement between Israel and the PA is realized.

All governments seize privately owned land when they deem it necessary - to build roads or for urban renewal projects, for example - but no privately owned Palestinian land has been seized in the West Bank to make way for new settlements, and in 2006 Israel began a thorough ongoing investigation of all Arab claims of land theft and as a result some settlements have been closed and some Arabs have received negotiated settlements.

For over 100 years the Arabs have been bellowing about land theft by Jews and it has never been true. The only large scale land theft that has occurred there was committed by the Arabs when the ethnically cleansed all the Jews from the West Bank and looted all their property during the Mandate.

Our posts crossed. Look one up for the map I just posted, showing how much land the Muslims stole and then the drove Jews out. Now THAT is ethnic cleansing.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

An entirely bogus claim. All of the Israeli settlements in the West Bank take up only 3.6% of the West Bank

How Israeli Settlements Impede the Two-State Solution

Israeli settlement expansion in the West Bank is imperiling the viability of a two-state solution and destroying any chance for peace in the Middle East.

carnegieendowment.org

and there have never been official plans to expand the settlements beyond 8% of the West Bank. All of the settlements are built in on state land in area C which Oslo assigned to Israeli civil and security control until a final agreement between Israel and the PA is realized.

What bearing does this have on the findings of the ICJ recently?

All governments seize privately owned land when they deem it necessary - to build roads or for urban renewal projects, for example - but no privately owned Palestinian land has been seized in the West Bank to make way for new settlements, and in 2006 Israel began a thorough ongoing investigation of all Arab claims of land theft and as a result some settlements have been closed and some Arabs have received negotiated settlements.

Let me ask a question, has Israel ever illegally taken land from Palestinians?

For over 100 years the Arabs have been bellowing about land theft by Jews and it has never been true. The only large scale land theft that has occurred there was committed by the Arabs when the ethnically cleansed all the Jews from the West Bank and looted all their property during the Mandate.

The ICJ have a different opinion though.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

And while the antisemites lie about “land stealing,” here’s a map of the entire MidEast - essentially Judenfrei other than the 0.5% sliver of land called Israel. There were thriving Jewish communities in ALL these Arab lands 100 years ago, and now all the Jews’ land is in the hands of the Muslims.


View attachment 982480

There were thriving Jewish communities in Poland, Hungary, Romania and Germany 100 years ago, so what makes Arabs different to Europeans in this regard? Europe (Christian) exterminated them, the Arabs (Muslim) expelled them, that's the difference.

 

[rosends]

Alphabets don't contain phonemes. I think you meant to say "they don't have a P phoneme in their language".

ok, that.

 

[toomuchtime_]

What bearing does this have on the findings of the ICJ recently?

Let me ask a question, has Israel ever illegally taken land from Palestinians?

The ICJ have a different opinion though.

The ICJ issued a political decision that have no foundation in law. It is just more evidence that the UN is a failed experiment.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

The ICJ issued a political decision that have no foundation in law. It is just more evidence that the UN is a failed experiment.

What do you mean "no foundation in law"? what would it need to do to have that "foundation in law" you speak of?

The UN exists, despite people criticisms of it, it exists and it has authority. That authority stems from the support provided by the member states and those states have the authority to impose changes on other member states if the security council so chooses.

That this or that member state might disagree with decisions is entirely secondary, they are members and they agreed to abide by the rules and if the security council so chooses those rules can be enforced even to the point of military force.

It's basically a democratic system, so what is this "failed experiment" you speak of? Give an example of one of these "failures" please.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

An entirely bogus claim. All of the Israeli settlements in the West Bank take up only 3.6% of the West Bank

How Israeli Settlements Impede the Two-State Solution

Israeli settlement expansion in the West Bank is imperiling the viability of a two-state solution and destroying any chance for peace in the Middle East.

carnegieendowment.org

and there have never been official plans to expand the settlements beyond 8% of the West Bank. All of the settlements are built in on state land in area C which Oslo assigned to Israeli civil and security control until a final agreement between Israel and the PA is realized.

All governments seize privately owned land when they deem it necessary - to build roads or for urban renewal projects, for example - but no privately owned Palestinian land has been seized in the West Bank to make way for new settlements, and in 2006 Israel began a thorough ongoing investigation of all Arab claims of land theft and as a result some settlements have been closed and some Arabs have received negotiated settlements.

For over 100 years the Arabs have been bellowing about land theft by Jews and it has never been true. The only large scale land theft that has occurred there was committed by the Arabs when the ethnically cleansed all the Jews from the West Bank and looted all their property during the Mandate.

https://edition.cnn.com/2024/07/19/middleeast/israel-west-bank-jerusalem-occupation-icj-opinion-intl/index.html

TJIEVING BASTARDS.

 

[Lisa558]

There were thriving Jewish communities in Poland, Hungary, Romania and Germany 100 years ago, so what makes Arabs different to Europeans in this regard? Europe (Christian) exterminated them, the Arabs (Muslim) expelled them, that's the difference.

Huh? The point is that YOU, driven by your antisemitism, are bitching that Jews have stolen land from Arabs, when 99.5% of the Middle East is Arabs who have stolen land from Jews.

So now your deflection is that hey….all those Arabs merely stole the Jews’ land and then drove them out, so it’s not as bad as what Hitler did?!

Don’t deflect. You’re not talking to a gullible leftist. You are talking to an intelligent Jewish woman who won’t be fooled by your moving the goalposts once I point out your hypocrisy.

 

[toomuchtime_]

https://edition.cnn.com/2024/07/19/middleeast/israel-west-bank-jerusalem-occupation-icj-opinion-intl/index.html

TJIEVING BASTARDS.

The ICJ issued a political opinion that has no basis in law.

 

[toomuchtime_]

What do you mean "no foundation in law"? what would it need to do to have that "foundation in law" you speak of?

The UN exists, despite people criticisms of it, it exists and it has authority. That authority stems from the support provided by the member states and those states have the authority to impose changes on other member states if the security council so chooses.

That this or that member state might disagree with decisions is entirely secondary, they are members and they agreed to abide by the rules and if the security council so chooses those rules can be enforced even to the point of military force.

It's basically a democratic system, so what is this "failed experiment" you speak of? Give an example of one of these "failures" please.

All of this is entirely irrelevant to the fact that the ICJ opinion has no basis in law.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

The entire ICJ opinion can be found here - it's worth reading every page if one has time.

Here a few snippets I extracted:

105. By virtue of its status as an occupying Power, a State assumes a set of powers and duties with respect to the territory over which it exercises effective control. In this context, the occupying Power bears a duty to administer the territory for the benefit of the local population. There is nothing in the Fourth Geneva Convention or in customary international law to suggest that the nature and the scope of the powers and duties of the occupying Power are contingent on the circumstances by which the occupation was brought about. Rather, the nature and scope of these powers and duties are always premised on the same assumption: that occupation is a temporary situation to respond to military necessity, and it cannot transfer title of sovereignty to the occupying Power.

108. Furthermore, it does not follow from Article 6 of the Fourth Geneva Convention that, incases of prolonged occupation, the occupying Power acquires additional powers through the passage of time. The fact of the occupation cannot result in the transfer of title, regardless of the duration of the occupation. Therefore, the passage of time does not release the occupying Power from the obligations that it bears, including the obligation to refrain from exercising acts of sovereignty, nor does it expand the limited and enumerated powers that international humanitarian law vests in the occupying Power.

and

120. The expansion of Israel’s settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem is based on the confiscation or requisitioning of large areas of land. According to the Independent International Commission of Inquiry, over 2 million dunams (approximately 2,000 sq km) have been expropriated in Area C alone since 1967, amounting to more than a third of the West Bank (“Report of the Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and Israel”, UN doc. A/77/328 (14 September 2022), para. 39). This includes considerable areas of land that would be characterized as private property but have been declared by Israel as State land — and thus intended for public use — in reliance on a selective interpretation of the law in force at the time of Israel’s occupation (ibid., para. 33; “Report of the independent international fact-finding mission to investigate the implications of the Israeli settlements on the civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights of the Palestinian people throughout the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem”, UN doc. A/HRC/22/63 (7 February 2013),para. 63). The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights reports that almost all of this State land has been allocated for the benefit of Israeli settlements (“Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and in the occupied Syrian Golan: Report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights”, UN doc. A/HRC/52/76 (15 March2023), para. 8).

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

All of this is entirely irrelevant to the fact that the ICJ opinion has no basis in law.

Can you cite a source for this claim please?