Ethnic Cleansing Lovers Butthurt: Israel Approves 2,500 New Settlements

[Shusha]

It's a complicated question because the nation in question would be taking land it won in a war and held and that land was populated.

I'm going to try not to engage that because its off topic. (Israel did not "win" land in war.)

But that was not my question. Try again. Is a nation required to maintain a hostile population? I'll add a new one: What is the benefit of a nation maintaining a hostile population?

 

[Shusha]

You mean from the land currently designated as Occupied Territory? Removed to where? Someone has to be willing to take them since you are advocating forced expulsions.

I don't think it is useful at this level of discussion and at this extent of the conflict to label any territory as "occupied". There is Israel self-governed land. There is Palestinian self-governed land. There is disputed territory bordering these. It would be much more useful to be more specific when designating particular territory.

I'm not so sure because you are talking about native populations residing within those areas.

Not sure what your point is.

 

[Coyote]

You mean from the land currently designated as Occupied Territory? Removed to where? Someone has to be willing to take them since you are advocating forced expulsions.

I don't think it is useful at this level of discussion and at this extent of the conflict to label any territory as "occupied". There is Israel self-governed land. There is Palestinian self-governed land. There is disputed territory bordering these. It would be much more useful to be more specific when designating particular territory.

I'm not so sure because you are talking about native populations residing within those areas.

Not sure what your point is.

If you don't call it occupied - what is it? It was taken in war, it's inhabitents consider it occupied, and Israel hasn't annexed it. None of it is truly Palestinian self-governed.

 

[Coyote]

It's a complicated question because the nation in question would be taking land it won in a war and held and that land was populated.

I'm going to try not to engage that because its off topic. (Israel did not "win" land in war.)

But that was not my question. Try again. Is a nation required to maintain a hostile population? I'll add a new one: What is the benefit of a nation maintaining a hostile population?

The question can not be answered in the way you want, and the reason is this: the nation is controlling land that is not within it's stated borders. If you are talking about maintaining a hostile population within it's state - I think that is tricky because the hostile population was already there when the state was formed.

So what is ethical here?

 

[Dogmaphobe]

The antisemites in this forum (and there must be several dozen at a minimum) don't bat an eye at the fact that Arabs clensed 99.3% of all Jews from Arab lands.

For a Jew to build a house on land they demand should be Judenfrei, though? An Outrage!!!

Tu Quoque Fallacy

Is ethnic cleansing right? At any point by anyone?

My pointing out the utter hypocrisy of you anti-Semites is not a tu Quoque fallacy.

Examples of actual tu Quoque fallacies are when you and those like you defend Islamic atrocities by making dishonest and inane comparisons to Christianity -- much as you did after the Orlando Massacre.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Big *******. No President has been as hostile to Israel as Obama.

Yep.

And on his last day in office, he snuck over 200 Million dollars to the Palestinians to be used in their campaign to destroy Israel.

 

[Weatherman2020]

You mean from the land currently designated as Occupied Territory? Removed to where? Someone has to be willing to take them since you are advocating forced expulsions.

I don't think it is useful at this level of discussion and at this extent of the conflict to label any territory as "occupied". There is Israel self-governed land. There is Palestinian self-governed land. There is disputed territory bordering these. It would be much more useful to be more specific when designating particular territory.

I'm not so sure because you are talking about native populations residing within those areas.

Not sure what your point is.

If you don't call it occupied - what is it? It was taken in war, it's inhabitents consider it occupied, and Israel hasn't annexed it. None of it is truly Palestinian self-governed.

Shit happens when you lose wars you start.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Big *******. No President has been as hostile to Israel as Obama.

Yep.

And on his last day in office, he snuck over 200 Million dollars to the Palestinians to be used in their campaign to destroy Israel.

Which Trump froze today.

 

[MJB12741]

Big *******. No President has been as hostile to Israel as Obama.

Yep.

And on his last day in office, he snuck over 200 Million dollars to the Palestinians to be used in their campaign to destroy Israel.

Nananana Hey hey hey GOODBYE!

 

[Shusha]

If you are talking about maintaining a hostile population within it's state - I think that is tricky because the hostile population was already there when the state was formed.

So what is ethical here?

Yep. That's the question I want you to try to answer.

 

[Coyote]

Big *******. No President has been as hostile to Israel as Obama.

Yep.

And on his last day in office, he snuck over 200 Million dollars to the Palestinians to be used in their campaign to destroy Israel.

How much was it he gave Israel shortly before he left...over something like ten years....?

 

[ForeverYoung436]

Big *******. No President has been as hostile to Israel as Obama.

Yep.

And on his last day in office, he snuck over 200 Million dollars to the Palestinians to be used in their campaign to destroy Israel.

How much was it he gave Israel shortly before he left...over something like ten years....?

38 billion dollars, over a 10-year period.

 

[Shusha]

If you don't call it occupied - what is it? It was taken in war, it's inhabitents consider it occupied, and Israel hasn't annexed it. None of it is truly Palestinian self-governed.

See, this is where I think you fall into using "soundbytes" from Team Palestine that aren't especially useful. In part I am trying to point out that deciding what it "IS" isn't necessarily a good way of approaching the problem of determining what it will or should be.

But let's talk about what IS, for a moment. Who held sovereignty of Areas A, B and C (the Westbank) in 1966? (We'd have to talk about 1988 and 1993 as well, but let's start there). There are several choices, some arguments are legally stronger than others:

1. Jordan. 2. State of Israel. 3. State of Palestine. 4. Terra nullius (belonging to no sovereign) 5. disputed territory in an internal civil conflict which has yet to reach its conclusion.

Which do you think it is? It makes a difference. See the "rule" that nations can't win territory in war applies when one nation encroaches on another nation's sovereignty -- when one nation uses military force to remove territory from the sovereignty of another nation and take over that sovereignty for itself. It doesn't apply in examples #4 and #5, above. Which leaves you with only the three remaining options.


But going back to the "meat" of the problem, what we have is two peoples in a dispute about who should have sovereignty over a particular historical territory which they both have important ties to. You and I agree that both peoples deserve to have their rights recognized and defended.

Is ethnic cleansing required in order to make peace between these two peoples, do you think?

 

[toomuchtime_]

and the US State Department said, " [nothing] ".

Yes sir! This is a great thing! **** you Obama!

Israel needs to build as much as they can as quick as they can right now. Build up along then border and have the security fence include these areas.

Again **** you Obama! **** you Frankenians!


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

“Virtually every U.S. administration in the last 30 to 40 years has allowed a resolution critical of Israel, particularly of settlements, to pass through abstention,” Jeremy Pressman, a University of Connecticut professor who studies the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, said in an interview with The Daily Signal."

US Role in UN Rebuke of Israel Not New

What a stupid thing to say. Does he think nothing has changed in the last thirty or forty years? With all the anti Israel bias the UN has shown, allowing this issue to be dealt with by the UN is like allowing the KKK to decide all civil rights cases.

They were all non binding. The US would veto any resolution calling for sanctions against Israel. The Partition plan was also non binding but that is often cited as justification. Nothing had changed. They build new settlements. We object publicly while quietly shuffling more and more arms and support to the Israelis.

Looks like The Groper is going to change that shell game, but will it be good for America?

you seem to have no understanding of what the US has done at the UN. US policy at the Security Council has pretty consistently been that the US will veto any resolution that condemned Israel's actions without also condemning the PA's action. Only rarely did a resolution meet that standard, so only rarely did the US allow it to pass. This resolution broke with past US policy of demanding ever handedness between Israel's actions and the PA's actions, contained language all past administrations and even the Obama administration have objected to and attempted to set the parameters of any final status agreement, which Obama had said he would not allow the UN to do. If it had come at an earlier time in his administration, he would have vetoed it because it represents such a severe break with past American policy and his own stated policy. This was the act of a peevish little man who refuses to accept responsibility for his disastrous foreign policy.

The partition resolution is entirely different. The main point of it was that the UNGA was giving up the Mandate because Britain was refusing to maintain it and the recommendation for two states was an effort to prevent the war the did occur. The General Assembly asked the Security Council to pass a strong resolution to prevent the Arab states from invading the new state of Israel, but the Security Council refused and the world waited for the Arabs come in and slaughter the Jews. The Arabs were especially eager for the slaughter to begin.

"An October 11, 1947 report on the pan-Arab summit in the Lebanese town of Aley,[9] by Akhbar al-Yom's editor Mustafa Amin, contained an interview he held with Arab League secretary-general Azzam. Titled, "A War of Extermination," the interview read as follows (translated by Efraim Karsh; all ellipses are in the original text):

Abdul Rahman Azzam Pasha spoke to me about the horrific war that was in the offing… saying:

"I personally wish that the Jews do not drive us to this war, as this will be a war of extermination and momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Tartar massacre[10] or the Crusader wars. I believe that the number of volunteers from outside Palestine will be larger than Palestine's Arab population, for I know that volunteers will be arriving to us from [as far as] India, Afghanistan, and China to win the honor of martyrdom for the sake of Palestine … You might be surprised to learn that hundreds of Englishmen expressed their wish to volunteer in the Arab armies to fight the Jews."

Azzam's Genocidal Threat

 

[toomuchtime_]

Is it legally, technically their land (as opposed to simply claiming it is theirs?) I know Palestine CLAIMS it's theirs and wants it back.

(This also goes back to 2 old adages - "Don't start a war you can't win' and 'To the victor goes the spoils'.)

The settlements are considered illegal under international law, although Israel disputes .....

UN condemns Israel's West Bank settlement plans - BBC News

There is no international law under which Israel's communities in Judea and Samaria are illegal. In fact, there is no rational basis for considering them illegitimate in any way or obstacles to a final status agreement.

There is no international law under which Israel's communities in Judea and Samaria are illegal.

Good Grief! What sovereignty rights does Israel have in the West Bank where the Palestinian Authority is the sovereign entity? GAWD DAMN you're thick as a brick!

lol Only in your imagination.

 

[Synthaholic]

Israel plans 2,500 settler homes in post-Drumpf expansion

Palestinians plan more suicide bombers.

 

[toomuchtime_]

and the US State Department said, " [nothing] ".

Yes sir! This is a great thing! **** you Obama!

Israel needs to build as much as they can as quick as they can right now. Build up along then border and have the security fence include these areas.

Again **** you Obama! **** you Frankenians!


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

“Virtually every U.S. administration in the last 30 to 40 years has allowed a resolution critical of Israel, particularly of settlements, to pass through abstention,” Jeremy Pressman, a University of Connecticut professor who studies the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, said in an interview with The Daily Signal."

US Role in UN Rebuke of Israel Not New

Big *******. No President has been as hostile to Israel as Obama.

Trump will probably take a hands off approach and let Israel do what they want, but still veto resolutions at the UN!


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

No president has given them more. When did Obama threaten Israeli Aid?

BUSH URGES DELAY ON AID FOR ISRAEL; THREATENS A VETO

Obama gave Israel only what Congress forced him to give and even objected to the US guaranteeing Israel would have a qualitative edge over it enemies in the region.

 

[Coyote]

If you are talking about maintaining a hostile population within it's state - I think that is tricky because the hostile population was already there when the state was formed.

So what is ethical here?

Yep. That's the question I want you to try to answer.

Honestly, I don't have an answer - not yet anyway.

Two positions:

1. People who lived there prior to the establishment of a state, and who did not agree with the establishment of that state and fought it and lost. They have not been able to move from fighting to governance.

2. People who established a state, won their fights, and have been able to move from fighting to governance to develop a peaceful and viable state.

In the middle of these two is a no-man's land and a citizenless people, and unequal rights. The no-man's land is the land that some called "occupied territory" (per international law) and "disputed territory" (per Israel).

The Palestinians regard that territory as their future state in a two-state solution.

The question is - is a nation required to maintain a hostile population.

If the answer were to be "no" - wouldn't that then justify the Palestinians driving Jews out of what they consider their state occupied by a hostile population?

But if the answer were "yes" - then what is the state to do maintain the peace and security of it's citizens? What examples of this have occurred in history?

The problem is human lives are involved in both choices. And in increasing settlement building, Israel is forcing what will eventually be a choice - abandon the settlements or annex the territory.

Perhaps Israel should annex the portion it intends to keep, provide citizenship opportunities to all the residents, and give them a choice of FULL citizenship, not residency - or they can move to what will eventually become Palestine.

Edited to add - I'm throwing ideas out because this is an ethical question I see no solution for.

 

[Coyote]

and the US State Department said, " [nothing] ".

Yes sir! This is a great thing! **** you Obama!

Israel needs to build as much as they can as quick as they can right now. Build up along then border and have the security fence include these areas.

Again **** you Obama! **** you Frankenians!


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

“Virtually every U.S. administration in the last 30 to 40 years has allowed a resolution critical of Israel, particularly of settlements, to pass through abstention,” Jeremy Pressman, a University of Connecticut professor who studies the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, said in an interview with The Daily Signal."

US Role in UN Rebuke of Israel Not New

Big *******. No President has been as hostile to Israel as Obama.

Trump will probably take a hands off approach and let Israel do what they want, but still veto resolutions at the UN!


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

No president has given them more. When did Obama threaten Israeli Aid?

BUSH URGES DELAY ON AID FOR ISRAEL; THREATENS A VETO

Obama gave Israel only what Congress forced him to give and even objected to the US guaranteeing Israel would have a qualitative edge over it enemies in the region.

Congress had nothing to do with it - Congress was left out of the deal he signed with Bibi. Obama has been very pro-Israel without being unreasonable.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Yes sir! This is a great thing! **** you Obama!

Israel needs to build as much as they can as quick as they can right now. Build up along then border and have the security fence include these areas.

Again **** you Obama! **** you Frankenians!


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

“Virtually every U.S. administration in the last 30 to 40 years has allowed a resolution critical of Israel, particularly of settlements, to pass through abstention,” Jeremy Pressman, a University of Connecticut professor who studies the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, said in an interview with The Daily Signal."

US Role in UN Rebuke of Israel Not New

Big *******. No President has been as hostile to Israel as Obama.

Trump will probably take a hands off approach and let Israel do what they want, but still veto resolutions at the UN!


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

No president has given them more. When did Obama threaten Israeli Aid?

BUSH URGES DELAY ON AID FOR ISRAEL; THREATENS A VETO

Obama gave Israel only what Congress forced him to give and even objected to the US guaranteeing Israel would have a qualitative edge over it enemies in the region.

Congress had nothing to do with it - Congress was left out of the deal he signed with Bibi. Obama has been very pro-Israel without being unreasonable.

No, the increase in aid to Israel was demanded by Democrats in Congress as a condition of supporting his Iran deal and Congress, including Democrats was pushing to have Obama increase the amount when Netanyahu surprisingly accepted it.