Hamas Leader Killed

[Coyote]

In point of fact, permanent residents of Jerusalem, regardless of ethnicity, are eligible for Israeli citizenship. It is false to say they are "not allowed". Most do not apply, but that is a far cry from they are "not allowed".

Eligible doesn’t mean they can get it it. Only 34% of those who apply, get it and the process takes years. At one time there was a social taboo against applying because it was viewed as giving in to the occupation but that is largely gone. In the past 20 years over 16,500 applications were submitted and only 38% approved. The main reason given for denial was failure to prove Jerusalem was their main place of residence and employment but other reasons included poor Hebrew language skills (since Israel from the beginning has been bilingual it is an odd reason) and unwillingness to give up Jordanian citizenship (also an odd reason since many Jewish Israeli’s are dual citizens of other countries).

 

[Coyote]

Israel made more than one offer, and the Palestinians rejected them because it required them to recognize Israel’s right to exist, and they hate Jews more than they want peace.

I just pointed out that tbe PLO was willing to recognize Israel’s right to exist. In addition that was also reflected in polls (pre Gaza war). I think there was obstruction and lost opportunities on both sides.

As far as the offer you are talking about, I’ll leave it to Shusha to explain why Israel didn’t take. It had to have been unreasonable.

I wasn’t talking about any offer, only a willingness to recognize Israel. You think that’s unreasonable?

 

[Shusha]

By “selfish,”: I take it you mean Israel wants to survive - and not be subjected to constant terrorists attacks.

Well, more specifically, Jewish survivial.

 

[Shusha]

Eligible doesn’t mean they can get it it. Only 34% of those who apply, get it and the process takes years. At one time there was a social taboo against applying because it was viewed as giving in to the occupation but that is largely gone. In the past 20 years over 16,500 applications were submitted and only 38% approved. The main reason given for denial was failure to prove Jerusalem was their main place of residence and employment but other reasons included poor Hebrew language skills (since Israel from the beginning has been bilingual it is an odd reason) and unwillingness to give up Jordanian citizenship (also an odd reason since many Jewish Israeli’s are dual citizens of other countries).

Um. All good reasons.

 

[Coyote]

Nah. I hate this argument. Israel has been committed to leaving space for an eventual second and third Arab Palestinian state in the territory of the Mandate for Palestine. And not for altruistic reasons, though there is certainly an element of that, but mostly for pragmatic and selfish reasons.

I disagree about altruism, that is not a characteristic of states. I also question the commitment given Israel’s plurality of political views when it comes to ceding any of the territory it holds.

 

[Coyote]

Um. All good reasons.

Why are the language and Jordanian dual citizenship good reasons?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Why has Israel referred to it as occupied territory?

Why is the native population (non-Israeli citizen) under military law instead of Israeli civil law then?

Why does the Israeli High Court refer to it as occupied territory?

Why does international law consider it occupied territory?

If Russia occupies Ukrainian territory, it took it from Ukraine.

If China occupies Tibetan territory, it took it from Tibet.

Who did Israel take it from?

Why has Israel referred to it as occupied territory?

Why do you?

Why does international law consider it occupied territory?

They're afraid of Muslims? They need Muslim oil?

 

[Coyote]

If Russia occupies Ukrainian territory, it took it from Ukraine.

If China occupies Tibetan territory, it took it from Tibet.

Who did Israel take it from?

Why has Israel referred to it as occupied territory?

Why do you?

Because under international law it is.

Why does international law consider it occupied territory?

They're afraid of Muslims? They need Muslim oil?

Wow…so they created this whole body of law after WW2 cause they were afraid of Muslims and wanted their oil?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Because under international law it is.


Wow…so they created this whole body of law after WW2 cause they were afraid of Muslims and wanted their oil?

Who did they take it from, under international law?

Yeah, people are scared of Muslims and don't like Jews.
That's why there are unique standards for Israel.

 

[toomuchtime_]

You are disgusting. No surprise you would view it that way. Do you say that about the parents of Israeli children living in the occupied territories when a terrorist bombs them? Do you blame tbe parents for putting them in that situation?

Of course you don’t. That would require applying consistent standards.

Give it a break. Your phony tears don't fool anyone. The Palestinians' continuing commitment to destroy Israel is what put their children in danger, and their actions are especially heinous since there was never a chance, they could do anything more than endanger their own children. Israeli parents do not so recklessly endanger their children.

You have no standards at all. In every post you express nothing but your entirely irrational hatred for Jews.

 

[Shusha]

Because under international law it is.

See, but here is the thing. You can't just magically "handwave" this away. And everyone tries to. Like everyone. But, but, but "everybody says so". But, but, but "international law". But, but, but "international community agrees". But, but, but "the UN". But, but, but.

These buts are not arguments. These buts are an avoidance of engaging with the subject.

Occupied territory is territory which is under temporary hostile control exerted by a ruling power's military apparatus over a sovereign territory that is outside the legal boundaries of that ruling power's own sovereign territory.

If there is some portion of territory (formerly labelled the Mandate for Palestine) which is NOT sovereign Israel, you must be able to present the legal argument which demonstrates the other sovereign and their legally-defined portion of territory. This means providing evidence of the boundaries of this other portion and the legal instrument(s) which brought this other sovereign and its boundaries into being. Otherwise, you are just repeating unsubstantiated nonsense.

The reason why this matters is that your argument assumes (without evidence!) the narrative that Israel is in possession of land which she is neither sovereign over nor entitled to. This compels you to paint Israel as immoral and evil.

The alternative narrative demonstrates (with evidence!) that Israel has claim to sovereign title to the territories in question and that she has restrained herself from asserting sovereignty, leaving space for the self-determination for another peoples and their own sovereignty. At worst, this allows you to claim "its complicated" and, at best, gives permission for praising Israel for her moral clarity and restraint.

 

[Coyote]

See, but here is the thing. You can't just magically "handwave" this away. And everyone tries to. Like everyone. But, but, but "everybody says so". But, but, but "international law". But, but, but "international community agrees". But, but, but "the UN". But, but, but.

These buts are not arguments. These buts are an avoidance of engaging with the subject.

I disagree. There seems to be a tendency to pick and choose when it comes to international law and Israel’s occupation and Israel itself is not exempt from utilizing this technique.

This argument….that it is actually their sovereign territory has only gained legs in recent years, and imo is designed to justify actions over the past few decades including how the indigenous population may be treated.

Up until recently Israel treated it as kind of occupied but quasi-not-occupied and the rules regarding occupied territories mostly worked to Israel’s benefit: nothing permanent needed to be resolved regarding the native population, the question of rights, justice and freedom could be left ambiguous. When this began to significantly change imo, was when Israel decided to apply two different legal systems to the residents of those territories: now, Those who were Israeli citizens were able to enjoy the rights and protections of Israeli civil law and those who were not, were subject to military law. These were all people within the same territory.

Occupied territory is territory which is under temporary hostile control exerted by a ruling power's military apparatus over a sovereign territory that is outside the legal boundaries of that ruling power's own sovereign territory.

When Israel took those territories in war, there was considerable argument within Israel over whether they should keep them.

If there is some portion of territory (formerly labelled the Mandate for Palestine) which is NOT sovereign Israel, you must be able to present the legal argument which demonstrates the other sovereign and their legally-defined portion of territory. This means providing evidence of the boundaries of this other portion and the legal instrument(s) which brought this other sovereign and its boundaries into being. Otherwise, you are just repeating unsubstantiated nonsense.

The reason why this matters is that your argument assumes (without evidence!) the narrative that Israel is in possession of land which she is neither sovereign over nor entitled to. This compels you to paint Israel as immoral and evil.

I disagree in part with what you say.

First: states, territory and international recognition of a state (since this is kind of a spin off of that discussion )

We talked about international recognition of a state as part of its legitimacy. When Israel was recognized, it was recognized as having a sovereign territory. What territory was recognized as Israel’s? Was it “ersatz Israel”? Or something smaller? This would seem a rational starting point otherwise any state can invent a rationale for annexing any territory it chooses to and has the strength to (Russia and Ukraine comes to mind here).

Second, making the claim that Israel is “immoral and evil” besides using inflammatory language, does not have to depend on the fact of occupation which could defended by the complex security issues facing Israel. STATES are not “immoral or evil” actions and policies and individuals are.

FYI on my part, I can’t argue international from a space of personal expertise (I suspect only a few here can), I rely on others to do so in their writings or articles.

I do however find it noteworthy that pushing the claim it is not an occupation seems to be of recent vintage. Peculiar and convenient.

I hate the way it is so easy to mess up the quote function here and the quote box part is gone. So, this is your quote and my response to this section:

Shusha:
The alternative narrative demonstrates (with evidence!) that Israel has claim to sovereign title to the territories in question and that she has restrained herself from asserting sovereignty, leaving space for the self-determination for another peoples and their own sovereignty. At worst, this allows you to claim "its complicated" and, at best, gives permission for praising Israel for her moral clarity and restraint.

My response:
The alternative narrative attributes characteristics to a state that are subjective, convenient and not consistently applied. PEOPLE can have moral clarity (or not), states do not and states are composed factions with very different and often conflicting goals and morals.

Restraint is subjective. Is it restraint or is it the playing out of a “long game” where demographics, relative power, and opportunity allow for the eventual realization of long term goals with minimal conflict or action by tbe international community? I’ll posit that Hamas’ attack and the atrocities committed provided unprecedented opportunities for Israel to respond in a way that could realize those goals with strong international backing and support on its side, much like 911 did for the US.

 

[Coyote]

You’re not suggesting that the Palestinians should be offered Israeli citizenship NOW, are you, after what their barbaric leaders did on Oct 7th? Most Palestinians supported the massacre. Why should Israel extend citizenship to people who want to wipe her out to sea?

Yes. I am. Just like Israeli’s, Palestinians are individuals and varied.

1.8 million Palestinians live within Israel and there has been a significant population there since its inception as a state.

What you are proposing is to maintain separate levels of “citizenship” or legal residence based solely on ethnicity.

How does that work with the claim that Israel is a democracy?

 

[Coyote]

Really? You routinely condemn all Israelis for the criminal actions of a few,

Just a slight correction (though I doubt you are worth the effort).

I do not routinely blame “all Israeli’s” for the criminal actions of a few…or in some cases, the many…that’s really more your style. Israel is varied in people and views but has been trending further to the hard right recently and with that have come policies and actions that could easily be considered criminal in any other context and are largely not being addressed.

For example:

1. Unmitigated violence being perpetrated on Palestinian civilians in the West Bank by lawless settlers. Violence that is being done with the tacit and at times open support and involvement of the IDF and government officials in charge of security.

2. Deliberate defunding of security and refusal to address the escalating high violent crime rate and organized gangs in Arab villages within Israel.

I blame the far right government and the factions supporting, justifying and excusing them in what is supposed to be a democratic country that believes in the rule of law (unlike Hamas).

Now, let’s hear your bleating about “but but Hamas this and Palestinians that” because redirection and screeches of antisemitism is your primary means of debate.

 

[Shusha]

I hate the way it is so easy to mess up the quote function here and the quote box part is gone. So, this is your quote and my response to this section:

The undo button is your friend.

 

[Shusha]

This argument….that it is actually their sovereign territory has only gained legs in recent years, and imo is designed to justify actions over the past few decades including how the indigenous population may be treated.

It would depend on what you mean by "recent years". I (and others) have been arguing it for three decades at least. It seems to me that it has made a resurgence in response to the failure of the Oslo Accords and then the more recent lawfare committed against Israel through the UN, including the changes in language, the international community's assumption of recognized borders, and the involvement of the ICJ.

When this began to significantly change imo, was when Israel decided to apply two different legal systems to the residents of those territories: now, Those who were Israeli citizens were able to enjoy the rights and protections of Israeli civil law and those who were not, were subject to military law. These were all people within the same territory.

You DO realize that Israel didn't just up and "decide" this one day, right? Do you know what caused the change?

We talked about international recognition of a state as part of its legitimacy. When Israel was recognized, it was recognized as having a sovereign territory. What territory was recognized as Israel’s? Was it “ersatz Israel”? Or something smaller? This would seem a rational starting point otherwise any state can invent a rationale for annexing any territory it chooses to and has the strength to (Russia and Ukraine comes to mind here).

We agree. This would seem a rational starting point. But no one seems to want to apply this to Israel. Israel was recognized while under the occupation of foreign invaders. Jordan and Egypt invaded and held territory which did not belong to them. These invasions form the currently-accepted "legal" basis of the "Palestinian State". How did and/or why should these illegal invasions change the underlaying sovereignty of the territory?

If these invasions had not occurred, what territory would be sovereign Israel?

 

[toomuchtime_]

Just a slight correction (though I doubt you are worth the effort).

I do not routinely blame “all Israeli’s” for the criminal actions of a few…or in some cases, the many…that’s really more your style. Israel is varied in people and views but has been trending further to the hard right recently and with that have come policies and actions that could easily be considered criminal in any other context and are largely not being addressed.

For example:

1. Unmitigated violence being perpetrated on Palestinian civilians in the West Bank by lawless settlers. Violence that is being done with the tacit and at times open support and involvement of the IDF and government officials in charge of security.

2. Deliberate defunding of security and refusal to address the escalating high violent crime rate and organized gangs in Arab villages within Israel.

I blame the far right government and the factions supporting, justifying and excusing them in what is supposed to be a democratic country that believes in the rule of law (unlike Hamas).

Now, let’s hear your bleating about “but but Hamas this and Palestinians that” because redirection and screeches of antisemitism is your primary means of debate.

The reason you get everything so wrong is that you start with the conviction that Jews are evil so if there is a problem the Jews must have done it.

Even as you claim you do not routinely characterize all Israelis by the criminal acts of a few, you do it again. There is no "Unmitigated violence being perpetrated on Palestinian civilians in the West Bank by lawless settlers." There is primarily one Israeli community, and one Palestinian village engaged in conflict over rights to some land.

In fact, before Oct 7, relations between Palestinian communities and Israeli communities in were peaceful mutually beneficial and sometimes friendly. Tens of thousands of Palestinians went to work in Israeli communities, enjoying the protections of Israeli labor laws earning 2 to 6 times what they could otherwise earn, despite the fact the Palestinian Authority has passed laws making this a crime.

So your hatred of Jews leads you to lie about the extent of the violence from some Israelis and then mischaracterize all Israelis living in the West Bank as being violent, lawless. Not only that but you go on to claim the IDF and the whole Israeli government are to blame for this unmitigated violence that in reality is a dispute between two villages, one Israeli and one Palestinian over a small piece of land.

There is a high crime rate in Arab villages, so you claim those evil Jews did it. Organized crime is a problem for nearly all countries, and it is especially high in minority neighborhoods because of a lack of cooperation with the police. There is nothing uniquely Israeli about this problem, but of course you claim it is because Jews are evil.

When an Israeli commits a crime against a Palestinian, as in the case of a Palestinian prisoner being raped, you try to use the crime to characterize Israel, and when I point out Israel arrests and prosecutes such criminal you still claim Israel should be characterized by the crime and not by Israel's response to it.

You are so profoundly antisemitic it is impossible for you to look at any problem without blaming it on the Jews.

 

[ShahdagMountains]

Occupied territory is territory which is under temporary hostile control exerted by a ruling power's military apparatus over a sovereign territory that is outside the legal boundaries of that ruling power's own sovereign territory.

A perfect example being North Cyprus, illegally occupied by the Turks, to this day. Not recognised as legal by any country in the world except Turkey.

 

[Lisa558]

A perfect example being North Cyprus, illegally occupied by the Turks, to this day. Not recognised as legal by any country in the world except Turkey.

So why isn’t Coyote - and all those libs rioting on college campuses - raging about what the Turks are doing?

 

[Shusha]

My response:
The alternative narrative attributes characteristics to a state that are subjective, convenient and not consistently applied. PEOPLE can have moral clarity (or not), states do not and states are composed factions with very different and often conflicting goals and morals.

You seem to have missed the point, or have become distracted by a side issue. Allow me to reframe.

The narrative that Israel is in possession of territory which does not belong to her gives people the permission or the righteous indignation to characterize Israel's actions as wrong and as committing harm.

The narrative that Israel has sovereign claim to the territory gives people the permission to characterize Israel's actions as respectful of Arab Palestinian claim to self-determination and a future Arab Palestinian State.

Of course, these things aren't truly "narratives". There is a correct legal answer here. And that matters.