Hamas Leader Killed

[ShahdagMountains]

Jordan never had any legal claim to that territory and was a belligerent occupier

Yes, l meant to say that.

 

[Coyote]

Now wait a minute, hold on. You are abandoning the conversation? Just what are we disagreeing on?

No, not abandoning the entire conversation, just that specific part.

That the territories we are discussing legally belong to Israel?
That they belong to no one?
That they belong to someone, just not Israel?

Again, if they belong to Israel, Israel’s behavior, referencing of the territories, occupation (which Israel itself called it historically) are at odds with that. If it belongs to Israel than the way Israel has treated the native population becomes questionable.

Are you abandoning the conversation because you don't have enough knowledge of the subject and don't like what you fear the answer to be?

I do not have enough knowledge of international law to be able to debate it in depth. I’ve specifically said this. In the same way I don’t have enough knowledge of epigenetics to do so. I rely on what other more knowledgeable people say and based my opinions on that (I suspect is true of most here, though I think you and a few others have a depth of knowledge in this topic). It isn’t about whether I like or don’t like the answer.

Deliberate ignorance because you wish to be able to continue to hold Israel to a different legal standard and blame Israel as the aggressor?

Hmmmm….

That is convenient for you isn’t it? “If you don’t agree with my argument you are holding Israel to a different legal standard”?

Are you arguing that Israel can’t possibly be the aggressor in any of these conflicts? That is a different standard. Everyone else is the aggressor?

 

[Coyote]

Coyote

Regardless of the above, we still come back to this: the territory can not be anything other than sovereign Israel or belonging to no one. So again, the starting point, at the very least, should be "undecided" or "subject to negotiation and treaty by agreement". Not occupation.

For the sake of argument, let’s go with it belongs to no one.

 

[Shusha]

That is convenient for you isn’t it? “If you don’t agree with my argument you are holding Israel to a different legal standard”?

Not what I was saying. You can't disagree with my argument if you don't know what my argument is and if you don't have enough knowledge to understand my argument. Choosing to remain ignorant is not a disagreement. The concern I have is that you wish to remain deliberately ignorant so you don't have to apply fair legal principles to Israel and can continue to see her as the "bad guy". IF you do this, you not only start with the presumption of Israel as bad guy, but wish to hold on to that by turning away from evidence to the contrary.

 

[Shusha]

For the sake of argument, let’s go with it belongs to no one.

Okay, I can work with this. Let's now reframe the pathway to a two-state solution. There is no occupation. There is territory which is "undecided". What would be the necessary steps that Palestine must take to achieve political independence and statehood? How would the border be established?

 

[Lisa558]

Not what I was saying. You can't disagree with my argument if you don't know what my argument is and if you don't have enough knowledge to understand my argument. Choosing to remain ignorant is not a disagreement. The concern I have is that you wish to remain deliberately ignorant so you don't have to apply fair legal principles to Israel and can continue to see her as the "bad guy". IF you do this, you not only start with the presumption of Israel as bad guy, but wish to hold on to that by turning away from evidence to the contrary.

Bravo….well said.

You won’t be able to make headway with Coyote until and unless she is open-minded enough to consider whether the primary blame for the war lies with the Palestinians, and that indeed a double-standard exists where Israel is concerned - and that reason is hostility to Jews.

 

[Coyote]

Not what I was saying. You can't disagree with my argument if you don't know what my argument is and if you don't have enough knowledge to understand my argument. Choosing to remain ignorant is not a disagreement. The concern I have is that you wish to remain deliberately ignorant so you don't have to apply fair legal principles to Israel and can continue to see her as the "bad guy". IF you do this, you not only start with the presumption of Israel as bad guy, but wish to hold on to that by turning away from evidence to the contrary.

Interesting. What exactly do you want to discuss then?

One thing I want make clear, I don’t view this as one guy is always bad and one guy is always good. Individual actions, policies and behaviors in individual situations are what is good or bad neither Israel nor the Palestinians are always bad or always good and there is a tendency here to put it terms of good guys vs. bad guys.

 

[Coyote]

Bravo….well said.

You won’t be able to make headway with Coyote until and unless she is open-minded enough to consider whether the primary blame for the war lies with the Palestinians, and that indeed a double-standard exists where Israel is concerned - and that reason is hostility to Jews.

You really have no leg to stand on for discussing anyone’s open mindedness.

 

[Coyote]

Okay, I can work with this. Let's now reframe the pathway to a two-state solution. There is no occupation. There is territory which is "undecided". What would be the necessary steps that Palestine must take to achieve political independence and statehood? How would the border be established?

Let’s work with the West Bank first then. For the Palestinians, first step has to be coming to some sort agreement on who is going to represent them (their leadership team). Without that, nothing can happen.

What are the borders of this disputed territory to begin with?

Are there models of this sort of thing that we can look at for guidance? Ireland?

 

[Shusha]

Let’s work with the West Bank first then. For the Palestinians, first step has to be coming to some sort agreement on who is going to represent them (their leadership team). Without that, nothing can happen.

100% agreement.

What are the borders of this disputed territory to begin with?

Let's leave everything open for discussion. River to sea. What would be the parameters for determining what two "viable" states would look like? What do we want to think about?

Are there models of this sort of thing that we can look at for guidance? Ireland?

Maybe? But I'm not an expert.

 

[daveman]

Shusha, I deeply admire your patience.

 

[Coyote]

100% agreement.

Let's leave everything open for discussion. River to sea. What would be the parameters for determining what two "viable" states would look like? What do we want to think about?

Maybe? But I'm not an expert.

If we leave everything open, aren’t we saying the entire state of Israel is disputed territory? I would think we would need some limitations if we are trying to be realistic (as in this could actually work) but I will go with this.

In general, the parameters would include:
Territorial integrity.
Access to resources.
A independent structure for governing.
A independent judicial system.
The ability to enter into treaties, agreements and trade with other nations.
One would hope the ability to maintain peaceful relations with other states, but the reality is most viable states do not consistently do this.

 

[Coyote]

Shusha, I deeply admire your patience.

Shusha discusses. You do not. You just always think you are right.

 

[daveman]

Shusha discusses. You do not. You just always think you are right.

Have you changed your mind on anything in this thread?

 

[Coyote]

Have you changed your mind on anything in this thread?

In this thread? Not yet. In other discussions? I’ve shifted my position on things or at least considered other sides to an issue. Do you think your view is the only correct one?

 

[daveman]

In this thread? Not yet. In other discussions? I’ve shifted my position on things or at least considered other sides to an issue. Do you think your view is the only correct one?

On some issues, yes. Kinda like you, huh?

But I guess it's bad only when conservatives do it.

 

[Coyote]

On some issues, yes. Kinda like you, huh?

But I guess it's bad only when conservatives do it.

Why would you say that? You are allowed to have your opinion. You are allowed to feel yours is the correct. You are allowed to disagree. I am also allowed the same. Can you accept that?

 

[daveman]

Why would you say that? You are allowed to have your opinion. You are allowed to feel yours is the correct. You are allowed to disagree.

"Shusha discusses. You do not. You just always think you are right."

I am also allowed the same. Can you accept that?

Always have. I want everybody to say what they want. And that includes criticism of views with which they disagree.

 

[Shusha]

In this thread? Not yet.

Okay, now I'm disappointed.

 

[Coyote]

Okay, now I'm disappointed.

Why? We have barely begun this discussion. I am reconsidering my view regarding occupied vs. disputed.