Israel's Occupation Is Morally Indefensible

[RoccoR]

pbel, et al,

You make my point. This has nothing to do with "racism."

Unemployable Palestinians you say? Frankly you're just a jumble of racism.

(COMMENT)

Maybe, I should have added the enormous mix of "underemployment" that is the companion to "unemployable." This is about a focus on a health economy, where the government works hand-in-hand with the venture capitalist, investors and entrepreneur that bring new businesses online and gradually erode both underemployment and open opportunities for those that are educated yet unemployable.

This has absolutely nothing to do with the constant complaint of "racism" from those that would rather degrade the economy in favor of funneling more revenue into the conflict (hostilities); and way from re-investment into the nation.

Everyday is an opportunity for the Arab Palestinians to turn their downward spiraling nation around and develop some real nation building programs. They just don't have the little gray cells to make it happen and, instead, want to blame everyone but themselves for their self-generating misfortune. But then, if this is how they choose to exercise their right of self-determination; all we can do is watch them shoot themselves in the foot and slowly bleed to death.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Humanity]

Zionism is Fascism according to Albert Einstein. I want a safe-haven for the Jews but how do you reconcile the immoral annexation of the indigenous people's homeland?


Alon Ben-Meir Become a fan

Senior Fellow, Center for Global Affairs, NYU

Error | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
I have long maintained that Israel's occupation of the West Bank defies the moral principle behind the creation of the state. Contrary to Prime Minister Netanyahu's assertion, the occupation erodes rather than buttresses Israel's national security and cannot be justified on either security or moral grounds. Unless Israel embraces a new moral path, no one can prevent it from unravelling from within only to become a pariah state that has lost its soul, wantonly abandoning the cherished dreams of its founding fathers.

There are four ethical theories--Kantian, utilitarian, virtue-based, and religious--that demonstrate the lack of moral foundation in the continuing occupation, which imposes upon Israelis the responsibility to bring it to a decisive end.

I want a safe-haven for the Jews but how do you reconcile the immoral annexation of the indigenous people's homeland?

Arabs are indigenous to Israel? LOL!

That's like saying that Italian Catholics are indigenous to Mexico

You are confusing religion and people again Phoney...

 

[Billo_Really]

I can't believe 3 webpages in and RoccoR is the only one who addressed the topic in the OP and that was only "window dressing".

The issue is whether you can argue Israel's occupation is morally defensible and you cannot. The source of the article states there are 4 basic moral theory's in play here.

The first one is from Immanual Kant, which is presented in two formulations.

Formulation No.1:
"Act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law." In short, never do anything that you couldn't will everybody else do at the same time.​

So to test that theory, you ask the question, "can the Israeli occupation be universalized?" The answer is "no", in cannot. Because...

...it requires Israel to exempt itself from moral and political norms that the rest of the international community recognizes.
(ergo, International Humanitarian Law, dumbasses)

Formulation No.2:
...never treat another person merely as a means, but always also as an end in themselves. In other words, what Kant is saying is that as free rational beings who can act in accordance with morality, each of us possesses intrinsic worth which implies that we must respect the inherent dignity of each individual.​

Israel clearly does not respect the Palestinian's. Or, as RoccoR (I'm not a racist) puts it, "the Palestinian". Israel treats them like objects that they can do whatever they want to to.

Israel is treating them as objects rather than persons who can rationally consent to the way they are being treated. Israel is coercing the Palestinians physically and psychologically by denying them human rights, through, for example, administrative detention, night raids, and expulsion, thereby robbing them of their dignity and denying them their autonomy.
​

The second moral theory is Utilitarianism.

...an action is morally right if it produces the greatest amount of good for the greatest number of people.
​

I'll continue as soon as I stop laughing...

Alright, the second theory asks the question, "does the occupation maximize the security and well-being of all Israelis?" The answer is clearly "no", since its the cause of all the violence.

In spite of the fact that Israel takes extraordinary measures to enhance its security, the occupation is in fact undermining the security of the state, as is evident from the repeated bloody clashes.
​

I'll stop there. Because...

with the exception of pbel, Monte, Humanity and RoccoR,
​

...this subject seems a little too over the head for the rest of the posters in this thread (and the Israeli cabal in general).

 

[pbel]

pbel, et al,

You make my point. This has nothing to do with "racism."

Unemployable Palestinians you say? Frankly you're just a jumble of racism.

(COMMENT)

Maybe, I should have added the enormous mix of "underemployment" that is the companion to "unemployable." This is about a focus on a health economy, where the government works hand-in-hand with the venture capitalist, investors and entrepreneur that bring new businesses online and gradually erode both underemployment and open opportunities for those that are educated yet unemployable.

This has absolutely nothing to do with the constant complaint of "racism" from those that would rather degrade the economy in favor of funneling more revenue into the conflict (hostilities); and way from re-investment into the nation.

Everyday is an opportunity for the Arab Palestinians to turn their downward spiraling nation around and develop some real nation building programs. They just don't have the little gray cells to make it happen and, instead, want to blame everyone but themselves for their self-generating misfortune. But then, if this is how they choose to exercise their right of self-determination; all we can do is watch them shoot themselves in the foot and slowly bleed to death.

Most Respectfully,
R

Honestly your constant bullshit analysis is that of an idiot because the Palestinians are the most educated and secular of all the Arabs, Creating an economy with the boot of Israel crushing their necks to the ground and yet surviving under these conditions is a miracle while Israel's success can be traced to the incredible flow of American/Jewish money.

You have no point.

 

[pbel]

Zionism is Fascism according to Albert Einstein. I want a safe-haven for the Jews but how do you reconcile the immoral annexation of the indigenous people's homeland?


Alon Ben-Meir Become a fan

Senior Fellow, Center for Global Affairs, NYU

Error | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
I have long maintained that Israel's occupation of the West Bank defies the moral principle behind the creation of the state. Contrary to Prime Minister Netanyahu's assertion, the occupation erodes rather than buttresses Israel's national security and cannot be justified on either security or moral grounds. Unless Israel embraces a new moral path, no one can prevent it from unravelling from within only to become a pariah state that has lost its soul, wantonly abandoning the cherished dreams of its founding fathers.

There are four ethical theories--Kantian, utilitarian, virtue-based, and religious--that demonstrate the lack of moral foundation in the continuing occupation, which imposes upon Israelis the responsibility to bring it to a decisive end.

Your problem is that that area belonged to Israel long before any Arabs ever made it their home.

That was over 2,000 years ago Ape Man.

Wrong again

Prove that Einstein did not say those words, Phoney.

 

[Phoenall]

Zionism is Fascism according to Albert Einstein. I want a safe-haven for the Jews but how do you reconcile the immoral annexation of the indigenous people's homeland?


Alon Ben-Meir Become a fan

Senior Fellow, Center for Global Affairs, NYU

Error | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
I have long maintained that Israel's occupation of the West Bank defies the moral principle behind the creation of the state. Contrary to Prime Minister Netanyahu's assertion, the occupation erodes rather than buttresses Israel's national security and cannot be justified on either security or moral grounds. Unless Israel embraces a new moral path, no one can prevent it from unravelling from within only to become a pariah state that has lost its soul, wantonly abandoning the cherished dreams of its founding fathers.

There are four ethical theories--Kantian, utilitarian, virtue-based, and religious--that demonstrate the lack of moral foundation in the continuing occupation, which imposes upon Israelis the responsibility to bring it to a decisive end.

I want a safe-haven for the Jews but how do you reconcile the immoral annexation of the indigenous people's homeland?

Arabs are indigenous to Israel? LOL!

That's like saying that Italian Catholics are indigenous to Mexico

You are confusing religion and people again Phoney...

Same thing in this case as the arabs mentioned are arab muslims, as you don't get arab anything else because of the Islamic laws that prohibit other religions.

 

[Phoenall]

Zionism is Fascism according to Albert Einstein. I want a safe-haven for the Jews but how do you reconcile the immoral annexation of the indigenous people's homeland?


Alon Ben-Meir Become a fan

Senior Fellow, Center for Global Affairs, NYU

Error | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
I have long maintained that Israel's occupation of the West Bank defies the moral principle behind the creation of the state. Contrary to Prime Minister Netanyahu's assertion, the occupation erodes rather than buttresses Israel's national security and cannot be justified on either security or moral grounds. Unless Israel embraces a new moral path, no one can prevent it from unravelling from within only to become a pariah state that has lost its soul, wantonly abandoning the cherished dreams of its founding fathers.

There are four ethical theories--Kantian, utilitarian, virtue-based, and religious--that demonstrate the lack of moral foundation in the continuing occupation, which imposes upon Israelis the responsibility to bring it to a decisive end.

Your problem is that that area belonged to Israel long before any Arabs ever made it their home.

That was over 2,000 years ago Ape Man.

Wrong again

Prove that Einstein did not say those words, Phoney.

It is up to you to prove he did from more than one source, if one source is all you have then you have proven that he didn't

 

[pbel]

Zionism is Fascism according to Albert Einstein. I want a safe-haven for the Jews but how do you reconcile the immoral annexation of the indigenous people's homeland?


Alon Ben-Meir Become a fan

Senior Fellow, Center for Global Affairs, NYU

Error | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
I have long maintained that Israel's occupation of the West Bank defies the moral principle behind the creation of the state. Contrary to Prime Minister Netanyahu's assertion, the occupation erodes rather than buttresses Israel's national security and cannot be justified on either security or moral grounds. Unless Israel embraces a new moral path, no one can prevent it from unravelling from within only to become a pariah state that has lost its soul, wantonly abandoning the cherished dreams of its founding fathers.

There are four ethical theories--Kantian, utilitarian, virtue-based, and religious--that demonstrate the lack of moral foundation in the continuing occupation, which imposes upon Israelis the responsibility to bring it to a decisive end.

Your problem is that that area belonged to Israel long before any Arabs ever made it their home.

That was over 2,000 years ago Ape Man.

Wrong again

Prove that Einstein did not say those words, Phoney.

It is up to you to prove he did from more than one source, if one source is all you have then you have proven that he didn't

You clearly sound pretty delusional if you need more than Einstein's written words, since when does one need more than once source to create a fact?

Is this asylum protocol?

 

[Humanity]

Zionism is Fascism according to Albert Einstein. I want a safe-haven for the Jews but how do you reconcile the immoral annexation of the indigenous people's homeland?


Alon Ben-Meir Become a fan

Senior Fellow, Center for Global Affairs, NYU

Error | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
I have long maintained that Israel's occupation of the West Bank defies the moral principle behind the creation of the state. Contrary to Prime Minister Netanyahu's assertion, the occupation erodes rather than buttresses Israel's national security and cannot be justified on either security or moral grounds. Unless Israel embraces a new moral path, no one can prevent it from unravelling from within only to become a pariah state that has lost its soul, wantonly abandoning the cherished dreams of its founding fathers.

There are four ethical theories--Kantian, utilitarian, virtue-based, and religious--that demonstrate the lack of moral foundation in the continuing occupation, which imposes upon Israelis the responsibility to bring it to a decisive end.

I want a safe-haven for the Jews but how do you reconcile the immoral annexation of the indigenous people's homeland?

Arabs are indigenous to Israel? LOL!

That's like saying that Italian Catholics are indigenous to Mexico

You are confusing religion and people again Phoney...

Same thing in this case as the arabs mentioned are arab muslims, as you don't get arab anything else because of the Islamic laws that prohibit other religions.

You are so dumb it's scary Phoney!

No Arab Christians...
No Arab Jews...
No Arab Drues....
No Arab Baha'i
No Arab Gnostics
No Arab Yazidi

There are many more....

That's why you need to differentiate between people and religion...

You might get it one day!

 

[Phoenall]

Your problem is that that area belonged to Israel long before any Arabs ever made it their home.

That was over 2,000 years ago Ape Man.

Wrong again

Prove that Einstein did not say those words, Phoney.

It is up to you to prove he did from more than one source, if one source is all you have then you have proven that he didn't

You clearly sound pretty delusional if you need more than Einstein's written words, since when does one need more than once source to create a fact?

Is this asylum protocol?

NO

It is simple if you only have the one source then the veracity of the source is questionable, more so if the source is anti Jewish. I could claim that Abu mazen said that he would buy a nuke from the Russian mafia and explode it in the Jewish quarter of Jerusalem, without verification it would not be true

 

[Phoenall]

Zionism is Fascism according to Albert Einstein. I want a safe-haven for the Jews but how do you reconcile the immoral annexation of the indigenous people's homeland?


Alon Ben-Meir Become a fan

Senior Fellow, Center for Global Affairs, NYU

Error | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
I have long maintained that Israel's occupation of the West Bank defies the moral principle behind the creation of the state. Contrary to Prime Minister Netanyahu's assertion, the occupation erodes rather than buttresses Israel's national security and cannot be justified on either security or moral grounds. Unless Israel embraces a new moral path, no one can prevent it from unravelling from within only to become a pariah state that has lost its soul, wantonly abandoning the cherished dreams of its founding fathers.

There are four ethical theories--Kantian, utilitarian, virtue-based, and religious--that demonstrate the lack of moral foundation in the continuing occupation, which imposes upon Israelis the responsibility to bring it to a decisive end.

I want a safe-haven for the Jews but how do you reconcile the immoral annexation of the indigenous people's homeland?

Arabs are indigenous to Israel? LOL!

That's like saying that Italian Catholics are indigenous to Mexico

You are confusing religion and people again Phoney...

Same thing in this case as the arabs mentioned are arab muslims, as you don't get arab anything else because of the Islamic laws that prohibit other religions.

You are so dumb it's scary Phoney!

No Arab Christians...
No Arab Jews...
No Arab Drues....
No Arab Baha'i
No Arab Gnostics
No Arab Yazidi

There are many more....

That's why you need to differentiate between people and religion...

You might get it one day!

YOU MIGHT,but that is questionable. Now about the occupation can you produce any evidence your ramblings have anything to do with it ?

 

[pbel]

That was over 2,000 years ago Ape Man.

Wrong again

Prove that Einstein did not say those words, Phoney.

It is up to you to prove he did from more than one source, if one source is all you have then you have proven that he didn't

You clearly sound pretty delusional if you need more than Einstein's written words, since when does one need more than once source to create a fact?

Is this asylum protocol?

NO

It is simple if you only have the one source then the veracity of the source is questionable, more so if the source is anti Jewish. I could claim that Abu mazen said that he would buy a nuke from the Russian mafia and explode it in the Jewish quarter of Jerusalem, without verification it would not be true

Well then neuron-nut peruse these links:

Einstein: The 1948 Letter to New York Times condemning the ...

www.globalwebpost.com/farooqm/study.../einstein/nyt_letter.html - Similarto Einstein: The 1948 Letter to New York Times condemning the ...

Was Einstein a political Zionist? Supported Israel? Read: Einstein, Zionism and Israel: ... political philosophy and social appeal to the Nazi and Fascist parties.

• Albert Einstein's Letter Warning Of Zionist Fascism In Israel ...
  www.globalresearch.ca/albert-einsteins-letter-warning...zionist.../5438170
  
  Mar 23, 2015 ... Albert Einstein's Letter Warning Of Zionist Fascism In Israel. Letter That Albert Einstein Sent to the New York Times 1948, Protesting the Visit of ...

• Political views of Albert Einstein - Wikipedia, the free ...
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_views_of_Albert_Einstein
  
  Albert Einstein, seen here with his wife Elsa Einstein and Zionist leaders, ... 1948) likening it to "the Nazi and Fascist parties" and stated "The Deir Yassin ...

• Albert Einstein's 1948 Letter to the New York Times - The ...
  www.thehypertexts.com/ Albert%20Einstein%201948%20Letter%20New%... - Similarto Albert Einstein's 1948 Letter to the New York Times - The ...
  
  [Einstein made the point that supporting Jewish fascists like Menachem Begin was .... "Zionism is a colonizing adventure and, therefore, it stands or falls on the ...
  
  
• Einstein opposes Jewish State - newdemocracyworld.org
  www.newdemocracyworld.org/old/einstein.htm - Similarto Einstein opposes Jewish State - newdemocracyworld.org
  
  A detailed discussion of Einstein's views on Zionism is here (also here.) ... It is inconceivable that those who oppose fascism throughout the world, if correctly ...
  
  
• Einstein on Palestine and Zionism | Dissident Voice
  dissidentvoice.org/2010/01/einstein-on-palestine-and-zionism/ - Similarto Einstein on Palestine and Zionism | Dissident Voice
  
  Jan 9, 2010 ... The evidence of Einstein's position on Palestine and Zionism is best seen ... party as “fascist” and espousing “an admixture of ultra-nationalism, ...
  

• EINSTEIN, Albert. Outstanding Mathematician slammed racist ...
  https://sites.google.com/.../jewsagainstracistzionism/einstein-alber... - Similarto EINSTEIN, Albert. Outstanding Mathematician slammed racist ...
  
  Initially pro-Zionist, Einstein was increasingly critical of the fascist and racist nature of Zionist extremists such as Menachem Begin (see: Wikipedia:.
  
  
• Quotes About Zionism (26 quotes) - Goodreads
  www.goodreads.com/quotes/tag/zionism - Similarto Quotes About Zionism (26 quotes) - Goodreads
  
  26 quotes have been tagged as zionism: Mahatma Gandhi: 'Palestine belongs to the ... Italy's Zionists never resisted Fascism; they ended up praising it and ...
  
  
• Judeofascism.com: In 1948, the year of Israel's founding, ...
  www.judeofascism.com/2013/.../in-1948-year-of-israels-founding.... - Similarto Judeofascism.com: In 1948, the year of Israel's founding, ...
  
  Jun 13, 2013 ... The Einstein letter identified the predecessors to Likud as the "fascists" they were in 1948, yet no mainstream politician in Zionist-corrupted ...
  
  
• Terra Incognita: When Einstein was wrong - Opinion - ...
  www.jpost.com/.../Terra-Incognita-When-Einstein-was-wrong-330710 - Similarto Terra Incognita: When Einstein was wrong - Opinion - ...
  
  Nov 5, 2013 ... He disliked the Revisionist Zionists, who he claimed in 1935 “lead youth ... Einstein accused Begin of supporting the “doctrine of the fascist ...
  

 

[RoccoR]

Billo_Really, et al,

I tend to think of an "Occupation" as the final phase (post-War Phase) of a conflict. Almost all conflict/wars come to an end; and one of the options available to the Victor at the conclusion of a war/conflict is an "occupation." This is the decision to temporarily hold former enemy controlled territory. This is true of an Armistice, in that an armistice is an announced end to open hostilities, but not an end to the war/conflict culminating in a Treaty of Peace. An Armistice (like that of Lebanon and Syria) does not achieve national political objectives in the same way as a Peace Treaty (like that of Jordan and Egypt).

The last decades of the 20th Century and the first few decades of the 21st Century marks warfare (the core combat phase) as a rapid development. Often less than a years. Wars/conflicts of short durations are characterized by a very short preparedness and planning period that follows war/conflict; and allows for the assumption of responsibility in the post-War/Conflict Phase. Similarly long wars/conflicts that have an exceptionally long Armistice period (long cessation of hostilities with no progress for a lasting peace) set a new set of conditions that will have an impact on the achievement of the national political objectives, that will leave the temporarily held enemy controlled territory in limbo. This is what the conditions are in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

On 6 February 1948, a communication to the Secretary-General, United Nations (UN) by Mr. Isa Nakhleh, Representative of the Arab Higher Committee (AHC) which made it clear that the AHC "Delegation solemnly declares that it is the unflinching determination of every Arab in Palestine to defend his country against any power or group of powers or any force going to Palestine to partition the country. The Arabs are in duty and honor bound to defend their country to the last man." (A/AC.21/10) This is essentially a declaration of war between the AHC (representing the Arab Palestinians) and the State of Israel. This was articulated in the 1968 Palestinian National Charter AND again reemphasized in the 2005 Palestinian Charter of Honor, (contained in the DCAF › Publications › Towards Palestinian National Reconciliation).

Third: External Relations

All confirm the following principles:
4. To confirm the legitimacy of the armed resistance, political strife, and all means of Jihad and struggle which the Palestinian people has exercised and is exercising to attain freedom and independence, and to lobby all powers to denounce all forms of occupation and tyranny in Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan, and each span occupied by the foreigner.
​

Abeer Ayyoub in Gaza City and Harriet Sherwood in Jerusalem
Tens of thousands celebrate Hamas 'victory' rally as exiled leader returns
Saturday 8 December 2012

Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal vowed Gaza's rulers would never give up "an inch of the land" to Israel in an uncompromising speech before tens of thousands of cheering supporters at a triumphalist "victory" rally in Gaza City.

"Palestine is ours, from the river to the sea and from the south to the north. There will be no concession on an inch of the land," he told the crowd on his first visit toGaza. "We will never recognise the legitimacy of the Israeli occupation and therefore there is no legitimacy for Israel, no matter how long it will take."​

Israel's occupation is morally defensible

(COMMENT)

There is a special connection between War/Conflict and Morality. It is akin to the Theory of Self-Defense. In war/conflict we say: Just War Theory. Prussian General Karl von Clausewitz, is known to have written: "war is the continuation of politics by other means." Clearly, this is quite suitable for the Arab-Israeli Conflict. This is where the UN Palestine Commission said: "Powerful Arab interests, both inside and outside Palestine, are defying the resolution of the General Assembly and are engaged in a deliberate effort to alter by force the settlement envisaged therein." Politics!

In the case of the Israelis, it is simplified: The need to defend the Jewish National Home is a matter of survival. And the Arab-Palestinians pose a threat to the battlefield conditions that permit an opportunity for the Israel to mount a reasonable defense. Sometimes, it is heard to be said: "indefensible borders." This is a variation on the theme that there are two moral approaches for consideration: (i) one for Israel (based on a strict moral code); (ii) and one for the Arab-Palestinians (based on sympathetic understanding).

Central to the issue of statehood is the understanding that all warfare is precisely and ultimately, about sovereignty and its health and protection. When there is a dispute that impacts the safety and sovereignty of a nation, then Armed Conflict (War) becomes the method of dispute resolution. (Note: It can be said that the reverse is true. This is call a commutative political property.)

Because there are, in higher forms of logic and philosophy, mathematical properties that are used to determine outcomes, these properties have have correlative dual use in both studies.
​

Yes, war/conflict is a violent way for determining outcomes (who gets to say what goes) on in a given territory, for example, regarding: who gets power, who gets wealth and resources, whose ideals prevail, and so on.

Morality is a social accepted definition based on the distinction between "right and wrong" - or - "good and evil." We determine what the proper political property is (politically) correct. There is no true definition to morally correct; except within the social norm of the ethnic group. Within some ethnic groups, cutting off hands, stoning, and honor killing are perfectly acceptable punishments and within the moral values of the society. Where in other societies, this would be considered barbaric.

THUS, if you come from a society that is willing to take certain risks with the safety and security of its national sovereignty and citizens, then the continued occupation necessary to insure that outcome is morally UN-acceptable.

If you come from a society that is NOT willing to take certain risks with the safety and security of its national sovereignty and citizens, then the continued occupation necessary to insure that outcome is morally acceptable.

This is an embedded concept to this oath.

"I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic;
that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same;
and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me,
according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice."​

If the leadership of the United States came to the conclusion that "security the territory, establish occupation, and neutralizing the threat to America in Territory "X", and that the accomplishment of that mission was essential to our nation Nation, our continued survival, and our way of life; then it will be done. The war/conflict will be consider "JUST" and the occupation will be considered "moral."

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Humanity]

I want a safe-haven for the Jews but how do you reconcile the immoral annexation of the indigenous people's homeland?

Arabs are indigenous to Israel? LOL!

That's like saying that Italian Catholics are indigenous to Mexico

You are confusing religion and people again Phoney...

Same thing in this case as the arabs mentioned are arab muslims, as you don't get arab anything else because of the Islamic laws that prohibit other religions.

You are so dumb it's scary Phoney!

No Arab Christians...
No Arab Jews...
No Arab Drues....
No Arab Baha'i
No Arab Gnostics
No Arab Yazidi

There are many more....

That's why you need to differentiate between people and religion...

You might get it one day!

YOU MIGHT,but that is questionable. Now about the occupation can you produce any evidence your ramblings have anything to do with it ?

Still ONLY Arab Muslims then Phoney

The occupation of Gaza via the blockade, as stated by UNSC, UNGA, Humanitarian Organisations and several countries...

Want to argue against the UN Phoney?

Yes, I know, they are "anti-semite", in your opinion...

If that's the case then you need to stop using the UN as a source to back up your inane BS!

 

[P F Tinmore]

Billo_Really, et al,

I tend to think of an "Occupation" as the final phase (post-War Phase) of a conflict. Almost all conflict/wars come to an end; and one of the options available to the Victor at the conclusion of a war/conflict is an "occupation." This is the decision to temporarily hold former enemy controlled territory. This is true of an Armistice, in that an armistice is an announced end to open hostilities, but not an end to the war/conflict culminating in a Treaty of Peace. An Armistice (like that of Lebanon and Syria) does not achieve national political objectives in the same way as a Peace Treaty (like that of Jordan and Egypt).

The last decades of the 20th Century and the first few decades of the 21st Century marks warfare (the core combat phase) as a rapid development. Often less than a years. Wars/conflicts of short durations are characterized by a very short preparedness and planning period that follows war/conflict; and allows for the assumption of responsibility in the post-War/Conflict Phase. Similarly long wars/conflicts that have an exceptionally long Armistice period (long cessation of hostilities with no progress for a lasting peace) set a new set of conditions that will have an impact on the achievement of the national political objectives, that will leave the temporarily held enemy controlled territory in limbo. This is what the conditions are in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

On 6 February 1948, a communication to the Secretary-General, United Nations (UN) by Mr. Isa Nakhleh, Representative of the Arab Higher Committee (AHC) which made it clear that the AHC "Delegation solemnly declares that it is the unflinching determination of every Arab in Palestine to defend his country against any power or group of powers or any force going to Palestine to partition the country. The Arabs are in duty and honor bound to defend their country to the last man." (A/AC.21/10) This is essentially a declaration of war between the AHC (representing the Arab Palestinians) and the State of Israel. This was articulated in the 1968 Palestinian National Charter AND again reemphasized in the 2005 Palestinian Charter of Honor, (contained in the DCAF › Publications › Towards Palestinian National Reconciliation).

Third: External Relations

All confirm the following principles:
4. To confirm the legitimacy of the armed resistance, political strife, and all means of Jihad and struggle which the Palestinian people has exercised and is exercising to attain freedom and independence, and to lobby all powers to denounce all forms of occupation and tyranny in Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan, and each span occupied by the foreigner.
​

Abeer Ayyoub in Gaza City and Harriet Sherwood in Jerusalem
Tens of thousands celebrate Hamas 'victory' rally as exiled leader returns
Saturday 8 December 2012

Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal vowed Gaza's rulers would never give up "an inch of the land" to Israel in an uncompromising speech before tens of thousands of cheering supporters at a triumphalist "victory" rally in Gaza City.

"Palestine is ours, from the river to the sea and from the south to the north. There will be no concession on an inch of the land," he told the crowd on his first visit toGaza. "We will never recognise the legitimacy of the Israeli occupation and therefore there is no legitimacy for Israel, no matter how long it will take."​

Israel's occupation is morally defensible

(COMMENT)

There is a special connection between War/Conflict and Morality. It is akin to the Theory of Self-Defense. In war/conflict we say: Just War Theory. Prussian General Karl von Clausewitz, is known to have written: "war is the continuation of politics by other means." Clearly, this is quite suitable for the Arab-Israeli Conflict. This is where the UN Palestine Commission said: "Powerful Arab interests, both inside and outside Palestine, are defying the resolution of the General Assembly and are engaged in a deliberate effort to alter by force the settlement envisaged therein." Politics!

In the case of the Israelis, it is simplified: The need to defend the Jewish National Home is a matter of survival. And the Arab-Palestinians pose a threat to the battlefield conditions that permit an opportunity for the Israel to mount a reasonable defense. Sometimes, it is heard to be said: "indefensible borders." This is a variation on the theme that there are two moral approaches for consideration: (i) one for Israel (based on a strict moral code); (ii) and one for the Arab-Palestinians (based on sympathetic understanding).

Central to the issue of statehood is the understanding that all warfare is precisely and ultimately, about sovereignty and its health and protection. When there is a dispute that impacts the safety and sovereignty of a nation, then Armed Conflict (War) becomes the method of dispute resolution. (Note: It can be said that the reverse is true. This is call a commutative political property.)

Because there are, in higher forms of logic and philosophy, mathematical properties that are used to determine outcomes, these properties have have correlative dual use in both studies.
​

Yes, war/conflict is a violent way for determining outcomes (who gets to say what goes) on in a given territory, for example, regarding: who gets power, who gets wealth and resources, whose ideals prevail, and so on.

Morality is a social accepted definition based on the distinction between "right and wrong" - or - "good and evil." We determine what the proper political property is (politically) correct. There is no true definition to morally correct; except within the social norm of the ethnic group. Within some ethnic groups, cutting off hands, stoning, and honor killing are perfectly acceptable punishments and within the moral values of the society. Where in other societies, this would be considered barbaric.

THUS, if you come from a society that is willing to take certain risks with the safety and security of its national sovereignty and citizens, then the continued occupation necessary to insure that outcome is morally UN-acceptable.

If you come from a society that is NOT willing to take certain risks with the safety and security of its national sovereignty and citizens, then the continued occupation necessary to insure that outcome is morally acceptable.

This is an embedded concept to this oath.

"I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic;
that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same;
and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me,
according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice."​

If the leadership of the United States came to the conclusion that "security the territory, establish occupation, and neutralizing the threat to America in Territory "X", and that the accomplishment of that mission was essential to our nation Nation, our continued survival, and our way of life; then it will be done. The war/conflict will be consider "JUST" and the occupation will be considered "moral."

Most Respectfully,
R

"Delegation solemnly declares that it is the unflinching determination of every Arab in Palestine to defend his country against any power or group of powers or any force going to Palestine to partition the country.​

And you believe that self defense is illegal.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Now, did I say that? I did not.

"Delegation solemnly declares that it is the unflinching determination of every Arab in Palestine to defend his country against any power or group of powers or any force going to Palestine to partition the country.​

And you believe that self defense is illegal.

(COMMENT)

I said two very important things:

• This was the equivalency of a declaration of war.
• That the territory WAS NOT their country to defend.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Now, did I say that? I did not.

"Delegation solemnly declares that it is the unflinching determination of every Arab in Palestine to defend his country against any power or group of powers or any force going to Palestine to partition the country.​

And you believe that self defense is illegal.

(COMMENT)

I said two very important things:

• This was the equivalency of a declaration of war.
• That the territory WAS NOT their country to defend.

Most Respectfully,
R

Palestine is a country defined by international borders. The Palestinians were the habitual residents of Palestine and they held Palestinian citizenship.

And you say That the territory WAS NOT their country to defend.

Rocco, you are a hoot.

 

[pbel]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Now, did I say that? I did not.

"Delegation solemnly declares that it is the unflinching determination of every Arab in Palestine to defend his country against any power or group of powers or any force going to Palestine to partition the country.​

And you believe that self defense is illegal.

(COMMENT)

I said two very important things:

• This was the equivalency of a declaration of war.
• That the territory WAS NOT their country to defend.

Most Respectfully,
R

Whose Territory was it then?

 

[Billo_Really]

Whose Territory was it then?

The Dutch.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, pbel, Billo_Really, et al,

Actually, you are wrong.

P F Tinmore, et al,

Now, did I say that? I did not.

"Delegation solemnly declares that it is the unflinching determination of every Arab in Palestine to defend his country against any power or group of powers or any force going to Palestine to partition the country.​

And you believe that self defense is illegal.

(COMMENT)

I said two very important things:

• This was the equivalency of a declaration of war.
• That the territory WAS NOT their country to defend.

Most Respectfully,
R

Palestine is a country defined by international borders. The Palestinians were the habitual residents of Palestine and they held Palestinian citizenship.

And you say That the territory WAS NOT their country to defend.

Rocco, you are a hoot.

(COMMENT)

• Palestine was a 'legal entity' but it is not a "sovereign state."
• Citizenship was to the Mandate Territory, not a sovereign country. From 1922 to 1948, Palestine was defined by the Palestine Order in Council as the "territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, hereinafter described as Palestine."
• International Borders for Territory formerly under Mandate were relevant to the Allied Power and used for their administration.
• The Citizenship was to the "Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine at the date of commencement of this Order. It was not to some undefined Arab State.
• The "territory of Palestine" was an entity "within such boundaries as may be fixed by" the Allied Powers and NOT by a self-determination of any Arab people.

As linked, the "legal entity" status was opened and publicly explained by the Mandatory and the UN in a joint Release (Press Release PAL/138) on the Successor Government.

When the Jewish People Declared Independence, the remainder of the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applied would have been a UN legal entity. However, the pol-mil error of the Arab League changed the plan thru Arab interference. The West Bank fell under Jordanian authority and the Gaza Strip fell under Egyptian authority. The remainder fell under Israeli control as outline by the multiple Armistice agreements.

If there is a hoot; it flew by me.

Most Respectfully,
R