Settlements only "illegal" for Jews

[Spartacactcus]

There is nothing to argue. Israel exists in point of fact. And the very idea that an existing State should be "undone" after nearly a hundred years only confirms the special rules which appear to be applied solely to Israel.

Of course there is an argument that Israel does not have title to the OPTs. To dismiss it as you have shows a deeply entrenched position that will not even entertain the valid arguments of others

 

[Spartacactcus]

Actually he is right. The laws do make it illegal and recognize settlements on occupied territory as illegal. But other than Russia and Israel, other countries get away with it. Actually so does Russia but there have sanctions applied. So I agree there is a double standard.

Has not Israel gotten away with it for nigh on 63 years already ? Not only have they gotten away with it they have actually been protected from any legal action by the US veto at the UNSC and have been bankrolled whilst subjugating the right of an entire people to self determination in their own state.

I don't see how you think they have somehow been the victims of a double standard here.

How long did Saddams attempt at occupying/annexing Kuwait last ?

Have the Russians started to move large amounts of people into Crimea in illegal settlements they are constructing ? Sure it's a occupation, an illegal occupation imo but they have endured sanctions because of it and they are on the UNSC!!

 

[Spartacactcus]

No, he's not right. This application of GCIV 49 has NEVER existed and NEVER been interpreted in this way. It is STILL not interpreted in this way in any other occupations. (Real occupations, that is. Israel doesn't occupy anyone). It is a stretch interpretation instigated against Israel and only Israel.

Most of the commentators who study the laws actually agree that the 4th GC does apply to the conflict and thus there IS an ongoing occupation.

Was it not applied to Saddam Husseins bid to annexe Kuwait even though Kuwait had once been part of the Ottoman regional entity prior to Iraqs creation ?

Who recognizes the Russian annexation of Crimea ?

 

[Spartacactcus]

Agree, there were a number of countries created or cobbled together from the mandate. To single out Israel is informative...

I am " singling out " Israel because we are talking about Israel. If you want to think that's somehow " informative " of something else you are welcome to do so but at least posit the idea that it is your assumption.

FTR , I see the creation of the ME states generally as being born of the old European racist colonial mindset that set the borders for their own benefits. Something that has caused mass suffering and injustices ever since for every group in the region.

 

[ForeverYoung436]

Agree, there were a number of countries created or cobbled together from the mandate. To single out Israel is informative...

I am " singling out " Israel because we are talking about Israel. If you want to think that's somehow " informative " of something else you are welcome to do so but at least posit the idea that it is your assumption.

FTR , I see the creation of the ME states generally as being born of the old European racist colonial mindset that set the borders for their own benefits. Something that has caused mass suffering and injustices ever since for every group in the region.

Like how the colonial powers put Christians and Muslims together in Lebanon, so they have to kill each other like savages instead of, you know, just sharing power and living peacefully together? But that is really the crux of the problem, right there. Muslims cannot share power with any other group, which is why they can't accept Israel.

 

[Spartacactcus]

The claim on the table on this thread is that law is applied to Israel in a way which is not applied to any other country. If you can find an application of GCIV 49 to ANY OTHER COUNTRY then do so. Otherwise, the claim of special treatment for Israel (Jews), which is recognized as antisemitism plain and simple, stands.

For the charge to stand there would have to be an exact and comparable example from which to judge any claims of " special treatment " for Israel. Is there another state that claims it's policy of ongoing illegal settlement/annexation of the territory of another people is based on their security needs ? Is it based on religious grounds ? Does it seek to deny a people the right to self determination and supplant them with people from all over the globe based on nothing but religious denomination ?

If you ask these questions then the lack of the application to others doesn't come as a surprise imo.

You mentioned Western Sahara but , although the situations are similar to a degree , there is a consistant rejection from the UN to recognize the Moroccan claims of sovereignty over WS with their view being similar to that of their view on Palestine with the call being that the people of WS should have the right to self determination .

I think it's wrong/unfortunate that these cases don't see as much coverage but also think things should be seen on an individual basis and not thrown together. We could also call the calls for only Iran and Iraqs opening up to weapons inspectors , without calls for the opening up of the weapons sites of others like Israel or the US , as " special treatments "

We could also comment that your view that the Arabs should not have the right to enter into negotiations with conditions but presumeably Israel should , as proof of your support for anti Arab bias/bigotry ?

 

[Spartacactcus]

Like how the colonial powers put Christians and Muslims together in Lebanon, so they have to kill each other like savages instead of, you know, just sharing power and living peacefully together? But that is really the crux of the problem, right there. Muslims cannot share power with any other group, which is why they can't accept Israel.

The colonial powers, Britain and France , carved up the region between themselves along lines that served their interests and used anything they could to make it easier to rule those places. They used religious differences / tribal loyalties /ethnic differences to the max to make it so. There were Christians/Muslims/Jews in those places anyhow and had been for centuries so the colonialist never " put " anyone anywhere they just used what was already there to their advantage.

For the record the relationships between Muslims and Jews in Palestine, prior to the advent of Zionism, was a whole lot better than the relationship between Christians and Jews in Europe during the same period. Recall that when the Christians reconquered Spanish territory from the Muslims the Jews decided to go with the Muslims rather than face being ruled over by Christians.

Your slurring of Muslims is acknowledged and logged

 

[Coyote]

Agree, there were a number of countries created or cobbled together from the mandate. To single out Israel is informative...

I am " singling out " Israel because we are talking about Israel. If you want to think that's somehow " informative " of something else you are welcome to do so but at least posit the idea that it is your assumption.

FTR , I see the creation of the ME states generally as being born of the old European racist colonial mindset that set the borders for their own benefits. Something that has caused mass suffering and injustices ever since for every group in the region.

Like how the colonial powers put Christians and Muslims together in Lebanon, so they have to kill each other like savages instead of, you know, just sharing power and living peacefully together? But that is really the crux of the problem, right there. Muslims cannot share power with any other group, which is why they can't accept Israel.

Colonial powers were skillful at practicing a divide and conquer approach, controlling majority ethnic groups by promoting, empowering and protecting minority groups. That is why when they left a region it fell into sectarian strife and and the ethnic minorities were attacked for being part of the subjugating force. Sadaam controlled Iraq that way. Africa is full of examples. It isn’t necessarily anything to do with just being Muslim.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

[
Accusation? Interesting that you take it thus, and that you home in on that one meaning (but not surprising).

I have know idea how it ties into "Judenrein". That's your thing and that seems to be your word of the day.

I used the term Judenrein because it represents an accurate description of your people's policies and attitudes towards Jews as is depicted in this thread.

I used the word accusation because that is the term that best describes your snide comment levelled against the non-antisemites in this thread about some supposed "circle jerk".

If there is anything else you need to know about the accurate use of the English language, don't be afraid to ask, now, k?

 

[sparky]

Do you have a list of countries to which you are NOT PERMITTED TO TRAVEL? Because of your religious faith, your ethnicity or because you once visited Israel?

Do you have a list of countries your GOD permits you to occupy , because of your religious faith / ethnicity ?

~S~

 

[DOTR]

Ah, that good, old Judenrein.

It's as popular a notion now as it was in 1940.

Yes, exactly...but not only that. It's the height of irony that Jews these days are allowed to live in NY or Paris or Sydney, but not in Hebron or Bethlehem or Shechem--where Judaism was first born, and which is the land of Judea.

Good point. Areas which the Palestinians control are hellholes where they drag bodies of suspected "collaborators" down the streets.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Good point. Areas which the Palestinians control are hellholes where they drag bodies of suspected "collaborators" down the streets.

Which makes them even more beloved among their supporters, here.

Remember, those evil "collaborators" don't hate Jews with sufficient intensity, so of course it is perfectly warranted.

 

[Coyote]

[
Accusation? Interesting that you take it thus, and that you home in on that one meaning (but not surprising).

I have know idea how it ties into "Judenrein". That's your thing and that seems to be your word of the day.

I used the term Judenrein because it represents an accurate description of your people's policies and attitudes towards Jews as is depicted in this thread.

I used the word accusation because that is the term that best describes your snide comment levelled against the non-antisemites in this thread about some supposed "circle jerk".

If there is anything else you need to know about the accurate use of the English language, don't be afraid to ask, now, k?

I would say your use of Judenrein is nothing more than your typical flame bait. Sorry if the use of circle jerk triggered you, that wasn’t my intent, especially given I wasn’t even conversing with you. However if you have the cognitive ability to read the entire definition of the term, you will find it accurately describes IP, where 99% of the posters are Pro-Israel, largely agreeing with each other, patting each on the back and creating an echo chamber. I can thing of maybe three or four here who provide substantive and thought provoking debate (ie debate that makes one work, question assumptions, and rethink ideas). You are not one of them. Out of everyone here, there are only two on Team Palestine who bother to post here much...and, most of the time it is just one. Gotta hand it to Tinmore, he puts up with a hell of a lot of abuse but never seems to resort to personal attacks.

So your homework is to explore the entire meaning of “circle jerk” and consider how it applies to IP and your own activities. Think you can handle that?

In the meantime, settlements. Shusha has a valid point (and actually posted an excellent article). If settlements are illegal, then that needs to be applied evenly to other occupied territories that fall under the same circumstances, and she is right. Except for Russia/Ukraine and Israel, it is not. Should they be considered legal? If so....is what Russia is doing in Ukraine legal? If it is illegal, shouldn’t the same standard be applied to all such situations?

Now you have some choices to make...do you continue your circle jerk, do you devolve once again into attacking spelling and grammar, or do actually add to the larger discussion as put forth in the OP?

I think I know the answer but would love to be proved wrong.

 

[Coyote]

There is nothing to argue. Israel exists in point of fact. And the very idea that an existing State should be "undone" after nearly a hundred years only confirms the special rules which appear to be applied solely to Israel.

Of course there is an argument that Israel does not have title to the OPTs. To dismiss it as you have shows a deeply entrenched position that will not even entertain the valid arguments of others

What exactly are you saying here? That a sovereign nation of almost 80 years can be disassembled?

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Gotta hand it to Tinmore,

Certainly. He has justified the mass murder of Jews on many an occasion, after all.

 

[ForeverYoung436]

Do you have a list of countries to which you are NOT PERMITTED TO TRAVEL? Because of your religious faith, your ethnicity or because you once visited Israel?

Do you have a list of countries your GOD permits you to occupy , because of your religious faith / ethnicity ?

~S~

No, just one and that is Israel. How many Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu or Shinto countries are there, with no problem at all? Why can't the world tolerate just one Jewish country?

 

[rylah]

[
Accusation? Interesting that you take it thus, and that you home in on that one meaning (but not surprising).

I have know idea how it ties into "Judenrein". That's your thing and that seems to be your word of the day.

I used the term Judenrein because it represents an accurate description of your people's policies and attitudes towards Jews as is depicted in this thread.

I used the word accusation because that is the term that best describes your snide comment levelled against the non-antisemites in this thread about some supposed "circle jerk".

If there is anything else you need to know about the accurate use of the English language, don't be afraid to ask, now, k?

I would say your use of Judenrein is nothing more than your typical flame bait. Sorry if the use of circle jerk triggered you, that wasn’t my intent, especially given I wasn’t even conversing with you. However if you have the cognitive ability to read the entire definition of the term, you will find it accurately describes IP, where 99% of the posters are Pro-Israel, largely agreeing with each other, patting each on the back and creating an echo chamber. I can thing of maybe three or four here who provide substantive and thought provoking debate (ie debate that makes one work, question assumptions, and rethink ideas). You are not one of them. Out of everyone here, there are only two on Team Palestine who bother to post here much...and, most of the time it is just one. Gotta hand it to Tinmore, he puts up with a hell of a lot of abuse but never seems to resort to personal attacks.

So your homework is to explore the entire meaning of “circle jerk” and consider how it applies to IP and your own activities. Think you can handle that?

In the meantime, settlements. Shusha has a valid point (and actually posted an excellent article). If settlements are illegal, then that needs to be applied evenly to other occupied territories that fall under the same circumstances, and she is right. Except for Russia/Ukraine and Israel, it is not. Should they be considered legal? If so....is what Russia is doing in Ukraine legal? If it is illegal, shouldn’t the same standard be applied to all such situations?

Now you have some choices to make...do you continue your circle jerk, do you devolve once again into attacking spelling and grammar, or do actually add to the larger discussion as put forth in the OP?

I think I know the answer but would love to be proved wrong.

You're equating Russia with Israel now,
and still don't get why this whole anecdote sounds ridiculous?

 

[Coyote]

The claim on the table on this thread is that law is applied to Israel in a way which is not applied to any other country. If you can find an application of GCIV 49 to ANY OTHER COUNTRY then do so. Otherwise, the claim of special treatment for Israel (Jews), which is recognized as antisemitism plain and simple, stands.

For the charge to stand there would have to be an exact and comparable example from which to judge any claims of " special treatment " for Israel. Is there another state that claims it's policy of ongoing illegal settlement/annexation of the territory of another people is based on their security needs ? Is it based on religious grounds ? Does it seek to deny a people the right to self determination and supplant them with people from all over the globe based on nothing but religious denomination ?

If you ask these questions then the lack of the application to others doesn't come as a surprise imo.

You mentioned Western Sahara but , although the situations are similar to a degree , there is a consistant rejection from the UN to recognize the Moroccan claims of sovereignty over WS with their view being similar to that of their view on Palestine with the call being that the people of WS should have the right to self determination .

I think it's wrong/unfortunate that these cases don't see as much coverage but also think things should be seen on an individual basis and not thrown together. We could also call the calls for only Iran and Iraqs opening up to weapons inspectors , without calls for the opening up of the weapons sites of others like Israel or the US , as " special treatments "

We could also comment that your view that the Arabs should not have the right to enter into negotiations with conditions but presumeably Israel should , as proof of your support for anti Arab bias/bigotry ?

You make some interesting points, which I put in bold.

On the first...there are some issues.

First...the rights of a people to self determination. Both the Palestinian people and the Jewish people have those rights. When you bring in the argument of immigration from all around the world, you ignore some basic facts. One, that the Jewish people have long inhabited that region, predating the other cultures.

That is well documented in archeological evidence and the fact that there has always been a continuous Jewish presence in that region. Certainly, given the many groups struggling for a national presence in post-Mandate Middle East, the Jews deserve a piece of that pie. Judaism is a religion, but it is also an ethnicity. So why are they treated differently than other ethnic groups or peoples seeking self determination?

If immigration is an issue, the Palestinians themselves are comprised of those people who’s ancestors have lived there since before Islam, peoples who have immigrated in at later times, and people who immigrated much more recently from Egypt and other surrounding areas to work.

So it seems if immigration is somehow a disqualifier for having a state you would have to apply the same to both sides.

 

[Coyote]

[
Accusation? Interesting that you take it thus, and that you home in on that one meaning (but not surprising).

I have know idea how it ties into "Judenrein". That's your thing and that seems to be your word of the day.

I used the term Judenrein because it represents an accurate description of your people's policies and attitudes towards Jews as is depicted in this thread.

I used the word accusation because that is the term that best describes your snide comment levelled against the non-antisemites in this thread about some supposed "circle jerk".

If there is anything else you need to know about the accurate use of the English language, don't be afraid to ask, now, k?

I would say your use of Judenrein is nothing more than your typical flame bait. Sorry if the use of circle jerk triggered you, that wasn’t my intent, especially given I wasn’t even conversing with you. However if you have the cognitive ability to read the entire definition of the term, you will find it accurately describes IP, where 99% of the posters are Pro-Israel, largely agreeing with each other, patting each on the back and creating an echo chamber. I can thing of maybe three or four here who provide substantive and thought provoking debate (ie debate that makes one work, question assumptions, and rethink ideas). You are not one of them. Out of everyone here, there are only two on Team Palestine who bother to post here much...and, most of the time it is just one. Gotta hand it to Tinmore, he puts up with a hell of a lot of abuse but never seems to resort to personal attacks.

So your homework is to explore the entire meaning of “circle jerk” and consider how it applies to IP and your own activities. Think you can handle that?

In the meantime, settlements. Shusha has a valid point (and actually posted an excellent article). If settlements are illegal, then that needs to be applied evenly to other occupied territories that fall under the same circumstances, and she is right. Except for Russia/Ukraine and Israel, it is not. Should they be considered legal? If so....is what Russia is doing in Ukraine legal? If it is illegal, shouldn’t the same standard be applied to all such situations?

Now you have some choices to make...do you continue your circle jerk, do you devolve once again into attacking spelling and grammar, or do actually add to the larger discussion as put forth in the OP?

I think I know the answer but would love to be proved wrong.

You're equating Russia with Israel now,
and still don't get why this whole anecdote sounds ridiculous?

If you had read the article that was posted, you would see that Russia was one of the countries listed in creating settlements in occupied territory, along with other lesser known comparable situations.

Sorry you don’t like it, take it up with the author

 

[Coyote]

Gotta hand it to Tinmore,

Certainly. He has justified the mass murder of Jews on many an occasion, after all.

You took that out of my quote and out of it’s context, changing it’s meaning.

Do not do that.