Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 29, 2016 17:26:28 GMT -5
I certainly didn't wish to get personal. I just disagree with you. If you feel that I have insulted you, then I apologize. I don't believe that I have talked to you like you are an idiot (can you give me an example?). I don't know what you think, except what you post. They are an occupying power in the West Bank, because they were attacked with the objective of killing all of the inhabitants. Israel has twice offered to give back 95% of it for peacee and the Pals refused. they gave back the Sinai to Egypt and it worked, The Palestinians refuse to recognize Israel, they want the West Bank to be totally free of Jews, they refuse to negotiate, etc. The reason I bring this up is this overwhelming obsession with settlements. Why can't Jews live in the West Bank?? Arabs live in Israel. The first resolution you quoted referred to the Geneva Convention which Israel has adhered to and West Bank and Gazans have violated. The Roadmap to peace was not a direct criticism of Israel. It was just a plan to what was hoped would happen.
But those resolutions you quote are not good examples. If you wish to refer to UN resolutions critical of Israel, how about the one that stated Zionism is Racism, or the Temple Mount and Wailing Wall are not Jewish but Islamic. That the Human Rights Commission when referring to the greatest violators of woman's rights only spoke of Israel. Those are UN resolutions critical of Israel.
It is a double standard and that is the point I am trying to make and continue to make 1. UN obsession with Israel and yet nothing about Turkey's occupation of Cyprus, China's occupation of Tibet, and little about Russian grab of the Crimea.
Again, if you feel that I treated you like an idiot, I certainly didn't mean to and I apologize. And yes, I am passionate about this. Please tell me how the Israel's occupation is any different from our grabbing the Southwest from Mexico?? The reason, I felt that your position is one sided is that unless I am missing something, I heard no criticism of the Palestinians who are much much worse and totally ignore the Geneva Convention.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 29, 2016 18:20:01 GMT -5
Let me add one more thing Yaboy. If you get a chance, you should go to Israel. You will find it a life changing experience. You can walk the Via Doloroso (walk of pain) where Jesus carried the cross, you can see where he was crucified, see the "empty tomb," see where Jesus walked on water and numerous other Christian sites. You can go to the Wailing Wall (which is actually part of the Christian heritage) which of course is occupied area. It doesn't matter what your religion is, even you haven't been very observant in the past. It gets to you. The Israeli guides know the New Testament better than most Priests. When you hire one of them, you can have a Prostestant, Catholic, Jewish, or Moslem tour. Whatever you decide.
|
|
|
Post by Problem of Dog on Dec 29, 2016 21:40:58 GMT -5
Can someone explain the legal argument FOR the expanded settlements? All we've gotten so far in this thread is "Obama is bad!" and "Palestinians are worse!"
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 30, 2016 7:40:01 GMT -5
Hi Phantom thanks for your post.
But I think that this thread has run its course.
To get your answers, please read my posts and those who disagree with me such as Yaboy who makes valid arguments.
For any of you who are reading this, I strongly urge you to consider visiting Israel and go to East Jerusalem where you can walk where Jesus walked, you can visit the Wailing Wall and explore the other sites. There you will see people of all religions; Catholics, Jews, Lutherans, Methodists, Presbyterians, Greek Orthodox, Moslems, men carrying large wooden crosses, etc., all exploring. Even if you are not at all observant, it will make a lasting impression on you
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 30, 2016 12:06:22 GMT -5
I certainly didn't wish to get personal. I just disagree with you. If you feel that I have insulted you, then I apologize. I don't believe that I have talked to you like you are an idiot (can you give me an example?). I don't know what you think, except what you post. They are an occupying power in the West Bank, because they were attacked with the objective of killing all of the inhabitants. Israel has twice offered to give back 95% of it for peacee and the Pals refused. they gave back the Sinai to Egypt and it worked, The Palestinians refuse to recognize Israel, they want the West Bank to be totally free of Jews, they refuse to negotiate, etc. The reason I bring this up is this overwhelming obsession with settlements. Why can't Jews live in the West Bank?? Arabs live in Israel. The first resolution you quoted referred to the Geneva Convention which Israel has adhered to and West Bank and Gazans have violated. The Roadmap to peace was not a direct criticism of Israel. It was just a plan to what was hoped would happen. But those resolutions you quote are not good examples. If you wish to refer to UN resolutions critical of Israel, how about the one that stated Zionism is Racism, or the Temple Mount and Wailing Wall are not Jewish but Islamic. That the Human Rights Commission when referring to the greatest violators of woman's rights only spoke of Israel. Those are UN resolutions critical of Israel. It is a double standard and that is the point I am trying to make and continue to make 1. UN obsession with Israel and yet nothing about Turkey's occupation of Cyprus, China's occupation of Tibet, and little about Russian grab of the Crimea. Again, if you feel that I treated you like an idiot, I certainly didn't mean to and I apologize. And yes, I am passionate about this. Please tell me how the Israel's occupation is any different from our grabbing the Southwest from Mexico?? The reason, I felt that your position is one sided is that unless I am missing something, I heard no criticism of the Palestinians who are much much worse and totally ignore the Geneva Convention. If I steal your pants and you come up to me and say Hey you stole my pants that's wrong. Do you think a proper defense is well Jimmy up the street stole your pants and your shoes?... That's basically what you're saying. Reagan called Israel's war in Lebanon a Holocaust in a conversation with the Israeli Prime Minister. Seems pretty critical to me but we can agree to disagree. news.google.com/newspapers?id=cr4yAAAAIBAJ&sjid=8O4FAAAAIBAJ&pg=2338%2C4670295I would say the occupation is similar to Native American and our laws regarding Tribal Land. I can't move in (There are exceptions) and when their land gets encroached upon they tend to get quite angry. They can however live anywhere in the US they choose. Isn't that more analogous? These are the questions I have. Who other than Israel thinks the Settlements are legal? How can they continue on this path with waning international support? It was announced they are building more settlements so what has changed?
|
|
|
Post by Problem of Dog on Dec 31, 2016 0:21:12 GMT -5
Hi Phantom thanks for your post. But I think that this thread has run its course. To get your answers, please read my posts and those who disagree with me such as Yaboy who makes valid arguments. For any of you who are reading this, I strongly urge you to consider visiting Israel and go to East Jerusalem where you can walk where Jesus walked, you can visit the Wailing Wall and explore the other sites. There you will see people of all religions; Catholics, Jews, Lutherans, Methodists, Presbyterians, Greek Orthodox, Moslems, men carrying large wooden crosses, etc., all exploring. Even if you are not at all observant, it will make a lasting impression on you No, none of your posts have been informative at all. They haven't included any analysis or supporting links. They're just whining about Palestinians Editeding on the Wailing Wall. I was hoping someone, even someone who doesn't support them, could give the legal argument (rather than your entirely emotional argument) for the expanded settlements. You seem incapable of that. Also, I'm confused why you insist on using "Moslem" rather than "Muslim". Given that you attempted to spell my username "Phantom" maybe it's simply an issue of literacy.
|
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Post by Elvado on Dec 31, 2016 7:40:39 GMT -5
If the settlements are illegal and run contrary to American policy, and I have no reason to doubt the accuracy of those posts saying so, the only legitimate vote for the US to cast would have been in favor of the resolution.
A vote against would run contrary to international law and US policy while an abstention would represent rank cowardice.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 31, 2016 13:38:59 GMT -5
Hi Phantom thanks for your post. But I think that this thread has run its course. To get your answers, please read my posts and those who disagree with me such as Yaboy who makes valid arguments. For any of you who are reading this, I strongly urge you to consider visiting Israel and go to East Jerusalem where you can walk where Jesus walked, you can visit the Wailing Wall and explore the other sites. There you will see people of all religions; Catholics, Jews, Lutherans, Methodists, Presbyterians, Greek Orthodox, Moslems, men carrying large wooden crosses, etc., all exploring. Even if you are not at all observant, it will make a lasting impression on you No, none of your posts have been informative at all. They haven't included any analysis or supporting links. They're just whining about Palestinians Editeding on the Wailing Wall. I was hoping someone, even someone who doesn't support them, could give the legal argument (rather than your entirely emotional argument) for the expanded settlements. You seem incapable of that. Also, I'm confused why you insist on using "Moslem" rather than "Muslim". Given that you attempted to spell my username "Phantom" maybe it's simply an issue of literacy. If you want to get personal, then we have nothing to say to each other. I was overtired and didn't check you name. I have given legal arguments in that Israel was attacked and invaded in 1967 with the aim of taking over Israel and pushing the Israeli population into the sea. Why is this any different from the US' grab of California, Texas et al. Why can't Israeli's live on the West Bank. Palestinians are can and do own property in Israel. The Settlements are not built on private land. Please explain: 1. Why the settlements are illegal, but San Antonio is not?? 2. When a country is invaded without reason and loses land, why are they obligated to give the land back. Look at the history of Europe with lands taken, and given bacck and then taken. I have brought these points up before. On the contrary, you have provided no analysis except to attack me rather than discussing the issues. I explained why Israel doesn't want to give back East Jerusalem and used several examples one of which was using the wailing Wall as a urinal. Go tell an Israeli that he is whining about that. Tell him not to whine that all of the Jewish sites in East Jersulem were destroyed. It is YOU who has not provided any analysis. All you have done is to accuse me of whining, not included any analysis or links, using poor grammer, etc. If you want to engage in discussion, that is fine. As I stated above, if you want to just attack me personally, then we have nothing to say to each other. The reason why I am so frustrated with so many of the posts (not the posters) here, is, Where is the outrage at the behavior of the Palestinians? Refusal to negotiate, refusal to recognize Israel, incitement to attack Israeli's, acccusing jews of killing Arab children to use their blood in making of Matzoh and on and on. Where is the outrage of the extermination of the Palestinians of Yarmouk, Syria by Assad?? No one seems to care about those Palestinians. AND LASTLY-What is your problem with my using the word "Moslem??" It is an absolutely acceptable alternative to the word Muslim. Google it if you don't believe me.
|
|
quickplay
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 733
|
Post by quickplay on Dec 31, 2016 13:54:11 GMT -5
"Please explain: 1. Why the settlements are illegal, but San Antonio is not?? 2. When a country is invaded without reason and loses land, why are they obligated to give land back. Look at the history of Europe with lands taken, and given bacck and then taken."
I think the reason people are getting frustrated with you is because you're ignoring the reality of our current world and demanding people value your references to events hundreds of years ago as controlling precedent. While at the same time basically referring to the Palestinians as dangerous wild animals. Seriously, I imagine that if someone wrote about the Israelis the way you're writing about the Palestinians you'd have a serious problem with it. How many times can you write "BUT THE PALESTINIANS ARE SO BAD!!!!!" before you've made your point?
San Antonio has nothing at all to do with the current situation between Israel/Palestine. None. It's such a disingenuous, ridiculous point to make. The entire world besides Israel thinks that the settlements are illegal. This stupid game of ignoring that every single time and then pointing to whatever random reference you come up with is so transparent.
Israel's own explanation for why what they're doing is okay does not carry more value than the opinion of the entire rest of the planet. Until you can explain why we should value your San Antonio analogy over international consensus, I just can't take your arguments seriously.
As to your second question, AGAIN, your incredibly biased summation is not some sort of authority other people need to fall behind. Not only is the 'invaded without reason and loses land' completely begging the question, but then it's followed up with a history of Europe. It's like, other countries have committed genocide before, why am I supposed to get so worked up over the Holocaust??
Not really a serious point, is it?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 31, 2016 17:39:12 GMT -5
Hi Quick What event hundreds of years ago?? Countries have been stealing other peoples lands for many years and some quite recently. Who has been referring to Palestinians as wild animals. Stop putting words in my mouth. I am giving you examples of FACTS of what the Palestinians have done. I don't mean all Palestians, but basically the Palestinian Authority. Which of my statements do you dispute?? The entire world does not feel the settlements are illegal. San Antonio is analogous be cause we stole Texas from Mexico and Mexico wasn't threatening to wipe us out. I am honestly at a loss to understanding your reasoning. How is the Holocaust relevant?? Where did that come from. You have not answered either question exccept to say that my points are "disingenuous, ridiculous." You refer my points as "a stupid game." My point about Europe is valid. I was not making any reference to the Holocaust. If you lookk at the history of Europe in the past 100 years, countries borders have been redefined multiple times almost every time because one of them lost a war. Presently Turkey occupies Cyprus and China occupies Tibet and Russia occupies the Crimea. No one truly cares. Quick-I don't really care to continue this debate and I should have stuck to that decision. This has taken a very personal turn and I don't enjoy that.
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,450
|
Post by TC on Dec 31, 2016 17:57:26 GMT -5
If the settlements are illegal and run contrary to American policy, and I have no reason to doubt the accuracy of those posts saying so, the only legitimate vote for the US to cast would have been in favor of the resolution. A vote against would run contrary to international law and US policy while an abstention would represent rank cowardice. Kind of like throwing internet molotovs for over a decade against one candidate and party and derailing any form of legitimate discussion but being totally and completely unable to admit who you voted for because you'd be held to something? Is it that sort of rank cowardice?
|
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Post by Elvado on Dec 31, 2016 18:10:28 GMT -5
If the settlements are illegal and run contrary to American policy, and I have no reason to doubt the accuracy of those posts saying so, the only legitimate vote for the US to cast would have been in favor of the resolution. A vote against would run contrary to international law and US policy while an abstention would represent rank cowardice. Kind of like throwing internet molotovs for over a decade against one candidate and party and derailing any form of legitimate discussion but being totally and completely unable to admit who you voted for because you'd be held to something? Is it that sort of rank cowardice? Something like that though my actions impact few. Feel better now?
|
|
quickplay
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 733
|
Post by quickplay on Dec 31, 2016 18:14:26 GMT -5
"The entire world does not feel the settlements are illegal."
This is why I think your arguments are ridiculous and disingenuous. What country besides Israel believes the settlements are legal? None.
You demand such blatant double standards for your viewpoint that it's hard to take seriously, and you whine about being unfairly victimized while pedantically defending your other points (e.g. you saying 'I never called Palestinians wild animals!).
If you think that dismissing Israel's land grab (which every country on earth besides Israel deems to be illegal) is acceptable because countries have been doing bad things to each other forever, then why am I supposed to get so upset at streets being named for terrorists? If you're going to use the general human condition of violence as an excuse, you can't then demand people get outraged over the instances YOU want them to be outraged over.
Multiple people in this thread have been arguing that the issue is a lot more complicated than "Israel good, Palestine bad" but you double down each time and when people get tired of your disingenuous, circular arguments, you act as if you've been attacked.
I understand that might has made right in history before. Nobody is disputing that - it's just not any sort of dispositive or even strong point. You can't demand people apply 'whataboutism' only where you want them to.
Today, Israel stands alone on the entire planet in their view on settlement expansion. No amount of 'but bad things also happened over here!' change that fact, and if you're not willing to even consider the idea that you need more nuance in your perspective here, then you absolutely shouldn't continue this debate. Just don't cry victim.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 31, 2016 22:32:51 GMT -5
Quick First of all you have made multiple incorrect statements and attributing positions to me that are not mine. I have been critical of Israel in this thread. i have never said that Israel good, Palestinian bad. However, I continue to ask why you focus only on settlements, but absolutely refuseto criticise the Palestinian Authority for not agreeing to negotiate with Israel, for not recognizing it. May I repeat again that Israel twice has agreed to give back 95% of the West Bank, but the Pal Authority refused because they demanded the full right of return. Even in the recent conflicts the Israeli's have adhered to the Geneva Convention whereas the Palestinian (I include Gaza) have not. After the 1967 War, no one in or out of the UN demanded that Israel totally get out of Gaza, the West Bank, and Egypt. As a matter of fact, Israel exitedd the Sinai for the promise of peace. In addition, Israel asked the Egyptians to take over the Gaza strip, but were rebuffed.
Lastly, If you think that Israel's reaction, with it's very existence at risk in 1967 after being attacked, was a "land grab" then we truly have nothing to talk about.
|
|
quickplay
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 733
|
Post by quickplay on Jan 1, 2017 15:14:07 GMT -5
Quick First of all you have made multiple incorrect statements and attributing positions to me that are not mine. I have been critical of Israel in this thread. i have never said that Israel good, Palestinian bad. However, I continue to ask why you focus only on settlements, but absolutely refuseto criticise the Palestinian Authority for not agreeing to negotiate with Israel, for not recognizing it. May I repeat again that Israel twice has agreed to give back 95% of the West Bank, but the Pal Authority refused because they demanded the full right of return. Even in the recent conflicts the Israeli's have adhered to the Geneva Convention whereas the Palestinian (I include Gaza) have not. After the 1967 War, no one in or out of the UN demanded that Israel totally get out of Gaza, the West Bank, and Egypt. As a matter of fact, Israel exitedd the Sinai for the promise of peace. In addition, Israel asked the Egyptians to take over the Gaza strip, but were rebuffed. Lastly, If you think that Israel's reaction, with it's very existence at risk in 1967 after being attacked, was a "land grab" then we truly have nothing to talk about. You started a thread about the US abstaining from the expected veto in a resolution about the SETTLEMENTS. Then you keep trying to change the topic to other things instead of acknowledging the reality about the settlements, which is that they are illegal. Like I've said many times, I'm not interested at all in a back and forth about whose worse, which is all you've been trying to do. Every country on earth besides Israel agrees the settlements are illegal. You've conveniently avoided addressing that. In this thread you created because you were outraged at the US approach to the settlements. If you just wanted to start a thread about how bad the Palestinians were, you shouldn't have made it about the settlements. Until you acknowledge your own topic, why do you expect everyone to address every random fact you throw out when you want to shift the focus?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 1, 2017 18:15:21 GMT -5
The title was in reference to the resolution was to speak about how hypocritical it was. I described other examples of occupation around the world and how the UN is never critical about these other examples or Palestinian misdeeds. I have made that point over and over. I believe I have totally consistent
|
|
quickplay
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 733
|
Post by quickplay on Jan 2, 2017 10:53:08 GMT -5
Yes that's sort of the point. You've consistently dismissed anything that doesn't support your point (you haven't even been able to acknowledge that Israel is the only country on earth that believes the settlements to be legal) and then jumped into this weird form of whataboutism, expecting people to change their minds because...other bad things have happened in history.
But then we're supposed to get outraged again at each of the painfully biased examples you bring up to show how bad the Palestinians act (and conveniently dismissing any criticisms of Israel). Even though many other people have just been trying to say that it's much more complicated than the brutally propagandistic world you're presenting.
I'm still not sure why I'm supposed to be upset at the violence you've been pointing out in this thread - I mean, people have been violent many other times around the world without the UN being critical of it!
I think sometimes you confuse this DISCUSSION board with your personal blog. You don't get to set the terms of the discussion at every level, and you are not in a position to lecture people about proper debate protocols. If you are unwilling to consider other perspectives, or to admit problems with the side you support, you are the problem.
|
|
tashoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 12,321
|
Post by tashoya on Jan 2, 2017 12:47:15 GMT -5
This is one of many topics about which I'm woefully ignorant. I feel like I have, at best, a HS level of understanding/knowledge. I know that Google is our friend but, could someone with experience/knowledge point me in a direction for a starting point in reading? Many thanks.
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 18,306
|
Post by SSHoya on Jan 2, 2017 13:22:28 GMT -5
This is one of many topics about which I'm woefully ignorant. I feel like I have, at best, a HS level of understanding/knowledge. I know that Google is our friend but, could someone with experience/knowledge point me in a direction for a starting point in reading? Many thanks. Ungar v. PLO - Read Part B for a succinct explication of the historical context: caselaw.findlaw.com/us-1st-circuit/1046765.htmlMore specifically regarding the current UNSCR 2334: "If there was any doubt—and there wasn’t—the Security Council again made clear its view on the legality of Israel’s settlements. Declaring that the territory is occupied (Israel considers it “disputed” rather than “occupied”), it reiterated the applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, which prohibits an occupying power from transferring its own population to the occupied territory. Even the language to describe the legal status (“no legal validity”) was recycled and is directly quotable from UNSCR 446 from March 1979, among other resolutions." "The U.S. abstention—the focus of a great deal of personal rage against Obama by Netanyahu and others—was not new either. In 1987, the Reagan administration abstained and allowed the passage of UNSCR 605, 14 to 0, which reaffirmed the application of the Geneva Convention (via previous resolutions) and included “Jerusalem” in the “Palestinian and Arab Territories, occupied by Israel since 1967.” Sixteen years later, the George W. Bush administration voted in favor of UNSCR 1515, which called—by endorsing the Roadmap for Peace—for a full settlement freeze, including natural growth. In fact, until this latest resolution, Obama had been the only president not to let a resolution critical of Israeli policy pass in the Security Council." www.brookings.edu/blog/markaz/2016/12/26/whats-new-and-whats-not-in-the-u-n-resolution-on-israeli-settlements/(I will now quietly await the attacks on Brookings as a leftist organization!)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 2, 2017 16:33:11 GMT -5
Hi SS
Thanks for the post. I keep making the same point over and over and over again. Quick just responds in generalities and accuses me of dismissing opposing views without citing any examples. He states that I give biased examples, but once again, doesn't cite anything. Just vague personal attacks
SS Where in any of my posts have I said that the settlements are legal? The majority of legal scholars have stated that they are illegal, but a substantial, although minority, do not consider them illegal. My point is 1. They vacated Gaza, which included removing all of the settlements, kept all of the checkpoints open and got rockets and terror attacks in return. They also got a government in Gaza whose stated goal is to destroy Israel and continues to fire rockets at them. 2. The Palestinian Authority has committed numerous illegal acts and no one seems to care. They won't negotiate, the incite to violence. In their schools, their children are taught to hate Israeli's and Jews, that Jews are the descendants of pigs and apes. It is about a sense of balance. You want to criticize the settlements? That is legitimate. But how about some criticism of the Palestinian authority from the UN? Or the government in Gaza for that matter. You just don't hear much. Just for your information, I have followed up and as the crow flies it is about 1.5 miles from the Airport to the West Bank. That is close enough to fire a mortar which would close down the Airport.
Lastly, just a little history. After the 6 day war in 1967, there was no mandate to get out of the West Bank. That only came later. At that time, the 1967 were not considered permanent borders.
|
|