HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Foreign Affairs & National Security » Israel/Palestine (Group) » This message was self-del...

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 10:29 PM

This message was self-deleted by its author

This message was self-deleted by its author (Mosby) on Tue Dec 11, 2012, 11:58 AM. When the original post in a discussion thread is self-deleted, the entire discussion thread is automatically locked so new replies cannot be posted.

34 replies, 2384 views

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 34 replies Author Time Post
Reply This message was self-deleted by its author (Original post)
Mosby Dec 2012 OP
aquart Dec 2012 #1
Agnosticsherbet Dec 2012 #2
delrem Dec 2012 #4
Shaktimaan Dec 2012 #11
kayecy Dec 2012 #12
delrem Dec 2012 #14
Shaktimaan Dec 2012 #20
Shaktimaan Dec 2012 #21
Shaktimaan Dec 2012 #15
kayecy Dec 2012 #17
Shaktimaan Dec 2012 #19
delrem Dec 2012 #13
Shaktimaan Dec 2012 #16
Shaktimaan Dec 2012 #22
Scootaloo Dec 2012 #28
hrmjustin Dec 2012 #3
azurnoir Dec 2012 #5
hrmjustin Dec 2012 #6
azurnoir Dec 2012 #7
hrmjustin Dec 2012 #8
azurnoir Dec 2012 #9
hrmjustin Dec 2012 #10
holdencaufield Dec 2012 #23
delrem Dec 2012 #24
holdencaufield Dec 2012 #25
Scootaloo Dec 2012 #27
shira Dec 2012 #30
holdencaufield Dec 2012 #31
pelsar Dec 2012 #32
delrem Dec 2012 #29
shira Dec 2012 #33
delrem Dec 2012 #34
oberliner Dec 2012 #18
Scootaloo Dec 2012 #26

Response to Mosby (Original post)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 10:33 PM

1. Funniest thing I've read all day.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mosby (Original post)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 10:34 PM

2. Fatah seems to be giving up on peaceful solutions... n/t

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Agnosticsherbet (Reply #2)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 11:19 PM

4. Much as I dislike Abbas for being a total quisling

I think his recent move to ask for and get overwhelming UN recognition for Palestine was the best move toward a peaceful solution that I've seen in years. It was NECESSARY.

On the other hand, you give no evidence whatever for suggesting that he's giving up on peaceful solutions. Yours is just more empty counter-productive rhetoric. As for actual evidence I point to Netanyahu's decision to build even more "settlements" in critically sensitive Palestinian territory. That evidence is concrete.

IMO, to show that he means it and so his recent move has any effect whatsoever, Abbas ought to bring the whole matter to the ICC. Not for the purposes of recriminations or punishment, but so the whole matter of Israeli/Palestinian jurisdiction, rights and obligations, be put under some broad internationally recognized rules of justice. So the whole world can see. The UN in effect caused the problem, the UN should take ownership of a resolution.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to delrem (Reply #4)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 02:47 AM

11. The ICC?

The ICC exclusively deals with international crimes in places where no acceptable legal system already operates. They don't deal with issues like the kind you're bringing up here. Not to mention, Israel already has an impartial judiciary that more than meets international standards. The ICC doesn't have jurisdiction over anything you mentioned here.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Shaktimaan (Reply #11)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 05:02 AM

12. Why quibble about the initials?....delrem presumably meant to say the ICJ......

Any dispute between the state of Israel and the now UN-recognised non-member state of Palestine is very much within the remit of the ICJ.

The International Court of Justice (French: Cour internationale de Justice; commonly referred to as the World Court or ICJ) is the primary judicial organ of the United Nations. It is based in the Peace Palace in The Hague, the Netherlands. Its main functions are to settle legal disputes submitted to it by states and to provide advisory opinions on legal questions submitted to it by duly authorised international organs, agencies, and the UN General Assembly.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kayecy (Reply #12)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 05:44 AM

14. Well, if someone wants Israel to annex yet more Palestinian land...

as is the case here, then online debate about the legality or morality of it will always reduce down to quibbles, plays on semantics and attempts to side-track the topic. This is because any discussion or debate is meant only as a stalling move until the annexation is a done deal and the IDF steps in and enforces Israel's newer borders as has happened time and again -- and as Shaktimaan says, haha, "Israel already has an impartial judiciary that more than meets international standards" to solve any dispute over any injustice re this procedure. The argument is so cute, it's cuddly.

Anyhow, I do hope that Abbas calls on the ICJ, on the international community -- but he's such a wimp, such a quisling I seriously doubt he has it in him.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to delrem (Reply #14)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 09:39 PM

20. Too funny.

So you accuse me of getting bogged down arguing over details and semantics, supposedly in an attempt at derailing the true focus of the conversation. But YOU can't get distracted, oh no. No sooner have you finished taking me to task for my annoying detail-centric argument, than you turn around and...

Hope that Abbas calls on yet another court (lacking any powers or jurisdiction to impose any sort of binding ruling on either party), to get involved and impose some binding rulings! Good job! Who's next? Maybe Abbas should enlist Batman's help!

But seriously. If annoying details like relevant facts and the law and stuff has no place in your argument, then why bother using the names of real courts at all? Your argument isn't rooted in the reality based community's understanding of the situation. Calling on the ICJ is pointless. What you see as pointless details and annoying semantics are, in reality, words with very specific definitions and meanings that are critical to understanding this conflict. If I insist on discussing these seemingly irrelevant points, rest assured that its not to derail the argument but to actually HAVE an argument that's based on reality, not some simplified, subjective idea of reality as you understand it today.

If none of these words mean anything to you then really, why NOT just call on batman or Jesus to solve the problem?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to delrem (Reply #14)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 09:43 PM

21. Ok, I'll bite.

"Israel already has an impartial judiciary that more than meets international standards" to solve any dispute over any injustice re this procedure. The argument is so cute, it's cuddly.


Do you have an argument supporting your accusation based on facts? Or is this just another assumption you're making based on how you're sure the world is, without bothering to check?

Go on, how is Israel's judiciary not impartial by international standards?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kayecy (Reply #12)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 11:08 AM

15. Because barring Israel's invitation...

The ICJ is not any more able to intervene than the ICC. The ICJ only rules on disputes in the event both parties agree to the arbitration. It seems unlikely that Israel would do such a thing, especially given the bias the UN generally displays regarding Israel.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Shaktimaan (Reply #15)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 03:00 PM

17. And your reference is what?...................................

The ICJ only rules on disputes in the event both parties agree to the arbitration

And your reference for the above statement is what?


In any case, do you see Israel refusing to acknowlege the ICJ's jurisdiction?......If it did, it would show itself to be a pariah state and even the US would then have difficulty in supporting it.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kayecy (Reply #17)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 09:12 PM

19. The rules of the court itself.

The International Court of Justice has jurisdiction in two types of cases: contentious issues between states in which the court produces binding rulings between states that agree, or have previously agreed, to submit to the ruling of the court and advisory opinions, which provide reasoned, but non-binding, rulings on properly submitted questions of international law, usually at the request of the United Nations General Assembly
.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jurisdiction_of_the_International_Court_of_Justice#section_1

In any case, do you see Israel refusing to acknowlege the ICJ's jurisdiction?


Israel wouldn't have to. The court doesn't hear any cases that it lacks jurisdiction to rule on. I think you might be under the impression that the ICJ has broader powers to choose cases and impose verdicts than it actually does. The IJC is only really used to settle disputes where both sides have an interest in seeing a specific issue ruled on. In the case of the I/P conflict there isn't any such primary legal issue in need of resolution.

Their problems stem from prolonged failures of negotiation. All of the issues related to this conflict are supposed to be resolved via a grand, all-inclusive treaty arranged between the Israelis and Palestinians. The ongoing conflict stems from an inability of either side to reach acceptable terms in their negotiations. But the final ruling on issues like borders, refugees, east Jerusalem, etc., can only be resolved by the two interested parties... not by an outside arbitrator, (unless both parties agreed to such a plan, which neither ever would.)

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Shaktimaan (Reply #11)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 05:28 AM

13. Well, I suppose that we'll find out about that.

But your statement that "Israel already has an impartial judiciary" to deal with these matters is absurd.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to delrem (Reply #13)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 11:08 AM

16. Really?

In what way?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to delrem (Reply #4)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 09:47 PM

22. Except...

Netanyahu isn't building any new settlements at all. He's building new apartments within existing settlements. Big difference.

Now that isn't to say that I agree with such policies. But before we can really discuss potential solutions we must accurately define the issues at hand.

God, after all, is in the details.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Shaktimaan (Reply #22)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 04:31 AM

28. "I'm not leveling a forest, I'm just cutting down the trees!"

"I'm not smashing your dinnerware, I'm just dropping your plates out the window!"
"I didn't beat your brother up, I just smacked him in the head with my knuckles for ten minutes"
"I'm not building settlements in someone else's territory, I'm just expanding housing projects in their land!"

Yes, God is in the details. So stop trying to obfuscate details with semantic bullshit.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mosby (Original post)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 10:38 PM

3. Fatah would be stupid to team up with Hamas.

Peace is in talks and a two state solution.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hrmjustin (Reply #3)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 11:24 PM

5. I agree

after all if Bibi can carry on a conversation while swinging a hammer and dropping a bomb why can't abu Mazen simply talk right?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to azurnoir (Reply #5)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 11:29 PM

6. I am for talks in peace my friend. I agree that bibi is a problem, but joining Hama is not going to

work

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hrmjustin (Reply #6)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 11:38 PM

7. you do realize 'negotiations' have benn on going for 2 decades

the Palestinians recognized Israel and its right to exist in 1993

and the PA/Hamas split will be spun to Israel's advantage either way it goes

and oh what about the people who live in Gaza don't they count or will you intone well they elected Hamas to lead them and well they deserve what they get

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to azurnoir (Reply #7)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 11:41 PM

8. OK tell me what you want to happen.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hrmjustin (Reply #8)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 11:52 PM

9. I would like to see Israel give 'right of return; to its citizens in area c

I would like to see Israel remove its army

and what would you like besides adding to a threads post count it seems?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to azurnoir (Reply #9)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 12:32 AM

10. I would like to see peace like you.

maybe i am Naive on how to attain it.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to azurnoir (Reply #9)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 12:00 AM

23. I would like to see Israel give 'right of return'

 

Just as soon as Texas gives right of return to its citizens in Mexico.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to holdencaufield (Reply #23)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 12:57 AM

24. And this is where it gets sick.

http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/MFAArchive/1950_1959/Law%20of%20Return%205710-1950

1. Every Jew has the right to come to this country as an oleh**.
Oleh's visa
2. (a) Aliyah shall be by oleh's visa.
(b) An oleh's visa shall be granted to every Jew who has expressed his desire to settle in Israel.
_________________

This sect specific "right" is the cause of problems. It sets people against people and it admits no compromise. Coupled with the denial of a right of return to Palestinian war refugees, who, being refugees, are innocent, while giving this right to people claiming the most tenuous religious claim, it is anathema.

It is apartheid, pure and simple.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to delrem (Reply #24)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 02:13 AM

25. You have a problem ...

 

... with Jews living in Israel? If every country on the planet gets to create and enforce their own immigration policies -- why not Israel? Immigration based on ethnicity isn't unique to Israel. It's called Jus sanguinis and over 30 countries around the world ... including several in Europe ... allow immigration based on ethnic identity. Israel is a Jewish State -- created for that very purpose -- and the concept of Israel creating an immigration policy based on settling ethnic Jews to the Jewish State should not come as any shock to anyone. I won't go into the reasons WHY a Jewish State is essential in this day and age -- you either already know those reasons and choose not to accept them or you don't know the reasons and that would kind of disqualify you from having an informed opinion on the subject.

To call Israel an Apartheid state completely ignores the fact the 25% of its citizens are non-Jews, living in total legal equality with Jewish Israelis. Using the term "apartheid" to describe Israel shows either deliberately fabricated inflammatory rhetoric or a total misunderstanding of the term -- either way, it gives you no credit. But, if we acknowledge that then we destroy the meme that Israel only does things for evil purposes -- perhaps having something to do with the cultural and ethnic proclivities of Israelis in general.

I submit that if Palestinians ever rethink their priorities to give up "armed struggle" and their dream of removing Israel completely and get down to seriously negotiation for and building of a prosperous state with agreed borders - then they can set whatever immigration policies they desire to allow -- or disallow -- people living in their new state. They may invite Palestinian Arabs, Jews, or Druids to live in their state as they choose.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to holdencaufield (Reply #25)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 04:26 AM

27. I think he has a problem with racist immigration policy

I see that you do not. Explicitly, you don't. Not just with Israel, but apparently with many nations.

And this is where I get confused, Holden. Not to long ago, you pointedly told me, you're no racist, when I supposed all "Israel supporters" were just anti-Arab nutjobs looking for a smiley face to justify their hate.

But here you are, supporting plain ol' racism.

So, I really want to believe you, what you said, but I'm going to need you to explain to me. If you support bald-faced racism, but you aren't a racist, then what the heck are you, exactly?

And spare me some lameass "them's the rules" minuteman bullshit, please. You know well as I do that the existence of a rule does not mean it needs to be supported as you are doing. So. Go for it.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Reply #27)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 06:06 PM

30. You're saying Israel's Law of Return is racist?

It must be racist against all gentiles, not just Palestinians, since it only applies to Jews Hitler would have sent to the ovens.

Nevermind - I see you can't respond in this thread anymore. But we can continue one of our other conversations where you accuse me of bigotry, racism, being pro-apartheid, warmongering....

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Reply #27)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 10:23 PM

31. That's the problem with using big words like "racist" ...

 

Last edited Tue Dec 11, 2012, 12:22 AM - Edit history (1)

... sometimes, when you're not completely clear about what they mean, you can use them inappropriately.

An example of a RACIST immigration policy would be to exclude immigration based on race to any racial group. Such as Gaza currently has -- no Jews would be allowed to immigrate to Gaza. Israel does not do that. As you fully know, but prefer not to admit, Israel is a multi-racial society with complete legal equality or both race and religion for its citizens.

Many countries give preferential immigration to person who are tied to the country through culture -- Germany, Greece, Ireland, South Korea, India, Poland, Spain... the list goes on. This isn't racism, it is simply acknowledgement that a country has a particular historical or ethnic culture and those who share in that cultural heritage are encouraged to immigrate to that country -- regardless of their place of birth.

Israel has a particular reason to embrace this concept because if it had existed 80 years ago it would have saved the lives of millions of Jews. Even in countries where Jews weren't threatened with death (for example, the United States where Jews were only subjected to institutional racism -- legally restricted clubs, hotels and legal neighbourhood restrictions, etc.) Jews who faced Nazi extermination were barred from immigration to nearly every country on Earth. Israel exists today (and has to exist) because it saves lives. There has to be ONE place on the face of the Earth where Jews are allowed to go to live as Jews. History has shown the disasters that can befall Jews when they are dependent on a host nation for their survival.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to holdencaufield (Reply #31)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 01:53 AM

32. i disagree.....israel has a racist immigration policy....

Last edited Tue Dec 11, 2012, 05:08 AM - Edit history (1)

it clearly favors jews over non jews....and as far as i understand that is the real definition of racism, via the dictionary, it fits....why play a game and pretend its not what it is?

why should israel be any better or different from other countries? why the special standard?.....thats the real question. Every country, every society, every social group has racist policies in one form or another (this place has many examples of it). Zionism was born out of a racist world. Blacks were bussed in to my jr high out of pure racism, it may have been called affirmative action, but thats was just a nice cover for a 100% racial policy. It was in fact not "just nor fair" to some students, to bring in others students to our "lilly white" jr high ..... I dont care if it was meant "to fix" something, it still fits the definition of racism.

Israel and zionism, as in affirmative action, were designed to accept the fact that the racial world is a very unjust world and hence uses illiberal means to correct it.

that btw is what progressives here are all about....their definition of "justice" over somebody else definition. Their own racial versions of which "race" deserves what.....

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to holdencaufield (Reply #25)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 09:30 AM

29. you aren't in a position to rule on who is/isn't qualified to have an opinion.

Especially when your own technique includes the conflation of technical/legal terminology when arguing your own view and countering others.
1. Law of return and jus sanguinis are very different concepts applying of different things.
"Jus sanguinis is a principle of nationality law by which citizenship is not determined by place of birth but by having one or both parents who are citizens of the nation" (wiki)
"The Law of Return is legislation enacted by Israel in 1950, that gives all Jews, persons of Jewish ancestry, and spouses of Jews the right to immigrate to and settle in Israel and obtain citizenship, and obliges the Israeli government to facilitate their immigration. " (wiki)
2. Israel demands all, esp. Palestinians, recognize Israel to be a specifically Jewish state. Israel distinguishes between citizenship and nationality - thus an Arab might have Israeli citizenship, but wouldn't have Israeli nationality in the sense that Israel is a specifically Jewish state.
3. "The territories", or "occupied territories", are to some (e.g. to Shira) not Palestinian land but "disputed land". In any event this land has been controlled by the IDF for decades and has been divided into areas A, B, C. According as my reading, some Israeli political parties distinguish this land from Israeli land, but others (e.g. Netanyahu) consider it part of eretz Israel or greater Israel. This situation has been in place for decades and Israeli leaders show no inclination to change beyond steadily annexing more and more land as part of Jewish Israel, to build Jewish settlements (footnote: the term "pastrami sandwich" has been used to describe the intention), the term "apartheid" is appropriate.
4. It is now 67 years since WW2. Palestinian refugees who fled their lands in fear have a more immediate right of return. Of course this is not so in Israeli law, which is racist, but it has been given international recognition in several UN resolutions. That the extended family of an Arab Israeli citizen, which fled the horrors of war and wishes now to return, isn't given that right, whereas a Jew whose family has never seen Israel in perhaps 100 generations or more does have that right, is hard to fit an enlightened moral compass - even though that situation exists today according as racist Israeli laws.

You speak of "Palestinians their dream of removing Israel completely", when it is in fact Israel which has actually been removing Palestine from the map and even from the pages of their version of history. It's possible for Israel to change its racist laws and programs, to be equally accommodating to all the indigenous Palestinian people, Jewish, Arab, or whatever. Has it ever entered your mind that perhaps that is all that most non-Jewish Palestinians, Palestinian refugees, really want? I've heard this desire to create a non-racist state to be a "demographic threat", but that just shows that in this case at any rate "demographic threat" is a racist concept.

footnote: “We’ll make a pastrami sandwich of them. We’ll insert a strip of Jewish settlement in between Palestinians, and then another strip of Jewish settlement, right across the West Bank, so that in 25 years time, neither the United Nations, nor the United States, nobody will be able to tear it apart.” Ariel Sharon, 1973

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to delrem (Reply #29)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 05:37 AM

33. delrem, it's racist to claim the West Bank is exclusively Palestinian land....

....when Jews have many rights to the land as well.

It's racist to call on RoR, which only favors Palestinians having a right to come back to Israel or the territories.

It's racist for a future Palestine to deny Jews citizenship, as Abbas has repeatedly claimed.

You support such a Palestinian state.

It's racist whenever Hamas in Gaza or Fatah in the West Bank uses their state-run media and other public institutions to incite hatred and subjugation of other people (Jews especially).

You support a future state that does that and will continue to do so.

Own it.

You support a Palestinian state based on sharia law, which will discriminate against women and gays.

Being like any other anti-zionist, it's racist when you guys are only working to deny one people (the Jews) a right to self-determination.

It's racist to favor a totalitarian, discriminatory, bigoted, racist regime over a liberal democracy.

=========

There's definitely one position on I/P and therefore one side (yours) that is far and away SIGNIFICANTLY more racist than the other.

You shouldn't be so proud and smug WRT your advocacy.

In a nutshell, the best you can claim is that you're fighting against racism (affirmative action for Jews) in order to fix that injustice with something exponentially more racist and unjust.

And as an anti-racist, you should stop pretending that you're just as vigilant WRT antisemitism as you are to any other form of racism.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shira (Reply #33)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 08:12 AM

34. shira, you use this forum to lie about me, about what I support and believe.

I'm willing to discuss issues, but I will not respond to outright lies and slander directed at me.

I'm not willing to address a flood of unsourced accusations against anybody or any people, including against me - show your sources, show the quotations and legislation which prove your case. Show that you distinguish between e.g. an "Israeli" and a "Jew", between a person indigenous to the land and one that is not, etc., so your statements are not just murk. Show that you distinguish between RoR as understood internationally, which doesn't mention any specific race, religion, sect, nationality, etc., and a RoR which is legislated in Israel as applying only to Jews.

But most important, stop with the baseless lies and slander accusing me, and others, of hate crimes.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mosby (Original post)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 05:59 PM

18. How many Hamas leaders are there exactly?

Zahar seems to fancy himself king of the hill, but what about Meshal and Haniyeh?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mosby (Original post)