Reply #33: there are not "various legal arguments to support either side"

[delad]

there are 'some' tortured legal defenses supported by zionists and then there are legal arguments supported by the ICJ, the UN, human rights NGOs, etc. "Israel considers the land disputed, not necessarily occupied", this is merely a fringe zionist/Israeli opinion and isn't worth the paper it isn't written on (other than the fact that Israel ignores calls by the UN to stop occupying the land and imposes its own 'reality' on the ground).

To state that the land doesn't belong to anyone is probably one of the most ignorant things i've read on this site, and i've read a few. It reminds me of Golda Meir's "there is no such thing as Palestinians". The land belongs to the people living there. You could say that there is no Palestinian state, so therefore the land belongs to no 'state' but you cannot say that it doesn't belong to a people.

*There is no legal precedent to consider Palestinian Arabs the rightful owners at the exclusion of Jews* I've no idea where to start here. There is no need for precedent to claim that the palestinians own the land they live on. But then you tack on the addendum "to the exclusion of the Jews", seemingly in defiance of common sense. Jewish settlers are a violent bunch of squatters who moved into the west bank from Israel and receive the support of the Israeli state. It's not like they were living there side by side for years (obviously i'm not talking about any Jews who remain who have lived there for generations but i can't imagine there are many (any?) left).

Many states comply with international law, even when it contravenes their concerns. Many countries don't. Some do so more than others, some again are truly blind to international law. Some countries concoct exceptions, as the US and UK have done egregiously quite recently. Why do they concoct legal 'exceptions'? They do so in order to drape a veil of international legitimacy over their actions. You seem to be placing Israel amongst the likes of Zimbabwe, China, Burma, Iraq under Sadam, etc with regards to its observance of international law and UN resolutions. If that's the company you wish Israel to keep, i can't stop you.

Certain "rights" are enshrined into law by the UN (eg UN declaration of human rights, geneva conventions, etc).

But i do intellectually comprehend your position (i think). You would seem to be of the Kissingerian 'realist' school of thought in international relations. There is nothing that prevents a state from acting as it wishes other than its sense of self-preservation. Israel will do as it pleases becuase it retains the strength to defend itself and there is nothing that can threaten it as long as it doesn't act outside a certain boundaries. It can slaughter palestinians, steal their land and prevent aid and medicine reaching 1.5m people as long as it does so under plausible deniability and good PR, ie they attacked first and we are only defending ourselves.

Does Israel have the right to defend itself or not? of course it does, this is a natural right and is defended as such in law. as is the right to self-determination.

But again your argument ends up back at what Israel wants and how those wants have to be accommodated. yes, of course they do but not at the expense palestinian rights. Israel cannot be allowed to maintain an illegal military occupation that subjugates and kills innocent palestinians, period. No amount of sophistry can brush this under the carpet (as far as i'm concerned at least). What israel wants is security and it is *guaranteed* insecurity by maintaining an occupation and supporting the crazy, violent extremist settlers that are squating illegally in the west bank.

"Does that make the Israeli perception in any way invalid." No, it doesn't make the Israeli perception any less valid. And i'm not going to get into how the rockets started, etc (it's late here and i'm a little drunk but if you want to take it up again sometime, I'm your man :) ). The fact is that Israel has killed over a thousand people and injured thousands more in less then 3 weeks due to a fight that it planned, it wanted and it started. Israeli concessions have not *always* resulted in more terrorism. Israel has a nasty, documented history of provoking its opponents into violence. I'm certainly not saying that Hamas are a bunch of angels, I'm aware of their history of using suicide bombers, blowing up buses, hijacking aeroplanes, etc but one seriously cannot say that Israel has been innocent either. You can't have your cake and eat it (unless you're israel, seemingly).

Israel's actions began shortly after Hamas was elected and increased in intensity after the US-Israeli backed attempt at a coup failed. I'm referring to Abbas and Fatah as quislings and of course things in the west bank have been improving. Relative to Gaza, virtually anywhere else in the world is barring Zimbabwe and a handful of other failed states. In what ways has life in the west bank/jerusalem improved? more roadblocks, new 'jew-only' roads, more evictions, political repression, etc.

Hamas has, repeatedly, offered hudnas and/or truces/ceasefires (or whatever semantic slight-of-hand you want to call it). Israel has refused many and has deliberately restarted the conflict (see the most recent situation). "nothing Israel did in 2005 prevented Gaza from success" besides controlling entry and exit (hence economy) taxes (hence finances) and population registry, etc. So besides controlling Gazas economy, financial system and movement of poeple, Israel didn't prevent Gaza from success. that makes so much sense.

terrorism goes both ways in this conflict, the difference is the power equation. When do the palestinians have a right to fight against an occupation?
If all you see are nails...

I disagree with most of what you have to say but i should thank you for helping me to think some stuff out.