How should Israel defend itself?

Nodin

Justin1982 wrote: »

They kind of read like biased conspiracy theories to be honest. .............
.

The first link is regards to actual leaked documentation from a mainstream source.

Justin1982 wrote:

If you really believe that Israel enjoys regularly rolling its expensive
military into Palestine, killing Palestinians, fighting wars of survival with
its neighbors, plotting conspiracies and generally gaining more enemies then
your deluded.

There hasn't been a war with "its neigbours" in years. Tell me, if Israel is interested in "peace", why does it keep expanding the settlements?

conorh91

Playboy wrote: »

Seriously how many times do you have to beaten over the head with a point before it sinks in?

Playboy wrote: »

something like 40 vetos over the years on a range of issues.

Read this slowly:

I have stated that the US has vetoed a long list of draft resolutions. However, only the truly myopic could claim that the US (and, of course, the UNSC) has never adapted resolutions against Israel, or which favored the Palestinians.

I find it hard to believe that the US would accede to an R2P resolution insofar as it could extend to military protection for Palestine, but I would like for the international community to at least *put that to the US*, to put the US on the defensive, and to force the US to explain to the world why it will not aid Palestinians with greater force, in light of the UN's legal obligations in respect of Palestinians, under international law and the UN mandate.

Now you may disagree with me on this, but which part of the above do you literally not understand?

Nodin

conorh91 wrote: »

Read this slowly:

I have stated that the US has vetoed a long list of draft resolutions. However, only the truly myopic could claim that the US (and, of course, the UNSC) has never adapted resolutions against Israel, or which favored the Palestinians.

I find it hard to believe that the US would accede to an R2P resolution insofar as it could extend to military protection for Palestine, but I would like for the international community to at least *put that to the US*, to put the US on the defensive, and to force the US to explain to the world why it will not aid Palestinians with greater force, in light of the UN's legal obligations in respect of Palestinians, under international law and the UN mandate.

Now you may disagree with me on this, but which part of the above do you literally not understand?

It's not that he doesn't understand, its just that your understanding is flawed. That's why no NGO etc refers to "R2P" as you do, and you are unable to link to discussion with regard to same and the Palestinians.

conorh91

Nodin wrote: »

It's not that he doesn't understand, its just that your understanding is flawed.

Where?

Would you put up or…you know what.

Nodin

conorh91 wrote: »

Where?

Would you put up or…you know what.

I've already explained this.


http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=91732662&postcount=230
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=91748825&postcount=251

Why is it that the world is seemingly ignorant of this "R2P" idea?

Why is it you cited academic discussion of it, but say theres no actual discussion of it in relation to the very issue you say its applicable to?

conorh91

Are you incapable of understanding this?

The fact that a UNSC vote is required is not contentious.

Can you please state the factual error or flaw you are claiming, or please stop wasting time?

Say it.

For Reals

Justin1982 wrote: »

They kind of read like biased conspiracy theories to be honest. There probably is quiet a bit of political posturing behind some of the decisions made by Israeli governments from time to time but generally Israeli's want peace. Anything I've read about Israeli-Palestinian peace talks (of which there was many since the foundation of Israel) suggests that the Israeli's were willing to make sacrifices. Just that the Palestinians never accepted anything that was offered to them.

You don't invade a country, set up your own state and consistantly expand it all the while disregarding the lives and homes of the indigenous people. Disregard what you claim to hold dear, (democracy, homeland and civil rights) and then expect them to accept peace on Israeli terms, that being Israel continues to expand and the Palastinians take it all in good spirits? Come off it.

Justin1982 wrote: »

If you really believe that Israel enjoys regularly rolling its expensive military into Palestine, killing Palestinians, fighting wars of survival with its neighbors, plotting conspiracies and generally gaining more enemies then your deluded.
Israeli's are probably the same as the Irish or any other modern European nation. They want peace and prosperity and to live secure in the knowledge that some bunch of mad idiots up the road are not prepping their children to grow up to be jihadists, more interested in killing Israel than getting their own state.

They are an occupying, constantly invading and expanding force. That's who they are. They have to roll out the expensive hardware because of the way they treat their neighbours.

Justin1982 wrote: »

From what I've read, it seems that Israel feels peace will never be accepted by the Palestinian's no matter how good it looks. So their current policy is one of active containment. It kind of sounds stupid but there is a large contingent of the Palestinian population that will never accept peace with Israel and are prepared to fight to the bitter end. This is obviously not good for the average Palestinian who wants peace themselves but they are as much at threat from Hamas as the average Israeli.

It never looks good. Israel is the aggressor here. The peace talks have been about what level of agression is acceptable not peace. They make a mockery of that word.

Nodin

conorh91 wrote: »

Are you incapable of understanding this?

The fact that a UNSC vote is required is not contentious.

Can you please state the factual error or flaw you are claiming, or please stop wasting time?

Say it.

I already have. Perhaps you can answer some questions now -

Why is it that the world is seemingly ignorant of this "R2P" idea?

Why is it you cited academic discussion of it, but say theres no actual discussion of it in relation to the very issue you say its applicable to?

conorh91

Nodin wrote: »

I already have.

No you haven't

You keep repeating the fact that a UNSC vote is required, which is not contentious.

Point out the factual error or factual flaw that makes me wrong.

conorh91 wrote: »

Are you incapable of understanding this?

The fact that a UNSC vote is required is not contentious.

Can you please state the factual error or flaw you are claiming, or please stop wasting time?

Say it.

conorh91 wrote: »

Where?

Would you put up or…you know what.

conorh91 wrote: »

This is like arguing with a wall.

You keep saying I'm wrong, but refuse to say why.

conorh91 wrote: »

No just give the answer.

I've asked you multiple times to explain why nobody has ever tabled such a resolution.

No more "hints", no more "I've already explained", you either have an answer, or you don't.

conorh91 wrote: »

This is ridiculous

If you have no answer, just say so.

conorh91 wrote: »

Are you avoiding my question? Why are you not answering it?

Go on….

conorh91 wrote: »

Where?

conorh91 wrote: »

Why so vague? Tell me why.

Nodin

conorh91 wrote: »

No you haven't

You keep repeating the fact that a UNSC vote is required, which is not contentious.

Point out the factual error or factual flaw that makes me wrong.

You entire concept is wrong. There isn't even a specific "R2P" law, it's more of a supposed guiding principle.

Now, before I answer any more questions - could you answer the following -

Why is it that the world is seemingly ignorant of this "R2P" idea?

Why is it you cited academic discussion of it, but say theres no actual discussion of it in relation to the very issue you say its applicable to?

conorh91

Nodin wrote: »

You entire concept is wrong. There isn't even a specific "R2P" law

Nobody claims there is an R2P "law" per se. There is international law in respect of the mandate, and then there is R2P.

Answer the question.

Scofflaw

OK, conorh91 and Nodin, you're going to have to settle this somehow. What are the two questions, and what constitutes proof of, or an answer to, each question?

Details in your next couple of posts, please.

moderately,
Scofflaw

conorh91

Scofflaw wrote: »

What are the two questions, and what constitutes proof of, or an answer to, each question?

Details in your next couple of posts, please.

moderately,
Scofflaw[/B]

A number of posts clearly imply that i am factually incorrect.
e.g.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=91746746&postcount=240
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=91746369&postcount=238

Q: What is the factual error or omission in my suggestion? (that a draft R2P resolution be tabled in respect of protecting Palestinians)

Proof will be any answer which points to an error or omission of fact which demonstrates an objective error on my behalf

Nodin

Scofflaw wrote: »

OK, conorh91 and Nodin, you're going to have to settle this somehow. What are the two questions, and what constitutes proof of, or an answer to, each question?

Details in your next couple of posts, please.

moderately,
Scofflaw

There is no mention of "R2P" being the basis of any move at the UN with regards to the Palestinian question. This is because its a 'guiding principle' rather than a law. All mentions of it refer it back to the existing framework, which means that it essentially makes no difference whatsoever. I've shown this earlier on in the thread.

In the case of me being wrong, I asked for links to the "academic discussion" of "R2P" specifically in relation to Palestine, and was told that none exist. I have yet to hear a satisfactory explanation for this. I've also questioned why theres no mention of this "R2P" in the wider pro-Palestinian community, and have received no answer. Asking me to point out objective error in this is akin to asking me to point out which of the invisible unicorns has a brown coat.

Statements like this -

conorh91 wrote:

There is no doubt that Palestinians need enhanced defences. Blame the UN for that. It's the UN who is responsible for defending Palestine under the 1922 mandate.

No it isn't. The UN responsibility for Palestinians is not negated by anything you mention. They have a responsibility to protect the Palestinians. They have absolutely no intention of coming to its assistance.

So blame the UN.
They're the people with a piece of paper that gives them a mandate.

The UN did not exist in 1922. International law changed greatly after 1945. The mandate ended in 1948. The UN cannot militarily intervene or send observers without UNSC approval. And on top of that, theres been no link to any proof of the above "responsibility"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Mandate_for_Palestine_(legal_instrument)

The US has never actually had to veto a R2P vote on intervening in Palestine

There is no such thing as a "R2P" vote.

Justin1982

Nodin wrote: »

The first link is regards to actual leaked documentation from a mainstream source.





There hasn't been a war with "its neigbours" in years. Tell me, if Israel is interested in "peace", why does it keep expanding the settlements?

That's a good point. Israel hasn't been in
a real war for years. I'll use your argument to further my claim that the way Israel has been defending itself is actually the way it should defend itself. It's proving quiet successful as you've stated.
I'm sufficiently ignorant of the settlements to not argue a point of view on it. But from the one or two settlements I've come across briefly, have the Israeli government not being spending as much time dragging fanatical Jewish settlers out of illegal settlements using the army as they have been anything else. Israel has it's fair share of idiots same as anywhere else. If a peace agreement ever does come to fruition then Israel will have to hand over large tracts of what it currently occupies.

Scofflaw

It seems to me that R2P is, as Nodin says, a "guiding principle" applied on the basis of political will, not a duty that "the UN" has undertaken on any universally obligatory basis.

That being the case, I don't see that "the UN" can be criticised for its 'failure' to 'do its duty', since what it is failing to do is not something that is its duty, but is a principle which can be applied through a vote in the UN by the members, and which is subject as all other such votes are to a Security Council veto.

On the other hand, it seems perfectly possible to criticise UN members who claim to have the interests of the Palestinians at heart for not putting forward a motion for such a vote - as is done here, for example - or to point out that the R2P doctrine, having been acclaimed by UNSC members, is curiously inapplicable in the Palestinian case.

And there's certainly discussion of the R2P resolution in respect of Palestine. And a statement by the UN in respect of them, which, you'll note, draws attention to the fact that both sides are committing war crimes.

So I would say that the UN and its members do indeed have a Responsibility to Protect in regard to Palestine, are cognisant of that fact, but seem to have major political and possibly legal issues with its application. As the Occupying Power, Israel has a particular duty in this regard.

As such, it seems to me to be as conorh91 says, that a UN vote could be held on the basis of R2P, leading potentially to military intervention, as was the case in respect of Libya, where the vote to intervene was specifically founded on R2P. There is no requirement for such a vote, however.

moderately,
Scofflaw

Nodin

Justin1982 wrote: »

I'm sufficiently ignorant of the settlements to not argue a point of view on it. But from the one or two settlements I've come across briefly, have the Israeli government not being spending as much time dragging fanatical Jewish settlers out of illegal settlements using the army as they have been anything else. .

In some peoples dreams, perhaps. The settler/colonist population now stands at 340,000 in the West Bank and 195,000 in Arab East Jerusalem. Settlers and resources from Gaza were moved from there to the West Bank in 2005.

Justin1982 wrote: »

Israel has it's fair share of idiots same as anywhere else. If a peace agreement ever does come to fruition then Israel will have to hand over large tracts of what it currently occupies.

This is a common misunderstanding. The fact is that Israel holds peacetalks not with the UN supervising, but with the US. There is no penalty on Israel for whatever stance or actions it might take, or real compulsion to make concessions. The fact is that Israel will indeed leave land to the Palestinians and there will be "peace", but this will be land given that Israel does not want, and "peace" because Israel has taken what it wants.

porsche959

Nodin wrote: »

This is a common misunderstanding. The fact is that Israel holds peacetalks not with the UN supervising, but with the US.

So democratic states don't accept non-democratic states sitting in judgement over them?

From Israel's POV, strikes me as sensible.

Nodin wrote: »

The fact is that Israel will indeed leave land to the Palestinians and there will be "peace", but this will be land given that Israel does not want, and "peace" because Israel has taken what it wants.

If it does - then we should support it. I generally favour democratic states that have some conception of human rights, over forces that are pledged to destroy them.

Nodin

porsche959 wrote:

So democratic states don't accept non-democratic states sitting in judgement over them?

From Israel's POV, strikes me as sensible..

The UN or some related independent panel seems a good enough arbiter for the rest of the world. I'm sure from Israelis view it is "sensible", as the US is its chief ally.

porsche959 wrote:

If it does - then we should support it. I generally favour democratic states that have some conception of human rights, over forces that are pledged to destroy them.

Israel is a colonial power. Colonialism is not democratic by its very nature. As to rights, the Palestinians of the West Bank do not even have the protections of the Geneva convention extended to them.

porsche959

Nodin wrote: »

The UN or some related independent panel seems a good enough arbiter for the rest of the world.

How is the UN arbitration working out for the Yezidi, for example?

Nodin wrote: »

I'm sure from Israelis view it is "sensible", as the US is its chief ally.

Israel is a colonial power. Colonialism is not democratic by its very nature. As to rights, the Palestinians of the West Bank do not even have the protections of the Geneva convention extended to them.

TBH, above reads to me like talking points from IPSC or similar. IMO, you're not even engaging with the points I made.

Edit: just by way of clarification, I am not anti-UN. I am not a neo-conservative. In 2003, I marched with those who opposed war on Iraq. IMO, UN should, if anything be strengthened, and not, as the neo-conservatives tend to advocate, wound up or ignored.

But, also, we have to deal with the world as we find it today. IMO, we have to acknowledge that many of the countries that surround Israel are not necessarily moral examplars, and that some in the Palestinian cause (and I don't mean you) are are least partially motivated by prejudice.

Nodin

porsche959 wrote: »

How is the UN arbitration working out for the Yezidi, for example?.

They are delivering aid as we speak. Theres some relation to that and the topic?

porsche959 wrote: »

But, also, we have to deal with the world as we find it today. IMO, we have to acknowledge that many of the countries that surround Israel are not necessarily moral examplars, and that some in the Palestinian cause (and I don't mean you) are are least partially motivated by prejudice.

Vague statements and the anti-semetic slur. Why didn't you address my point about the nature of the Israeli regime in the West Bank etc?

Brian Shanahan

porsche959 wrote: »

So democratic states don't accept non-democratic states sitting in judgement over them?

When did Israel extend the vote to those living in the occupied territories (including Gaza)?

The designation of Israel as a democratic state is a monstrous slander on anybody who truly holds democratic principles in high esteem.

AbusesToilets

I'm curious what actions people feel the UN could take against Israel if the US wasn't blocking it with it's veto? No country has the ability or will to force a military solution against them. With respect to sanctions, there is nothing stopping countries enacting trade and commerce restrictions right now if the sentiment is that high.

Nodin

AbusesToilets wrote: »

I'm curious what actions people feel the UN could take against Israel if the US wasn't blocking it with it's veto? No country has the ability or will to force a military solution against them. With respect to sanctions, there is nothing stopping countries enacting trade and commerce restrictions right now if the sentiment is that high.

UN sanctions would be almost universal, and give greater authority. As it is, we only have EU sanctions on settlement produce.

Justin1982

Nodin wrote: »

In some peoples dreams, perhaps. The settler/colonist population now stands at 340,000 in the West Bank and 195,000 in Arab East Jerusalem. Settlers and resources from Gaza were moved from there to the West Bank in 2005.



This is a common misunderstanding. The fact is that Israel holds peacetalks not with the UN supervising, but with the US. There is no penalty on Israel for whatever stance or actions it might take, or real compulsion to make concessions. The fact is that Israel will indeed leave land to the Palestinians and there will be "peace", but this will be land given that Israel does not want, and "peace" because Israel has taken what it wants.

Your very black and white in your approach to this. I've "heard" (not very scientific) that the Arabs in East Jerusalem are not necessarily in much of a hurry to join the future Palestinian paradise you probably have in mind. I googled it seen as I know so little (to be slightly more scientific) and clicked the first link that came up. Slightly interesting.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/would-east-jerusalem-arabs-rather-be-citizens-of-israel-or-palestine-1.336758

Probably another Israeli conspiracy. The hidden reality behind the article is that the Israeli's probably use the Arabs of East jerusalem as target practice probably, an outlet for their biggoted hatred of muslims probably, daily rolling around East Jerusalem in their army tanks flattening Arabs where they can probably, preferably children, cos that's what Jews are into right? The 35% of Arabs who would consider relocating if East Jerusalem was handed over to the new Palestinian state must be suckers for punishment. Maybe its the thrill of the chase by Israeli tanks that they would miss? As for the other 30% of Arabs in East Jerusalem that were undecided. Well my theory is that there was Israeli soldiers torturing them to say they were undecided. Are my theories getting fanciful and unrealistic enough yet? Good.

At any rate, I've heard (again) that the Israeli's had put East Jerusalem on the table as part of a peace agreement back in the nineties (the words of a Saudi envoy....although he could have been paid to lie I suppose so I shouldn't take him too seriously). Why do they hold onto it now then? Well here is an excerpt from another website that popped up when I googled something (Yes I acknowledge that the website is Israeli propaganda of sorts but this statement is probably the backbone of Israeli policy. The Israeli's generally play a rather strategic, complicated game.

https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths3/MFsettlements.html

Excerpt:
Settlement activity may be a stimulus to peace because it forced the Palestinians and other Arabs to reconsider the view that time is on their side. References are frequently made in Arabic writings to how long it took to expel the Crusaders and how it might take a similar length of time to do the same to the Zionists. The growth in the Jewish population in the territories forced the Arabs to question this tenet. “The Palestinians now realize,” said Bethlehem Mayor Elias Freij, “that time is now on the side of Israel, which can build settlements and create facts, and that the only way out of this dilemma is face-to-face negotiations.”

Nodin

Justin1982 wrote: »

Your very black and white in your approach to this. I've "heard" (not very scientific) that the Arabs in East Jerusalem are not necessarily in much of a hurry to join the future Palestinian paradise you probably have in mind. I googled it seen as I know so little (to be slightly more scientific) and clicked the first link that came up. Slightly interesting.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/would-east-jerusalem-arabs-rather-be-citizens-of-israel-or-palestine-1.336758
.”

The Palestinians of East Jerusalem you mean.

Not sure what you're saying there. The survey is interesting though, as it highlights something - What about a Palestinian who wants to be an Israeli?
The fact is they aren't wanted.

Justin1982 wrote: »

Your
At any rate, I've heard (again) that the Israeli's had put East Jerusalem on the table as part of a peace agreement back in the nineties (the words of a Saudi envoy....
.”

There was never a realistic proposal on Arab East Jerusalem. It always offered some segmented arrangement which never would be workable in practice. Never once has all the area been up for negotiation.

Justin1982 wrote: »

Excerpt:
Settlement activity (..............) negotiations.”

As I've shown earlier, they have made concession after concession, but the Israelis refuse to accept a settlement, so the above is at odds with the facts. And, as they face no penalty for stalling peace talks and can continue expanding, presumably that's what they'll do, until such time as they've taken what they want.

Justin1982

Busted Flat. wrote: »

Have you heard of the bull dozing of Palestinians homes and farms, to make way for the new settlers homes. just asking it is immaterial really, after reading your post

While the bulldozing of houses has great symbolic meaning it doesn't necessarily mean that the Israeli's do it for the pleasure of driving bulldozers or throwing Arabs out of their house out of sheer spite or to move Israeli's into fertile land that they like the look of.

It generally seems to be part of their buffer zone defensive strategy (sounds harsh alright but then again I'm sitting in the comfort of my penthouse free from the threat of rockets) or removing illegal Israeli settlements or houses that were built without a permit. Again, Wikipedia could be filling me with ****. Either way it sounds more complicated than than your making it out to be with your one line emotive statement.

Actually, come to think of it, bulldozers demolished some farm sheds that my family had on the land we had before they confiscated it off us, cut our land in half and ran the main Dublin to Galway motorway through it. Gringos! I must look into whether that was an Israeli plot also. You know what those greedy Israeli's are like!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_demolition_in_the_Israeli%E2%80%93Palestinian_conflict

Justin1982

Nodin wrote: »

As I've shown earlier, they have made concession after concession, but the Israelis refuse to accept a settlement, so the above is at odds with the facts. And, as they face no penalty for stalling peace talks and can continue expanding, presumably that's what they'll do, until such time as they've taken what they want.

You're obviously on the Palestinian side. That's admirable. But the reality is that for every one of you arguing that the Palestinians kept making concessions and were turned down, there is an equally blinkered pro Israeli saying that the Israeli's kept making concessions but the Palestinians kept turned it down. It's probably called selective propaganda or something and forms a core part of conflict same as went on in Northern Ireland.

The Israeli's are robbing greedy feckers to a certain degree, having setup a state, where they hadn't one for a long time but the reality is that they are here to stay. Best of luck to them. Best of luck to Palestine even. But Israel holds the cards. Strong cards. Probably at least for most of my lifetime. The Palestinians have frig all and it would be in their interest to cease hostilities, give the Israeli's a hug, negotiate a state (they'll get most of what they want in reality), build up trust until borders open then if they really really really really want to live on Israeli land so badly then they can move there legally, buy land, build up their population in Israel where they are legally protected same as Christians or Jews and live happily ever after. Same as I can move to Northern Ireland now with all those nationalist fools who killed left right and centre just to have the same rights they have now achieved through putting down arms and getting on with life.

AbusesToilets

Nodin wrote: »

UN sanctions would be almost universal, and give greater authority. As it is, we only have EU sanctions on settlement produce.

Perhaps. Iit seems from similar experiences with Iran, for example, that financial sanctions seem to hit the hardest against countries, specifically those originating from the US and the EU. Would the EU be willing to take those steps and what could they hope to achieve with them?

Busted Flat.

Justin1982 wrote: »

While the bulldozing of houses has great symbolic meaning it doesn't necessarily mean that the Israeli's do it for the pleasure of driving bulldozers or throwing Arabs out of their house out of sheer spite or to move Israeli's into fertile land that they like the look of.

It generally seems to be part of their buffer zone defensive strategy (sounds harsh alright but then again I'm sitting in the comfort of my penthouse free from the threat of rockets) or removing illegal Israeli settlements or houses that were built without a permit. Again, Wikipedia could be filling me with ****. Either way it sounds more complicated than than your making it out to be with your one line emotive statement.

Actually, come to think of it, bulldozers demolished some farm sheds that my family had on the land we had before they confiscated it off us, cut our land in half and ran the main Dublin to Galway motorway through it. Gringos! I must look into whether that was an Israeli plot also. You know what those greedy Israeli's are like!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_demolition_in_the_Israeli%E2%80%93Palestinian_conflict

It is called respect for human life and their right to exist, daddy in your case would have been well compensated in your case. A sad post really.