US vetoes UN resolution condemning ethnic cleansing

Israeli colonies for only Jewish Israelis on Palestinian land is illegal


  • Total voters
    18

ironsides

Executive Branch Member
Feb 13, 2009
8,583
60
48
United States
I'm all for defending Israel from attacks onto its internationally recognized territory. You won't hear any argument from me there. However, Israel's current boundaries extend beyond that to occupied territory. Certainly the Palestinian will fight to try to take that land back.

Now I agree to a degree that, especially seeing that Palestine is clearly weaker than Israel militarily, that it's wasting its time fighting for it in military terms. Personally, if I were the leadership of Palestine, I'd order a ceasefire and at least try to enforce it on the Palestinian people, and then take the case to the UN General Assembly again asking Israel to return to within its pre-1967 borders.

Some might argue that if Israel refuses to give that land up when Palestine is fighting tooth and nail for it, that it is even less likely to give it back merely on a principled respect for the rule of law. What they'd be forgetting though would be the political impact. As long as Palestine continues to fight for that territory, it makes it easier to paint them as terrorists. Should they lay down their arm, Israel would certainly have no choice but to do the same under diplomatic pressure. Once the fighting ceases, heads would be a little more level, with possibly Zionist interests defending Israeli occupation of its post-1967 acquisitions, but with most countries siding with Palestine owing to clear international laws stipulating Israel's legitimate boundaries. That way, Palestine might be able to push some kind of limited embargo on Israel until it does cede its post-1967 acquisitions back to Palestine.

Palestine would also have the advantage of being able to make friends across the Arab world, but again, to avoid demonization based on prejudices, it could still encourage them not to take action against Israel except via UN resolutions against Israel and to push Israel to give its post1967 acquisitions back.

I realize this would likely require extremely cool heads seeing that it's quite understandable that Palestinians are outraged and so respond on emotion, which of course feeds the anti-Arab sentiment, ignoring that they are in fact fighting to take back land that international law itself recognizes and has always recognized as Palestinian land. Now sure some Palestinians want to wipe Israel off the map, but my guess is if israel gave them their legitimate land back, cooler heads would then prevail, not to mention that then we'd all be defending Israel's right to defend itself within its pre-1967 bounrdary.

The reason we're so divided on Israel in the first place is precisely because it's hard to morally defend a country that is occupying illegally conquered lands.

How many times has Israel given back territory to the Palestinians and various Arab countries only to have to retake it. In the summer of 1967, Arab leaders met in Khartoum in response to the war, to discuss the Arab position toward Israel. They reached consensus that there should be no recognition, no peace, and no negotiations with the State of Israel, the so-called "three no's".
The UN tried to prevent a war, but left at Egypt's request in 1973. I agree that it would be nice if Israel returned most of the land, but one place they will not return would be the Golan Heights. Bottom line who will guarantee that the Palestinians will leave Israel in peace? The UN has proven how ineffectual it is. The lands were conquered legally, Israel did not start this conflict, the world did.
 

earth_as_one

Time Out
Jan 5, 2006
7,933
53
48
Moving conquered people off their land and replacing them with your own people is a war crime. Israel has been committing this crime for over 40 years now and most of the world would like Israel to stop. Unfortunately the US voted in support of continued Israeli ethnic cleansing at the UN Security Council effectively leaving Palestinians with conflict with Israel as the sole means to achieve justice and freedom.

How well do you think the Mossad created and backed Hamas will fair in the upcoming Palestine elections in September?

After all it is in Israel's best interests to keep the violence ongoing.

I doubt we'll see another Palestinian election while pro-Israel Abbas remains dictator of the West Bank. Hamas will continue to get arms through the tunnels. Before the next battle, I hope Hamas and Egypt evacuate civilians first.
 

Machjo

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 19, 2004
17,878
61
48
Ottawa, ON
Or how about they avoid a fight to begin with. Let's not forget that many Israelis are innocents in this too, born and raised in Israel and not necessarily in agreement with their government's policies. Remember too that, though I don't know if it's still the case, the Israeli government sometimes paid people to move to the occupied territories, though I'm not sure if it was in cash, property or otherwise, but clearly not all of them moved there on strictly ideological grounds. There is no denying that many Israelis are victims in this too.

Personally I'd rather Palestinians try to avoid violent confrontation with Israel, but also think that when a Palestinian does commit a violent act, that unless it's on behalf of the Palestinian authority, that Israel restrain from unleashing revenge on Palestine. After all, Israel's illegal occupation of Palestinian territory also contributes to the raw feelings that can lead to such attacks. I'm not defending the attacks, but merely pointing out that Israel has to take some responsibility too.

Or if Palestine must use force, then be more sparing about it. For instance:

1. Target soldiers only, and
2. Limit all attacks to within territory that is rightfully Palestine's. While it would certainly be legitimate for Palestinians to target Israeli troops in occupied territory only (better to restrain themselves even there but if they must, then at least limit themselves to there), and should they ever be able to access occupied territory, to either welcome the settlers into the Palestinian community or, at worse, ship them off to Israel proper, but not harm them as long as they are not armed and fighting back.
 

Just the Facts

House Member
Oct 15, 2004
4,162
43
48
SW Ontario
But who are the terrorists? Who is occupying whose land? That ought to answer the question.


The Battle of Old Jerusalem, 1948

Question answered.

Funny, how when the Arabs conquered the Jewish Quarter and the Old City, it became Arab East Jerusalem. When the Jews conquered it back, it became Occupied Arab East Jerusalem.

Why did it not become known as the Occupied Jewish Quarter in 1948? Surely, not due to double standards?!

Just tryin to understand the facts. Just the facts.

How about religious cleansing then?

lol you do realize that selling property to a Jew is a capital offence in the territories, right? That's capital, as in DEAD. :)

I don't think there are similar laws in Israel.
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
117,211
14,250
113
Low Earth Orbit
I doubt we'll see another Palestinian election while pro-Israel Abbas remains dictator of the West Bank. Hamas will continue to get arms through the tunnels. Before the next battle, I hope Hamas and Egypt evacuate civilians first.
Arms through the tunnels? More like basic medicines, cigarettes, beer, baby food, concrete, cell phones and sim cards, etc.

It's not worh it for Egyptians to be shot on the spot by their own military for trying to smuggle arms.
 

Just the Facts

House Member
Oct 15, 2004
4,162
43
48
SW Ontario
It's been a long time, 5-6 years since there has been a suicide bomber in Israel.

Only because of the wall and alert defense forces in Israel. Certainly not for lack of trying.

Last Modified: 06 Feb 2008. 3 years...still a long time.

Dimona....isn't that were 300 nuke weapons are stored and Israel refuses to allow international inspectors to inventory and refuses to sign the anti-proliferation treaty?​


They sound like a nuclear rogue state.

lol and you know that from what....International Inspectors? lol

Hamas won the last Palestinian election in a land slide. International observers declared the elections free and fair.

Yup. Trouble is, they won the parliament, not the presidency. By your standards, it should be just fine and dandy for the GOP to walk in and take over the Senate, and say they have every right to, because they won the election fair and square. :)

Moving conquered people off their land and replacing them with your own people is a war crime. Israel has been committing this crime for over 40 years now and most of the world would like Israel to stop.

If the Arabs had gone ahead and declared their own state along side Israel in 1948, like they should have, then that argument might have some merit. But they didn't, so it doesn't.

Arms through the tunnels? More like basic medicines, cigarettes, beer, baby food, concrete, cell phones and sim cards, etc.

It's not worh it for Egyptians to be shot on the spot by their own military for trying to smuggle arms.

Actually, Gazans have been using the tunnels to supply Egyptians in the Sinai the last couple of weeks during the turmoil in Egypt.

O irony.
 

Machjo

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 19, 2004
17,878
61
48
Ottawa, ON
The Battle of Old Jerusalem, 1948

Question answered.

Funny, how when the Arabs conquered the Jewish Quarter and the Old City, it became Arab East Jerusalem. When the Jews conquered it back, it became Occupied Arab East Jerusalem.

Why did it not become known as the Occupied Jewish Quarter in 1948? Surely, not due to double standards?!

Just tryin to understand the facts. Just the facts.

Well, here's what we find in English directly on an Israeli government website:

Jerusalem- Legal and Political Background

So unless you're going to say that Israeli government websites are anti-Israeli, then you have to acknowledge that if even an Israeli government website acknowledges that according to international law, East Jerusalem does not belong to Israel. Of course the same site attempts to paint a more sympathetic view of the Israeli claims via weasel words and irrelevancies, but everything it says in there is still truthful at least, even if you have to read through the irrelevancies to see it.
 

BaalsTears

Senate Member
Jan 25, 2011
5,732
0
36
Santa Cruz, California
What difference does it make? If the suicide attack was directed at civilians, its a war crime. If the attack was directed at soldiers, its a tactic.

Its no different than the missiles and mortars militants fire at Israel on nearly a daily basis. If it lands near civilians, its a war crime. If it lands near soldiers its a tactic.

When a smart bomb takes out part of a university killing professors and students, its a war crime. When a it blows up a bunker full of arms, its a tactic.

The war criminals on both sides know when they are killing soldiers and when they are killing civilians.

The worst war criminals are the cowards who give the orders to commit war crimes. People on the front line know when their orders violate international law and they face a choice to commit or not commit war crimes.

I have nothing against soldiers who do their duty. I only condemn those who commit war crimes.

If what you say is true then you are compelled to agree with me that Barack Obama is a war criminal.
 

earth_as_one

Time Out
Jan 5, 2006
7,933
53
48
I'm not hostile to Israel at all. I'm not hostile to the Palestinians at all. They have a problem with each other. It is up to them to solve it. Further outside intervention is counterproductive.

Why does America or Canada have a right to exist? Both countries have more land than they can use. Why should they not share it with other peoples?
Further outside intervention is counterproductive:
I agree. Be sure to tell the American government. They intervene to the tune of billions in arms and economic support, for one side's war criminals.

I am against abrupt change. It would be counter productive to cut this aid suddenly. But letting Israel know the gravy train will come less often with fewer goodies if Israel continues to steal land.

Another solution would be to grant every Palestinian Israeli citizenship, equal rights and annex the entire region.

I believe in eventual global unification, rendering war obsolete but only if the new system is free, fair and just.
 

Machjo

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 19, 2004
17,878
61
48
Ottawa, ON
Further outside intervention is counterproductive:
I agree. Be sure to tell the American government. They intervene to the tune of billions in arms and economic support, for one side's war criminals.

I am against abrupt change. It would be counter productive to cut this aid suddenly. But letting Israel know the gravy train come less often with fewer goodies if Israel continues to steal land. Or grant every Palestinians Israeli citizenship and annex the entire region.

What harm would there be in cutting aid o Israel overnight in exchange for more open borders between the two countries so as to free more trade and travel between the US and Israel?

Who says hep to Israel must be in the form of tax dollars or, worse yet, lender dollars?

Honestly, I don't believe a sudden cut to Israeli aid would hurt the average Israeli much, seeing that most of it is in the form of military aid, meaning that it doesn't really affect the man on the street so much, only military industries for the most part.
 

BaalsTears

Senate Member
Jan 25, 2011
5,732
0
36
Santa Cruz, California
America is broke. What happens overseas is of little importance to the great struggle now unfolding in America. The new era is going to be exciting.

Israel can get the money it needs from rich Canadians. And if the Israelis have the money to pay cash on the barrel head American workers would be happy to sell the Israelis the most advanced weapons in the world. Btw, America doesn't need these weapons itself. They aren't needed to assert American interests in the western hemisphere.

What harm would there be in cutting aid o Israel overnight in exchange for more open borders between the two countries so as to free more trade and travel between the US and Israel?

Who says hep to Israel must be in the form of tax dollars or, worse yet, lender dollars?

Honestly, I don't believe a sudden cut to Israeli aid would hurt the average Israeli much, seeing that most of it is in the form of military aid, meaning that it doesn't really affect the man on the street so much, only military industries for the most part.

America only needs open borders with Canada.
 

Machjo

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 19, 2004
17,878
61
48
Ottawa, ON
America only needs open borders with Canada.

You misunderstood my intent. I don't see why Israel needs US charity. If the US really wants to help Israel, could it not do so by simply opening its borders to Israel so as to let Israelis have a chance to earn their own keep rather than depend on US charity all the time?

Quite honestly, I'd say the same about Canadian aid abroad. Allow for more free trade and that ought to more than suffice to give them a chance to develop.
 

BaalsTears

Senate Member
Jan 25, 2011
5,732
0
36
Santa Cruz, California
You misunderstood my intent. I don't see why Israel needs US charity. If the US really wants to help Israel, could it not do so by simply opening its borders to Israel so as to let Israelis have a chance to earn their own keep rather than depend on US charity all the time?

Quite honestly, I'd say the same about Canadian aid abroad. Allow for more free trade and that ought to more than suffice to give them a chance to develop.

Thanks for the clarification. :)
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
117,211
14,250
113
Low Earth Orbit
If the Arabs had gone ahead and declared their own state along side Israel in 1948, like they should have, then that argument might have some merit. But they didn't, so it doesn't.
Is that how it works? You just move in and declare it yours?

That is as ****ed up as some entity in the sky telling some crazy old man atop a mountain the old man his group of inbred mifits the land between the Jordan River and the Med was theirs but the old man with one shoe couldn't go.

What's next? Some alien is going to tell a man from Montreal to build a spaceship landing pad and start a sex cult and clone humans in that region too?
 
Last edited:

Machjo

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 19, 2004
17,878
61
48
Ottawa, ON
One thing I would say about any kind of UN sanction against Israel or any country is that it ought to try to not touch the people as much as possible. For example, I'd say no sanction ought to be placed on travel to or from that country, seeing how that does not target the government at all, but merely targets the people of the country. This would be a minimum. In fact, I'd probably even go so far as to say that sanctions ought to be limited to military exports and nothing more.
 

Just the Facts

House Member
Oct 15, 2004
4,162
43
48
SW Ontario
Well, here's what we find in English directly on an Israeli government website:

Jerusalem- Legal and Political Background

So unless you're going to say that Israeli government websites are anti-Israeli, then you have to acknowledge that if even an Israeli government website acknowledges that according to international law, East Jerusalem does not belong to Israel.

Hmmm. I am tired so I may have missed it, but I got quite the opposite impression from the article. (Interesting read, btw, thanks).

Particularly from:


The question arose at the time as to whether these acts constituted annexation of the eastern parts of Jerusalem. The then Minister of Foreign Affairs, Abba Eban, informed the U.N. Secretary General in writing in July, 1967 that they did not constitute annexation, but only administrative and municipal integration. On the other hand, from the point of view of Israeli law, it was held in a number of decisions of the Supreme Court that the eastern sectors of Jerusalem had become a part of the State of Israel. The 1970 case of Ruidi and Maches v. Military Court of Hebron illustrates this attitude.

In the opinion of the Government of Israel, Jordan never acquired sovereignty over the eastern part of the city since it took control of it in 1948 by an act of aggression, whereas Israel has a better right, since it conquered east Jerusalem in 1967 during the course of a war of self- defence.

When the fighting was over, the Knesset passed the Law and Administration Ordinance (Amendment No. 11) Law, 1967, authorizing the Government to apply the law, jurisdiction and administration of Israel to any area which was formerly part of Mandatory Palestine. Likewise, the Municipalities Ordinance was amended so as to allow for the extension of the bounds of a municipality where a decision has been made as to the application of Israel's jurisdiction to a certain area, as referred to above. And indeed, the Government issued an appropriate order as a result of which Israeli law was made to apply to the eastern sector of Jerusalem, which was also included within the jurisdiction of the Jerusalem municipality.
A special arrangement has also been followed in matters of nationality. Israeli nationality is not imposed on residents of east Jerusalem, but it can be acquired by application on their part.


Israeli rhetoric for the most part seems to indicate a strong desire to retain Jerusalem undivided under Israeli control in any future agreements. If the Arab Palestinians ever decide they want to talk about anything, that is. :)
 

ironsides

Executive Branch Member
Feb 13, 2009
8,583
60
48
United States
Moving conquered people off their land and replacing them with your own people is a war crime. Israel has been committing this crime for over 40 years now and most of the world would like Israel to stop. Unfortunately the US voted in support of continued Israeli ethnic cleansing at the UN Security Council effectively leaving Palestinians with conflict with Israel as the sole means to achieve justice and freedom.



I doubt we'll see another Palestinian election while pro-Israel Abbas remains dictator of the West Bank. Hamas will continue to get arms through the tunnels. Before the next battle, I hope Hamas and Egypt evacuate civilians first.

The enemy of my friend is my enemy also. As was mentioned, if the Palestinians would lay down their weapons. Israel would be forced by public opinion to act in kind (even I would be forced to agree with that kind of action). But since that will never happen, and in fact the two Palestinian groups are planning on joining forces again there will only be more war.
 

Just the Facts

House Member
Oct 15, 2004
4,162
43
48
SW Ontario
What harm would there be in cutting aid o Israel overnight in exchange for more open borders between the two countries so as to free more trade and travel between the US and Israel?

Who says hep to Israel must be in the form of tax dollars or, worse yet, lender dollars?

Honestly, I don't believe a sudden cut to Israeli aid would hurt the average Israeli much, seeing that most of it is in the form of military aid, meaning that it doesn't really affect the man on the street so much, only military industries for the most part.

It would probably hurt the U.S. I've read that Israel is one of those aid recipients from which the U.S. actually enjoys an ROI.

Is that how it works? You just move in and declare it yours?

That is as ****ed up as some entity in the sky telling some crazy old man atop a mountain the old man his group of inbred mifits the land between the Jordan River and the Med was theirs but the old man with one shoe couldn't go.

What's next? Some alien is going to tell a man from Montreal to build a spaceship landing pad and start a sex cult and clone humans in that region too?

lol ummm, yeah, that's what the UN resolution was all about. lol The UN said go ahead and build a state. The Jews did. The Arabs didn't. Ergo, there is an Israel. Thre is not a Palestine. That's not asterisked up at all, really. Funny how UN resolutions only seem to matter when thry're AGAINST Istael. lol
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
117,211
14,250
113
Low Earth Orbit
The question arose at the time as to whether these acts constituted annexation of the eastern parts of Jerusalem. The then Minister of Foreign Affairs, Abba Eban, informed the U.N. Secretary General in writing in July, 1967 that they did not constitute annexation, but only administrative and municipal integration. On the other hand, from the point of view of Israeli law, it was held in a number of decisions of the Supreme Court that the eastern sectors of Jerusalem had become a part of the State of Israel. The 1970 case of Ruidi and Maches v. Military Court of Hebron illustrates this attitude.


Decisions of the Supreme Court of Israel don't mean jack **** when it comes to International law.