The Creation of Israel Violated the Palestinian Right to Self-Determination

[dudalb]

OK, so that sounds like the British Mandate.

How did that work out again?

Let's be fair.
The French also got a mandate out of World War one over Syria and Lebanon. Worked out no better for them then it did for the British.

 

[dudalb]

I asked Hlaforlaes this question several days ago. So far, he has refused to answer. Tricky questions like that tend to be avoided by the chronically dishonest.

I have never gotten a honest or realistic answer to what would happen to the Seven Million Jews in Israel if the "Zionist Entity" was destroyed.
I guess they would just be the eggs that needed to broken to make the omelet, to use Joe Stalin's famous expression.
I also love the way some people make a huge deal about the 'Sky God's" role in Israeli politics..which btw, I do not like at all, ..but are quiet about how their beleoved Hamas and Hezbollah both advocate a Islamic Republic only different between them and ISIS being who is in charge.

 

[psionl0]

Thank you for your comment formulating a question of key import. While I will not provide an immediate full design of the single state in this post, its nature is a matter of negotiation, regardless. I wrote something up offline for the expected comments regarding getting the Israelis out of the West Bank, which I now post below as fairly germane to your question.

***
I let the "slap them out" comment from an earlier post stand as is because of the auxiliary used, "should", intended as moral judgment. This forms part of a set:

• must: what any party is obliged to abide by legally
• can: what negotiations and protecting all rights are able to reasonably accomplish
• will: what the likely negotiations and efforts at peace are likely to accomplish given political realities

What Israel "should" do is unenforceable opinion, but it can influence how what Israel must and can do is perceived and argued.

As I push to delegitimize the manner in which the state of Israel came about and what has happened since, this creates counterarguments that push back citing the historic mistreatment of stateless Jews, thus highlighting the very arguments that, regardless of law, yield moral conclusions favoring humanitarian concerns and reinforce the foundational precepts underlying democracy and human rights (the "shoulds"). This is intentional, as (1) it creates support for moral argument alongside legal argument (thanks!), and (2), when those arguments are laid out in their basic form, they can be applied contemporaneously to the Rohingya, Uigyurs and Palestinians, among others, exposing their historical and contemporary mistreatment. Specifically in the case at hand, the idea is to juxtapose those arguments with the ones arrayed against Palestinians, thereby exposing the hypocrisy and lazy moral leg up that Zionism undeservedly receives, still playing victim while now fully engaged in victimizing. Surprise, surprise, the arguments for a Jewish homeland become a form of special pleading, and therefore must be reexamined and expressed as general principle, and voilà, the single state solution is the most reasonable and conformant to principle, moral, and law.

So I openly admit that the shape of the arguments I make has more than one motive, as it should. Coming up: As I think has been already raised once or twice, at some point the reality that Israel is located in one of the heartlands of another faith which is violently inimical to it for religious reasons, and that this factor fully justifies or at least conditions what sort of homeland must exist for Jews for them to be safe from persecution. As you can guess,

• Well, ditto for everybody else, including Palestinians.
• Heavy duty commitment to supposed shared values must become sincere, real, and operative in order for the greatest number of people to be protected
• The reason Islam, or any absolutist political, religious or racial dogma, can be considered harmful or evil is owed to its core, unquestioning absolutism.
• And now, since the preliminary groundwork has been laid, we can fairly sink our teeth into the beast that is Jewish absolutism, and as with any absolutist dogma, tear it to shreds. As many do here with other faiths, as I have done with Islam before.

I expose strategies because, well, you get the same results, even when tipping others off.

I didn't see much of an answer here (unless it is covertly suggesting that we displace all Jews). This answer is mostly just a criticism of Israel.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

I didn't see much of an answer here (unless it is covertly suggesting that we displace all Jews). This answer is mostly just a criticism of Israel.

What I said was,

Surprise, surprise, the arguments for a Jewish homeland become a form of special pleading, and therefore must be reexamined and expressed as general principle, and voilà, the single state solution is the most reasonable and conformant to principle, moral, and law.

There is no suggesting of displacement, and on repeated occasions have stated that the preference always goes to contemporary inhabitants, not ancient claims, and that Jews are now contemporary to the land. The argument is for a single state solution including all who live within it. Nothing "covert", which is a slanderous comment unsupported by anything I've said.

The overt policy you ignore, in a Channel 4 report from the UK. Quite damning.

You can support bigoted, ethno-religious tenets as a foundation for conflict resolution, or law. There are no other choices. Which is yours? Please go clearly on record and explain your choice.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

Let us be clear:

• Valuing religious argument over law is an acceptance of ISIS claims.
• ISIS claims to much of the ME for restoration of the Caliphate are therefore valid and more historically recent, making them more contemporary and valid than those of Zionists.
• Supporting Zionism and the IDF is the exact same proposition as that of supporting Islamic extremism and ISIS, or {Protestant|Catholic} exclusive claims to NI, or Myanmar Buddhist claims to Rohingya land, or Moro Liberation Front claims to Mindanao.

Further, I would venture that passivity in the face of genocidal brutality approaches a war crime in and of itself, in the conceptual line of the duty to rescue. On a forum dedicated to skepticism, meaning one centered on questioning/testing unsupportable claims and rejecting them, I'd say a failure to speak up is a declaration of intellectual fecklessness.

 

[dudalb]

Problem with ideologues is that when reality clashes with their ideology, relaity muct be elminated.

 

[psionl0]

What I said was, <verbiage snipped>

So I am correct. You are not addressing the issue of how a single state would work (without displacement).

You appear to be calling for the displacement of all Jews but avoiding saying so directly.

 

[dudalb]

So I am correct. You are not addressing the issue of how a single state would work (without displacement).

You appear to be calling for the displacement of all Jews but avoiding saying so directly.[/QUOTE]


Bingo.
The whole "Secular Palestinian State" is, I repeat, a fantasy that has the chances of really happening as a snowball in hell.
Last time I looked Hamas and Hezbollah, both want a Islamic State. But then, Euro far lefties are very good at ignoring reality when it chalshes witht their ideology.

 

[Hercules56]

Bingo.
The whole "Secular Palestinian State" is, I repeat, a fantasy that has the chances of really happening as a snowball in hell.
Last time I looked Hamas and Hezbollah, both want a Islamic State. But then, Euro far lefties are very good at ignoring reality when it chalshes witht their ideology.

So you're ok with Israel controlling everything from the River to the Sea, with Apartheid rules for the Palestinians?

 

[dudalb]

I didn't see much of an answer here (unless it is covertly suggesting that we displace all Jews). This answer is mostly just a criticism of Israel.

Actually it goes deeper then that;it is a criticism of Isreal's existence which is different then being critical of Israeli policies..many of which deserve to be criticised
Basic problem with these rants is that they have no sense of reality..of what the Middle east is really like. Crap that sounds great in a Paris Inellectual BUll Session just are not pracitcal.

 

[dudalb]

So you're ok with Israel controlling everything from the River to the Sea, with Apartheid rules for the Palestinians?

Well, you seem to be happy with Isreal being wiped off the map, so it balances.
BTW I believe in a Two State solution...the single state is La La Land territory.

 

[Hercules56]

Well, you seem to be happy with Isreal being wiped off the map, so it balances...

No, I am not.

Please don't lie about my beliefs.

 

[theprestige]

The impunity argument, again. Be it "to the victor belong the spoils", "might makes right", or my favorite recent whipping boy, "**** happens", there is an effective argument, which is that adherents of such philosophies, when on a losing side, switch back to the rule of law in a nano. Therefore, it is an excuse, not a real position; a justification, not a reason; an evasion, not a suggestion for any form of governance or means of conflict resolution.

In simple terms, I tossed that argument out like a bum from a bar in one these three threads on the conflict already. So, if not law, then moral judgment alone. Certainly more fuzzy and prone to uneven application. Regardless, conflict resolution must proceed, and preferably do so on agreed grounds. Scofflaws, well, shall remain. Hardly an argument in their favor; quite the contrary.

There are no scofflaws of the ICC, outside of the actual parties to the ICC. The ICC has no rule of law over any nations not party to it, any more than the US Supreme Court has any rule of law over anything other than the United States themselves.

The only way to impose the ICC's rule of law on Israel is to convince Israel to opt in, or through war and bloody constraint. Do the liberal democracies of western Europe want to go to war with Israel, and bring it under the jurisdiction of the ICC by force? Because that's where your train of thought leads. Or would lead, if you actually dragged it out of the ditch of fantasizing the ICC has more legal or moral authority than it actually does.

 

[Hercules56]

There are no scofflaws of the ICC, outside of the actual parties to the ICC. The ICC has no rule of law over any nations not party to it, any more than the US Supreme Court has any rule of law over anything other than the United States themselves.

The only way to impose the ICC's rule of law on Israel is to convince Israel to opt in, or through war and bloody constraint. Do the liberal democracies of western Europe want to go to war with Israel, and bring it under the jurisdiction of the ICC by force? Because that's where your train of thought leads. Or would lead, if you actually dragged it out of the ditch of fantasizing the ICC has more legal or moral authority than it actually does.

The nations of the world could show some courage and integrity, and punish Israel with economic and diplomatic sanctions, if the ICC finds them guilty of war crimes.

 

[lionking]

The nations of the world could show some courage and integrity, and punish Israel with economic and diplomatic sanctions, if the ICC finds them guilty of war crimes.

How wonderfully naive. Nations of the world act in their national self interest and will not be dictated to by the ICC or the corrupt UN.

 

[webfusion]

The nations of the world could show some courage and integrity, and punish Israel with economic and diplomatic sanctions, if the ICC finds them guilty of war crimes.

The ICC is not purposed to bring nations before that tribunal. It's for specific individuals (such as Putin, who is under a warrant for his arrest).

The ICJ deals with charges against nations/states.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

Foundational questions

• What are your criteria for deciding the legitimacy of a given population living on a land, and how do they work to lessen the chance of ethnic cleansing or war crimes?
• On what grounds does the Jewish claim to Israel supersede that of ISIS to the Caliphate, including Israel? Or, are neither of the claims valid? Why? Why not? What are the criteria?
• What makes a given practice of a faith or creed "extremist"? "Moderate"?
• Are there any principled grounds that allow for evaluating the validity of competing religious claims?
• For evaluating the extremism and inevitable consequences of a given political or religious ideology without advocating from a partisan perspective?
• Can any of this be handled without recurring to "my god" or "my culture and civilization" are superior to yours? More "true"?
  

I will tip you off in good faith that if pro-Zionists decide to handle these questions and are able to construct a set of fair criteria (doubtful), that is when the sessions of rope-a-dope begin. Why's that? There is no set of unbiased criteria that will provide cover for events since the 1930s in Palestine relating to the Zionist movement. And no, of course no cover for Islamic extremism, either. Nor for the Trump-Netanyahu axis of racist evil, a twisted and noxious phenomenon which makes Israeli malfeasance and American MAGAt complicity a global threat to freedom, democracy and the rule of law.

 

[psionl0]

Foundational Questions
< followed by a list of quibbles >

If you want to ask a "foundational" question then try this:

Should Israel be permitted to continue to exist as an independent Sovereign nation in the region they have had since then end of WW2 or do you want to kick them out and hand the land to the Palestinians?

 

[Hercules56]

How wonderfully naive. Nations of the world act in their national self interest and will not be dictated to by the ICC or the corrupt UN.

Its in the world's self-interest to stand up against genocide, war crimes & Apartheid.

When we ignore such things they only get worse. We learned that lesson during WW2.

Never Again

 

[theprestige]

The nations of the world could show some courage and integrity, and punish Israel with economic and diplomatic sanctions, if the ICC finds them guilty of war crimes.

The ICC does not have jurisdiction to find Israel guilty of anything. Just like a US federal court does not have jurisdiction to find France guilty of anything.

And these nations don't need an ICC ruling anyway. The French parliament could simply vote that they don't like what Israel is doing and that they're going to sanction Israel because of it.

I suppose the ICC could find one of its member states guilty of enabling war crimes. If, say, France wanted to put Germany on trial or something.