General Israel/Palestine discussion thread

[Skeptic]

Israel is a country. So criticizing Israel's policies is no different than criticizing the US for it's policies. It doesn't mean you hate all Americans because you don't like the US foreign policy.

There are dozens of people on this forum who sometimes criticize Israel, even severely, and are obviously not antisemites -- and are not called antisemites by anyone just because they criticise Israel. You yourself are one of them. Why? Because it is clear these postets try to apply a fair standard.

The people who are, I think correctly, suspected of antisemitism (sometimes auto-antisemitism) here are those five or six posters who are (a) utterly obsessed with criticizing Israel, (b) use an obvious double standard in judging it compared to judging any other nation, and (c) while being OUTRAGED at anything Israel does, are utterly indifferent to far, far worse abuses by other nations.

 

[Thunder]

And that of all the nations on the face of the planet, the one nation whose existence is illegitimate and those who wish it destroyed must be supported, is the Jewish one.

strawman. unless you are referring to the few Neo-Nazis we have in the forum.

 

[Thunder]

So why aren't you talking against Jordan, they "stole" the land of Palestinians too, right?

interesting point.

yet, they did indeed deprive the Palestine Arabs the ability and right to establish their own independent state in the West Bank. why they did this? probabkly due to King Hussein's arrogance.

but that was then...and this is now.

focusing on then and not now, is silly and useless.

 

[bigjelmapro]

So you're claiming that issuing permits for fishing isn't a function of government. That controlling land, including farm land, is not a function of government.

Where does Israel issue fishing permits? And again, how does not being able to fish the extra few kilometers take away any function of government? Palestinians can still fish off the coast.

As the above link I gave Wildcat shows: even the Israeli government admits it has a buffer zone.

And where is a buffer zone in a DMZ, also applicable on Israel's side, as prerequisite for occupation?

So your article is built on a false premise. Now wonder, then, that they and you are confused by things like this:

As is your narrow concept of 'authority' and how occupation is applicable to controlling a portion of ones internal waters or even ones airspace. By that line of thought, even Egypt is occupying Gaza by controlling a portion of the overlapping internal waters between Gaza and Egpyt.

The fact of the matter is with agreements written out in Oslo and Gaza-Jericho 1994 stipulate that the PA should be (and has been practiced in part prior to Hamas's takeover in 2007) of Gaza's airspace and internal waters. Since Hamas took over, a belligerent, non-state entity and terrorist group, with a extensive list of smuggling weapons via the sea, Israel is justified according to San remo, allowed to set up a naval blockade to thwart this smuggling. There's more than enough reason why the UN has found no legal avenue to argue or label said naval blockade as illegal. And neither has there been a legal argument that stands up to scrutiny that said naval blockade is a form of occupation according to international law/statutes.

None.

All of which should end the discussion. Because that IS the legal status of Gaza -- like it or not, agree with it or not.

I disagree with you entirely and I support the reassessment of the status of Gaza as supported in the paper linked based on the legal arguments named at length in the paper linked.

That happened. So Gaza became occupied. It is still occupied, because Israel has not given up all control of Gaza. Who else has succeeded in turning an occupation into a blockade? Wildcat could think of no-one -- and he likes to make wild guesses.

The occupation ended the moment Hamas took over all functions of government with the unilateral withdrawal of IDF forces. You can keep beating your head against the wall to assert that Israel has a perpetual responsibility to Gaza based on the justified naval blockade and a buffer zone between Israel and Gaza.

No, it isn't. The UN, US, EU etc are not 'certain websites'.

Who says that the official status of Gaza named on these websites is not based off of the outdated status the UN continues to use? Still a fallacious argument.

How does that change the fact that Israel maintains the buffer zone?

How does a buffer zone change this argument? Perhaps you could point out where this buffer zone, which has existed since post-'73, is a form of 'occupation'. Or perhaps how a buffer zone in a DMZ is unique to the situation between Israel and Gaza.

 

[Mycroft]

I kind of agree with that. The term "anti-Semitism" has no sway anymore. It's sad to see that people are so blind to it.

Therefore...someone should be silent if they think anti-Semitism is behind a double standard so as not to dilute the term?

That makes no sense.

It's not particularly difficult to criticize Israel in ways that never draw the accusations of bigotry. Keep the discussions to actual policies, don't indulge in conspiracy theory speculation, don't use double standards or special pleading, avoid inflammatory rhetoric. These are pretty good rules to follow anyway.

And following those rules, it's easy to say, Israel doesn't work hard enough to come to an agreement with the PA. Israel's lack of a civil marriage law is archaic. Israel's behavior in the Lebanon war was a deplorable over-reaction. Israel's strikes against Gaza was disproportionate to the provocation. Israel should relax its controls on Gaza imports because while it's legitimate to restrict weapons, it's not legitimate to keep their economy on the verge of collapes... etcetera.

Instead all these issues get transformed into conspiracy theories. Not being flexible enough to come to an agreement with the PA becomes a secret Zionist plot to never make peace and to keep expanding. The lack of a civil marriage law is recast as a racist policy to keep the Jewish race pure. Israel's war in Lebanon becomes an argument over Israel supposedly targeting Red Cross ambulances, with propaganda photos of old junkyard amulances supposedly hit by missiles. Israels imposition of an embargo on Gaza becomes "Piracy" and other nonsense.

So maybe many of these people are not anti-Semitic, but that leaves unanswered the question of why the double-standards are applied, why the special pleading for different rules being applied to Israel, and why the inflammatory rhetoric and conspiracy-theory mongering.

 

[bigjelmapro]

I've never understood the knee jerk reaction that says criticizing Israel means you are anti Jewish.

I don't think it has anything to be anti-Jewish purely, but rather the thinly veiled ant-Jewish sentiments dressed up as anti-Zionist sentiments. In the Islamic uhmmah at least, there isn't much of a distinction.

 

[Thunder]

So maybe many of these people are not anti-Semitic, but that leaves unanswered the question of why the double-standards are applied, why the special pleading for different rules being applied to Israel, and why the inflammatory rhetoric and conspiracy-theory mongering.

Honestly, I see no serious double-standard against Israel. I can only speak for myself, but I have made numerous threads and countless statements condemning brutality in Muslim nations, as well as in other states.

We all must pick our battles, and anyone has the right to make the Israel/Palestine conflict, their choice of interest.

And the funny thing is, while the accusations of anti-Semitism against those who criticise Israeli policies are many, I have only ONCE in my life, EVER heard someone suggest that pro-Tibet sentiments were "anti-Chinese".

why is that?

I have NEVER heard anyone suggest that the anti-Apartheid movement, or the anti-Jim Crow movement, was "anti-White".

why is that?

 

[quixotecoyote]

And the funny thing is, while the accusations of anti-Semitism against those who criticise Israeli policies are many, I have only ONCE in my life, EVER heard someone suggest that pro-Tibet sentiments were "anti-Chinese".

why is that?

I have NEVER heard anyone suggest that the anti-Apartheid movement, or the anti-Jim Crow movement, was "anti-White".

why is that?

Probably because they don't typically descend to the "conspiracy theory speculation, double standards or special pleading, and inflammatory rhetoric" that Mycroft pointed out.

 

[bigjelmapro]

And following those rules, it's easy to say, Israel doesn't work hard enough to come to an agreement with the PA. Israel's lack of a civil marriage law is archaic. Israel's behavior in the Lebanon war was a deplorable over-reaction. Israel's strikes against Gaza was disproportionate to the provocation. Israel should relax its controls on Gaza imports because while it's legitimate to restrict weapons, it's not legitimate to keep their economy on the verge of collapes... etcetera.

Gaza imports and the bureaucracy behind it (political<-->army that is), I agree with as well as the issue with civil marriage.

Disagree with Lebanon. If Hezbollah does something stupid this summer, the reaction is going to be much, much worse. I can tell you that with the current preparations going on. Same applies with Hamas in Gaza.

Disproportionality and its use in war is not tied in with the initial provocation that led to this war. The ongoing missile/mortar strikes by Hamas and its affiliates is simply the straw that broke that camel's back and the war's instigator. Overall, the accusation of disproportionality has been pillaged along with a number of other legal terms regarding the laws/statutes of war. There have been isolated incidents that would be deemed as an overreaction to the threat, sure, I wouldn't disagree, but this does not imply that the entire war in 2008/2009 is deemed as disproportinate.

 

[Mycroft]

Probably because they don't typically descend to the "conspiracy theory speculation, double standards or special pleading, and inflammatory rhetoric" that Mycroft pointed out.

Exactly. The people who oppose China's occupation of Tibet don't make up stories about China shooting up ambulances, China stealing Tibetan peoples organs, or try to alter international law to suit their agenda. The reality doesn't need any alteration to make a powerful impact.

The same with Apartheid. The reality didn't need any alteration. Even then, even as I marched in the streets against Apartheid, I still rolled my eyes at people who said "Apart-hate". The reality spoke well enough, The propaganda term didn't help.

And speaking of international law, what kind of person complains that over-use of "anti-Semitism" cheapens the term, but isn't concerned about cheapening the concept of international law? Constantly in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict we see people on the anti-Israeli side (and I don't call them pro-Palestinian for a good reason) asserting that every action Israel takes is "against international law", even when the relevant laws clearly say differently. If we don't look to the actual law to see what international law is but instead just assert that it's whatever suits our political leanings, doesn't that weaken the whole concept of international law? Why should nations agree to meet and sign agreements such as the Geneva Conventions or the Hague Conventions if later on the meaning of those agreements will be altered unilaterally by someone to punish an unpopular nation?

 

[Thunder]

And speaking of international law, what kind of person complains that over-use of "anti-Semitism" cheapens the term, but isn't concerned about cheapening the concept of international law? Constantly in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict we see people on the anti-Israeli side (and I don't call them pro-Palestinian for a good reason) asserting that every action Israel takes is "against international law", even when the relevant laws clearly say differently. If we don't look to the actual law to see what international law is but instead just assert that it's whatever suits our political leanings, doesn't that weaken the whole concept of international law? Why should nations agree to meet and sign agreements such as the Geneva Conventions or the Hague Conventions if later on the meaning of those agreements will be altered unilaterally by someone to punish an unpopular nation?

I really don't think you want to start talking about international law, cause its been consistently against your side for more than 35 years.

 

[Mycroft]

Gaza imports and the bureaucracy behind it (political<-->army that is), I agree with as well as the issue with civil marriage.

There you go. Proof that when you express your disagreement in reasoned terms, you find agreement in surprising places. Real people are not as polarized as they may seem.

And I agree with you about proportionality. If someone wants a knife-fight, I not only have no problem bringing a gun, but I'll bring another gun, some friends with guns, and their friends with guns. It's not a game, and nobody cares about fairness.

My problem with the Lebanon war wasn't proportionality, it was attacking Northern Lebanon when the problem was Hezbollah in Southern Lebanon.

But the arguments here in these forums focussed on fake accusations of Israel shooting up ambulances and photo-shopped news pictures. Even if I disagree with the war, I can't lie and say that obvious junk-yard ambulances were targets of Israeli missiles. Nobody in the anti-Israel crowd agreed. Apparently they believe that being anti-Israel means they have to subscribe to every piece of anti-Israel propaganda that floats to the surface of the cesspool.

 

[bikerdruid]

these guys think its anti-Semitic to be against anti-Jewish discrimination in Israel, and its anti-Semitic to be against illegal settlements in the West Bank.

they don't understand how much damage such stupidity and arrogance does to Israel and the Jewish people.

I mean honestly, several Muslim and Arab states, including the Palestinians, came to Israel's aid during the massive forest fires. But these guys still make believe they are simply surrounded by Neo-Nazi anti-Semites looking to gas them.

in egypt, last christmas, muslims even guarded coptic churches duing christmas mass, due to fear of vandalism.
this got very little press.

 

[bikerdruid]

So why aren't you talking against Jordan, they "stole" the land of Palestinians too, right?

jordan is not holding gaza captive and are not appropriating palestinian farms in the west bank.
israel is quilty of both of these.

 

[IDB87]

jordan is not holding gaza captive and are not appropriating palestinian farms in the west bank.
israel is quilty of both of these.

Usually when you hold someone captive, it's for a reason.

What's the reason?

 

[Thunder]

Usually when you hold someone captive, it's for a reason.

What's the reason?

why do you ask rhetorical questions?

 

[IDB87]

in egypt, last christmas, muslims even guarded coptic churches duing christmas mass, due to fear of vandalism.
this got very little press.

Vandalism from who?

What made them do it? The fact that they were Muslims or that they were humans?

 

[IDB87]

why do you ask rhetorical questions?

What makes it rhetorical?

Bikerdruid is the one using rhetoric.

*For what reason does he think Israel is holding Gaza captive, and for how long has it been going on?

 

[bikerdruid]

Vandalism from who?

What made them do it? The fact that they were Muslims or that they were humans?

the fact that they were humans, as the overwhelming majority of muslims are.
only a handful are whackos.
the good people of the muslim faith get painted with the same broad brush.

 

[IDB87]

the fact that they were humans, as the overwhelming majority of muslims are.
only a handful are whackos.
the good people of the muslim faith get painted with the same broad brush.

The fact that some Muslims defend a Church from being vandalized by other Muslims says nothing about their faith, only that they are more human than their spiritual brothers and sisters.

Glad we cleared that up

*ETA

Check your PM BD, don't want to derail here.