Why Israel's position is immoral

[GePap]

I have been trying to reply to the Israeli Reservist" thread for about an hour, but the site would not let me, So I decided to begina thread for my response.

The basic reason why the Israeli postion is immoral is that it is based on a policy of denying the humanity of over 2.7 million people who live on land Israel wants but has no rightful claim to.
Lets begin by saying that biblical claims are immaterial-if we start throwing the bible around (or Torah, or Q'uran) then evryone can claim to have a rightful piece of that land, not just Jews. Claims based on ancient history also do not matter. If the Caananites were to come back, would both Jews and Arabs have to vacate, since they are the original inhabitants? No.
So what are claims to land based on? Law. The borders of Israel were set in 1948, and the West bank and Gaza strip, and Golan, were not part of them. After Nurembarg, the world has made it clear that military might is not a valid way for a state to take land, since this invariabl dinies the inhabitants of that land their right of self-determination.

Defenders of Israel say- we are a democracy- fine, whens the last time there were elections in the West bank and Gaza in which the inhabitants were asked whether they wanted to be aprt of Israel? Wait, such elections have never taken place since Israel has never allowed it. The fact that Israel must patrol these areas not with its civil authority, as it does within the Green line, but with the military, shows that Israels claim to that land is based solely on its military might, and not any moral or legal claim.

I ask defenders of Israel to defend the following policies:
1. Demolishing the houses of the FAMILIES of suspects
2. Total blockades of towns, which prevent individuals from: going shopping, going to work, going to school, visiting relatives, recieving adequate medical care.
3. Rationing water to Palestinians, sometime only once every few days, while settlements nearby have enough water to run washing mashines.
4. Shooting live ammo at srone-throwing protestors
5. Indifinite holding of individuals with no legal review
6. The entire settlement policy.

Palestininas who commit terrorist acts are criminals and deserve to be punished (and I am no fan of Arafat), but the crimes of the Palestinians DO NOT erase the even bigger crimes of Israel since 1967. Everyone is responsible for their own actions, regardless the actions of others.

[Goingonit]

Re: Why Israel's position is immoral

1. The demolished houses are, in most cases, abandoned and used solely for sniping.
4. There are gunmen shielded by stone-throwers.
5. They are going to blow themselves up inside Israel killing tens of civilians. If I were them, I'd hold them too.

Israel is doing what it feels it needs to in order to defend itself. Hawkish governments get voted into power because of a need for security felt by the people. Arafat is, much like Saddam Hussein, sacrificing the people whom he supposedly represents to gain world support. Israel, a democracy, cannot do that, and must try to in some way coerce the Palestinian terrorists to desist from their actions.

The Palestinian attacks are not a whole-population thing the way the first Intifada was: Israel is dealing with proffesional terrorist organizations a la Afghanistan. The Israleis know who they are dealing with, and kill or arrest them accordingly. However, one sentence from Arafat could stop all terrorist action.

The IDF is defending the border, much like the US army is defending the Mexican border. The incursions are to kill terrorists, not to conquer territory.

Are there 2.7 million Palestinians in Occupied Territories? Where did you get that figure?

The settlements are immoral and should be illegal. Sharon is not a Nazi but he is too right-wing for my tastes, certainly.

[GePap]

Answers

Goingonit:
There are 1 million palestininans in the Gaza strip, one of the most densely populated places on earth (interestingly enough, 20% of this land is held by 6,000 settler while the million palestininans do with 80%) The remaining 1.7 million live in the west bank- and these figures leave out millions more in lebanon and Jordan who are refugees. The UN, US government, and Israel government all can lead you to these figures.

As for your answers;

1. You did not answer the question- I am asking about the policy of demolishing the houses of the family members of suspected terrorists, not just general house demolishions, which are a different things. Also, most demolishions are of houses built without permits, permits which Israel makes sure are few in number.
4. Again, don't answer the question- most times the Israelis are not shot at all, so this excuse does not fly. Besides, they aren't shooting at the gunmen if any, but at the stonethrowers, which is not a very good strategy in my book.
5. We are talking about hundreds being held here. Everytime you here of Israel going into Palestinian viallges and taking suspects, they are held indefinitely without charges brought- so your 'explination' is again, incomplete.

No answer attempted for 2,3. Is that because you find them immoral yourself?

Which borders is the IDF protecting? The green line, internationally resognized borders, or the aggrandized Israel the rightwingers want?

[blackice]

Look they stop shoting and they stop shoting seems to F***ing simple F*** the rest just stop killing. Damn that was easy...

[CyberGnu]

Goingoit, in repsonse to your response to 1: The houses you mention aren't unoccupied either.

Even Israeli soldiers have admitted this. When the bulldozers come, people flee the buildings left and right. Israels claim that they are inhabitated stems from Israels insistance that they are built without legal permits. Tiny details such as that if you are palestinian you will not get a permit are carefully overlooked. There are palestinians who have waited for 30 years for a building permit...

And the process keep repeating itself. A settler neighbourhood complains about how that 'illegal' palestinian settlement is too close for comfort. Israeli army comes in to demolish the closest couple of blocks. An israeli court rules that since no one is living on the newly demolished land it is up for grabs, and the settlement expands. After a year or so they again complain how the palestinians are too close, and demolisions follow.

Did you ever wonder how the the fact that GePap mentioned, that palestine is one of the most heavily populated places on earth, can be combined with the carefully orchestrated replies Siro and Natan tells you, that the settlements are only built on uninhabited land?

That the western world allows the settlements to exist, not to mention expand, is something we should all be ashamed of.

[orange]

Re: Re: Why Israel's position is immoral

Originally posted by Goingonit
However, one sentence from Arafat could stop all terrorist action.

Complete bollocks.

Are there 2.7 million Palestinians in Occupied Territories? Where did you get that figure?

It's actually closer to 1.75 million I believe, and the rest of them are in Jordan Syria Lebanon Egypt etc.

[Eli]

Goingonit, orange :

You are both right concerning Arafat.
Currently, when he is "jailed" in Rammallah he cant really stop violence. In some cities in the West Bank you already have semi-Anarchy. Of course that if Arafat decides to stop fire at any cost, he will be able to significantly decrease it. And eventually to stop it.

The problem is that Arafat doesnt want to do it. Many people were jailed after the Dolphinarium or Sbarro, why werent they jailed before? The leader of the PFLP was jailed couple weeks ago, but that was after another teract(I already forgot which one). Why not after the murder of Gandhi?
Remember the semi-crackdown he started after those bloody 24 hours in Jerusalem and Haifa? Why didnt he do it earlier?

So some may blame Israel and say that it's because we dont allow him to leave Rammalah. But he sits there for two months, the Intifada lasts for 15.
Some can say that it's because Israel attacks his facilites. But in the first months of the Intifada the most serious attack was making couple of holes in one building, aproximately once per week. This is not the action that can bother him while arresting terrorists. He released them!

The conclusion is that Arafat wants to keep the territories and Israel burning. And when stuff get out of hand and the world public opinion goes against him, he makes yet another "crackdown". Arrests 50 people from the political wing of the terrorist organizations and talks in English on CNN about peace, while calling for Jihad in Arabic on the Palestinian TV.

[Sovereign]

I don't intend to insult any Jewish or Arabian people in what I have to say. I think the whole Israel v.s. Palestine problem would be solved if Israel stays within its Green Border and give the occupied lands back to Palestine. That way, Israel will still have its statehood and Palestine will be an independent nation.

At the rate things are going, this could turn into a mid-east war with Iraq, Iran, and Saudia Arabia trying to wipe out Israel to help Palestine, their fellow Arabian nation. Then USA and Europe come to help Israel, then two possible outcomes.

1. WW3 Holy War, with Christians vs Islam

2. Oil crisis similiar to Kuwait, but on a bigger scale. USA and Europe won't get oil anymore from Arabia during the "war", and the world collapses. USA survives on its Alaska oil, and England lives on its North Sea oil, but the other countries go to crap.

Just offering a philosophical view, nothing more, nothing less.

[Natan]

Re: Why Israel's position is immoral

Originally posted by GePap
I have been trying to reply to the Israeli Reservist" thread for about an hour, but the site would not let me, So I decided to begina thread for my response.

The basic reason why the Israeli postion is immoral is that it is based on a policy of denying the humanity of over 2.7 million people who live on land Israel wants but has no rightful claim to.

Um, no, Israel's policy is based on the need to eliminate the terrorist movements operating in those territories which deny Israel's right to exist and have made the murder of Israelis there primary goal.

So what are claims to land based on? Law. The borders of Israel were set in 1948, and the West bank and Gaza strip, and Golan, were not part of them. After Nurembarg, the world has made it clear that military might is not a valid way for a state to take land, since this invariabl dinies the inhabitants of that land their right of self-determination.

Self-determination is a shaky concept - after all, when Randy Weaver and the Branch Davidians demanded their rights to self-determination, the Federal government had some other thoughts about it.

Defenders of Israel say- we are a democracy- fine, whens the last time there were elections in the West bank and Gaza in which the inhabitants were asked whether they wanted to be aprt of Israel?

They're not a part of Israel, so never.

The fact that Israel must patrol these areas not with its civil authority, as it does within the Green line, but with the military, shows that Israels claim to that land is based solely on its military might, and not any moral or legal claim.

No, it shows that Israel is not lying when it says these areas are not part of Israel.

I ask defenders of Israel to defend the following policies:

Why?

1. Demolishing the houses of the FAMILIES of suspects

I don't defend such a policy, but when was the last time it happened? Israel destroys houses from which there is shooting, but I think the last time they demolished the house of the family of a terrorist simply for that reason was a decade or two ago.

2. Total blockades of towns, which prevent individuals from: going shopping, going to work, going to school, visiting relatives, recieving adequate medical care.

Israel needs to prevent terrorists from entering Israel. If that prevents people from going shopping, that's tough - this is a war. Medical care is a more serious issue, and I think Israel needs to do more there - but so do the Palestinians.

3. Rationing water to Palestinians, sometime only once every few days, while settlements nearby have enough water to run washing mashines.

The Palestinians agreed to certain levels of water pumping in the Oslo accords.

4. Shooting live ammo at srone-throwing protestors

Depends on the situation.

5. Indifinite holding of individuals with no legal review

Guerilla wars are tough, ain't they?

6. The entire settlement policy.

So Jews should be barred from living outside of Israel?

Palestininas who commit terrorist acts are criminals and deserve to be punished (and I am no fan of Arafat), but the crimes of the Palestinians DO NOT erase the even bigger crimes of Israel since 1967.

How does building a house compare to blowing up a crowded nightclub?

Everyone is responsible for their own actions, regardless the actions of others.

If there's a war, conditions get worse for everyone.

4. Again, don't answer the question- most times the Israelis are not shot at all, so this excuse does not fly.

Most times, Palestinian stone throwers are not shot at all. Israeli soldiers are in a very dangerous situation, in which they have to differentiate within seconds whether Palestinians are carrying stones, guns, or bombs - IMHO, when Palestinians go out onto battlefields declaring their intent to achieve martyrdom, they must accept some of the responsibility for any harm they suffer.

Besides, they aren't shooting at the gunmen if any, but at the stonethrowers, which is not a very good strategy in my book.

Um, no, quite the contrary, they have snipers who are there to pick off the gunmen - that's why Israeli casualties are so low now compared to the temple mount riots of 1996.

[orange]

Natan - you can't have it both ways. You're saying that the west bank Gaza etc. are not part of Israel, yet you also say that Jewish people can settle those areas AND fall under the protection of Israel. Zionism is, IMO, a racist idea, so I would prefer that the state be shared between Palestinians and Israelis democratically, but you seem to support Israeli settler expansion and their protection from the Israeli government while also supporting an Israel that exists only within its set boundries.

[Natan]

Originally posted by orange
Natan - you can't have it both ways. You're saying that the west bank Gaza etc. are not part of Israel, yet you also say that Jewish people can settle those areas AND fall under the protection of Israel.

Depends on the areas. East Jerusalem has been annexed by Israel. But no, I don't support continued settlement in Samaria and Gaza.

[faded glory]

Great, another Israel bashing thread. I think we have proved time and again, the Israel is right here.



Mid 2000, Ehud Barak offered Yasir Arafat 96% of the west bank and e. Jerulasem, as well as Gaza. Palestinians would have had access to enough water under the clinton-barak deal. What stopped arafat from accepting this deal???


Please answer that?


Oh wait......let find the quote he said to CNN.

"All of Jerusalem must belong to palestine. Anything short is unnacceptable."

All of Jerusalem?

[Sovereign]

One thing that started all this and blocks any subsquent resolutions.

Ego.

[orange]

Originally posted by faded glory
Great, another Israel bashing thread. I think we have proved time and again, the Israel is right here.

[CyberGnu]

Faded, whas this right after we proved that black is white and that gravity is only a misapprehension caused by to much juniper schnapps?

Well, what stopped Arafat from accepting the deal was that it did not actually permit him to create a viable Palestinian state.

Finally, read todays NYT. No claims for all of Jerusalem.