The EU's position on the ME conflict is anti-Israel/antisemitic ?

[Roland]

"... to commit the unpardonable sin of expelling the Palestinians and letting them cool off somewhere else. I realize most people see this as worse than murder..."

I don't see it as worse than murder. After all, before deciding the Endlösung, the nazis had all kinds of plans for deporting the jews from europe, to Siberia, Madagascar.... but you're getting close.

Natan:

"Sharon has refused to negotiate with Arafat until a cease fire is achieved."

That was. He's considering expelling him, following Netanyahu there. Even if he wanted, I doubt Sharon could afford this with N. in his neck.

Ned:

"What are Israel's views of the EU's position? Neutral? or biased towards the Palestinians?"

Israel sees us as pro-palestinian. The Pals see us as pro-Israel, just less so than the US. Both are so dug into their selfrightousness that anything short of unconditional support will be seen as bias for the other side. Do you really think the two sides in a conflict are the most objective arbiter ?

"On the legality issue, why, in your opinion, is Israel's founding of new settlements in the West Bank illegal?"

It is illegal under the rules of war to settle occupied land. And IIRC it has also been ruled (or "legislated") being illegal by the one authority that can make such decisions, the SC.

"Also, if you know, why is there no democracy in Arabia?"

The only country getting cose is Lebanon... you can't pin it down to a single reason, but if you look at east asia, democracy usually followed "development dictatorship". This and economic development never took place (and Lebanon is also the economically most vibrant arab society), with national (panarab) issues unsettled, religious unrest and the conflicts with Israel and about oil. Islam is a political religion, much more so than buddhism, confucianism or even christianity.

"...we really ought to try to craft a solution that includes true democracy in Palestine."

There are (or were, now) some democratic elements in the PA. But I do not think this is a requirement for peace, as it worked with Egypt and Jordan - not exactly posterboy democracies. Just as much, a viable pal state at peace is a precondition for developping a working democracy.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov
Electronic intifada is filled with lies, made up after the fact, to make better show.

For that it has an awful lot of sources to back itself up.

Perhaps you have not read the article on Barak's offer. I do not see the articles you linked to did much to refute the detailed analysis given. It even agreed that the new PA position does not differ much from the original claims of the PA Camp David delegation.

Furthermore, Assaf Oron agrees with the basic premise of the analysis.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Ned
Roland, Israel was attacked by Jordan in 1967. It took the West Bank from them in a defensive war. That territory is Israel's to do with as it pleases, and no one else's. Their "occupation" is not "illegal."

How is this occupation legal? I recall of no international law that allows one country to indefinitely occupy the territory of another country.

It is not Israel's territory and it definitely cannot "do with as it pleases."

[Ned]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


How is this occupation legal? I recall of no international law that allows one country to indefinitely occupy the territory of another country.

It is not Israel's territory and it definitely cannot "do with as it pleases."

There as so many examples of one country taking land from another as a result of war that I don't even want to begin down that path. If the result of the war is accepted, there can be peace. If the result is not, there is no peace. Example A, World War II.

The stance of the Arab countries to NEVER acknowledge Israel's right to exist and to constantly make war on her has lead straight to unending violence and hatred. If one accepts in principle the proposition you propose that the disputed territories are not Israel's, then one must also accept the corollary that nothing in the region is Israel's because ALL of it was taken from Arab hands.

As to the UN, the SC edicts in this matter are little more than declarations of war on Israel. They are not law.

Ned

[Ecthy]

You Israeli guys celebrate about Palestinian police stations being destroyed by tanks and bulldozers but in the same time demand Arafat to arrest guys that are in connection to suicide bombings. How is he supposed to persecute and arrest criminals without the necessary infrastructure? If you destroy the buildings and computers, burn the files, how are they supposed to persecute the responsibles?

Occupation fo territory is never legal or justified i nany sophisticated person's eyes, for it always leads to suffering for those people that are occupied. It does so for Palestinians as it did for the Slavs in Eastern Europe and later on for Germans in what you'd nowadays call Poland. Israel gained those territories in a defenseive war, as did the Poles in WWII (well, as a vassal of someone who was actually fighting a defensive war with a rather offensive future planning ); in both cases, it led to oppression of innocent civilians. And don't you tell me those Germans were not innocent

[ZoboZeWarrior]

PA policman is a good job. If you obey to Israel you're killed by your citizen. If you don't serve Israel your are kill by them.

[Roland]

"There as so many examples of one country taking land from another as a result of war..."

1st, war for territorial gain is outlawed unter international law since 1945 at the latest. 2nd, changes of territory require a peace treaty and international recognition (or consuetudo/opinio iuris). 3rd, occupation per se is not illegal.

"The stance of the Arab countries to NEVER acknowledge Israel's right to exist"

Egypt ? Jordan ?

"...one must also accept the corollary that nothing in the region is Israel's because ALL of it was taken from Arab hands."

Israel is acknowledged in the borders of 1949.

"As to the UN, the SC edicts in this matter are little more than declarations of war on Israel."

Oh please, that's silly hyperbole. Or do you mean the GA resolutions ?

"They are not law."

They are.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Roland
"The stance of the Arab countries to NEVER acknowledge Israel's right to exist"

Egypt ? Jordan ?

The signatories to the Khartoum Resolutions?

[Ned]

Roland, If war to gain territory is outlawed, what about territory gained as a result of a defensive war?

With the exception of Jordan and Egypt, has any Arab country recognized Israel?

With regard to the UN, it did recognize Israel. But since the Arabs have not (again excluding Jordan and Egypt), the Arabs are in violation of international law, not Israel.

The UN clearly is not balanced here. It should require, indeed demand! that the Arabs recognize Israel as a precondition for requiring Israel to give up any land it took from the Arabs in its defensive wars.

This gets back full circle to the underlying problem. The UN, the EU and the US have to put pressure on the Arabs to accept and recognize Israel. However, I hear the news from Texas this morning that the Saudi Crown Prince has threatened the United States over its support of Israel. Outrageous!

Ned

[Ecthy]

I answered several of your questions...

[Roland]

"If war to gain territory is outlawed, what about territory gained as a result of a defensive war?"

That's possible, although some might dispute it. Accordingly the borders of 1949 are recognized. About the territories occupied in 1967 - well, you could argue that Israel may annex them. But Israel would NOT be entitled to expell the population, or subject it to an apartheid system. Under these conditions, Israel does not WANT to annex them....

"With regard to the UN, it did recognize Israel. But since the Arabs have not (again excluding Jordan and Egypt), the Arabs are in violation of international law, not Israel."

Hmm... interesting question. Denying recognition is not illegal, but acting actively against a generally recognised state is an act of agression. A further violation is of course that many arab states sponsor terrorism - Iraq, Syria, Saudi Arabia. Or commit genocide (Sudan). Etc.

"The UN clearly is not balanced here. It should require, indeed demand! that the Arabs recognize Israel as a precondition for requiring Israel to give up any land it took from the Arabs in its defensive wars."

The SC resolutions, the EU and the US position are all based on land for peace - and peace means of course recognizing Israel. And this was the deal with Egypt...

[Ned]

Rolland, We are coming to something like a concensus here. You are beginning to see that it is the Arabs, who have steadfastly refused to recognize Israel, who have repeatedly made war on her, who have no legal basis for conditioning their cessation of hostilities on Israel's agreement to cede land back to them it took in a defensive war. The Arab position is "illegal."

I also like your concession that Israel has the legal right to annex the West Bank. This was the point I made earlier. For example, it was not "illegal" for Americans to emigrate to and found new cities in California after it took California from Mexico in 1848. After enough Americans entered and settled in California, the U.S. made it a state. Up until that time, the U.S. could have returned California to Mexico or made it independent. The same is true today of Puerto Rico, an American "possession." I am sure the EU would not take the position that American emigration to Puerto Rico was "illegal."

I also agree that if Israel annexed the West Bank, it would have to grant full citizenship to the residents there who are not currently citizens. Don't dismiss the possibility of annexation out of hand. It makes a lot of sense.

Ned

[Roland]

Ned:

"You are beginning to see...."

I've always been aware of the problems with the arab position. But I'm also aware of the problems with the Israeli fundies.

"I also like your concession that Israel has the legal right to annex the West Bank."

Ah.... I said you could argue the case, it's not clear. But it's politically way out of line - "it would have to grant full citizenship to the residents there who are not currently citizens." That would make a state with now 5-6 million jews and then about 5 million Israeli arabs. That option is way out for Israel.

[Roland]

But back to the original topic - has this been all to support the charge of an anti-israel bias in the EU's position ?

[Ned]

Roland, I don't think the EU position is anti-Semitic, just biased against Israel. This bias could be for a number of reasons, including the obvious economic self interest or humanitarian concerns for the obviously suffering Palestinians. However, I still contend the solution to the problem is to get tough on the Arabs to accept reasonable deals, such as that offered by Barak, and get on with it.

Ned