Bloodbath in Gaza

[Ned]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
We could debate back and forth, but I would argue that self-determination doesn't give you the right to exclude native inhabitants (including refugees). Self-determination means a nation can't be kept in someone else's state against it's will. So the Jews have a right to self-determination, but they don't have a right to ethnically cleanse the place.

You might want to take a close look at the differences between the rights of Arab Israelis and the privelges of Jewish Israelis. Also consider how the Palestinians are treated in the occupied territories and then compare this to Apartheid. You will find them very similar. It's ethnic discrimination, because Christian Palestinians (8% of the Palestinian pop) are discriminated against also.

The word "ethnic" is loaded, isn't it. The only thing that is "illegal" under international law is apartheid. But this is specifically limited to "racial" discrimination. Religious discrimination is not "illegal" under international law.

There are many examples today of institutionalized religious discrimination, from that of communist societies which discriminate against all religions, to Muslim theocracies, to the Church of England which historically has discriminated against Catholics. Indeed, the US may be the only country in the world that has officially and constitutionally outlawed religious discrimination.

What this all means is that religious or anti-religious states are legal under international law.

Now, if one goes the next step and begins to exterminate people of a specific religion, that is genocide under international law. Further, if one forceably transfers population, that is a crime against humanity.

Now, Israel may have been guilty of the latter in 1948-9. But today, it is not guilty of apartheid, in my view.

[Ned]

I think, CyberGnu, that refugees have a right of return under intenational law only when there is a peace treaty among beligerant parties. There is no general peace agreement between Israel and its Arab/Moslem enemies.

But let me examine here a countervailing priniciple. You and I agree that Israel has a right to exist. But what do we mean by this?

I think it means that Israel has a right to exist as a Jewish state.

But, this is exactly where we cross the line with the Arabs. They may say that Israel has a right to exist; but they also say that the refugees have a right of return. But we know that if this were to happen, it would destroy the Jewish state by making it non Jewish. The bottom line, therefor, is the Arabs still have not recognized Israel's right to exist. They have only recognized the right of the present residents of Israel to citizenship in an Arab-dominated state named Israel.

[CyberGnu]

I think, CyberGnu, that refugees have a right of return under intenational law only when there is a peace treaty among beligerant parties. There is no general peace agreement between Israel and its Arab/Moslem enemies.

Actually, displacing a people from an occupied area is a war crime.... Displacing them from your own country is a crime against humanity. Just pick which one you'd prefer...

Whether a state of war exists between Israel and the rest of the ME doesn't matter.

But let me examine here a countervailing priniciple. You and I agree that Israel has a right to exist. But what do we mean by this?

I think it means that Israel has a right to exist as a Jewish state.

Practically, I agree with you.

But, this is exactly where we cross the line with the Arabs. They may say that Israel has a right to exist; but they also say that the refugees have a right of return. But we know that if this were to happen, it would destroy the Jewish state by making it non Jewish.

No, we don't know this. I've showed you a dozen times in this thread that your argument is based on a flawed assumption. Israel could solve the RoR and preserve a jewish state. These are only mutually exclusive if you include 'while keeping all the land they have occupied throughout the years' as well.

[Ned]

CyberGnu, Except for the fact that the PALS end up with more land under your formula, how is relocating a refugee into Palestinian Judea, Samaria or Gaza different from locating a refugee on Israeli land land adjacent to one of the these. The refugee really wants to be in Israel. He doe not want to be relocated to the West Bank or Gaza.

As to land, the Arabs have plenty of it, particularly if one considers that Trans Jordan is really just the East Bank of historic Palestine. Israel has very little land. It makes no sense for Israel to give up some of its land to in order to crowd 5.5 million refugees into a few square miles of now vacant wasteland. This would be the equivalent of crowding an NFL football team into a phone booth.

The Israeli proposal on RoR makes eminent sense. The Arab position, stiicking to the formula expressed in GA 194, is unacceptable in my view.

[CyberGnu]

Except for the fact that the PALS end up with more land under your formula, how is relocating a refugee into Palestinian Judea, Samaria or Gaza different from locating a refugee on Israeli land land adjacent to one of the these.

Because there are people living in current palestine already. Would you chase them away to make room for the refugees?

Look. Israel drove the refugees away, and settled jews in the land instead. Why do you keep insisting that the palestinians or arabs should take in those refugees, and refusing to even consider the possibility of Israel actually hadning back the land it stole?

You;ve answered 'because there are Israelis already living there' a couple of times, but you keep ignoring the two counterarguments: Those Israelis have no right to live there in the first place, and if regardless of where the refugees go, there are people living there anyway.

The logical conclusion MUST be that if someone should leave to make room for the returning refugees, it should be the people who stole their land, not their neighbours!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The refugee really wants to be in Israel.

?

You really think the refugees want to live in Israel? They want their own land. If they can't have that, living in Israel is most likely better than living in the camps, but still.

It makes no sense for Israel to give up some of its land to in order to crowd 5.5 million refugees into a few square miles of now vacant wasteland.

Eh, that is how they live right now... I'm talking about a lot more than a few square miles, of course. Something on the order of a third of current Israel, perhaps.

The Israeli proposal on RoR makes eminent sense.

Which one is that? 'Learn to live with it'?

The Arab position, stiicking to the formula expressed in GA 194, is unacceptable in my view

Only if accepting greed as valid reason not to give the land back is an acceptable arugment....

[Ned]

A third of Israel? CyberGnu, whether your position is morally correct, legally correct or whatever, Israel will never agree to give up that much land to solve the RoR problem. The US won't back it either. I doubt if even the UN would ask this of Israel. It is a non starter.

[CyberGnu]

I know it is a non starter. But it is a possibility, and concluding that Israel can't solve the RoR is thus false.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Ned

The word "ethnic" is loaded, isn't it. The only thing that is "illegal" under international law is apartheid. But this is specifically limited to "racial" discrimination. Religious discrimination is not "illegal" under international law.

Bah international law is stupid IMO. But at least you clearly used the word illegal.

There are many examples today of institutionalized religious discrimination, from that of communist societies which discriminate against all religions, to Muslim theocracies, to the Church of England which historically has discriminated against Catholics. Indeed, the US may be the only country in the world that has officially and constitutionally outlawed religious discrimination.
What this all means is that religious or anti-religious states are legal under international law.

True, religious discrimination is "legal". It would be unfair to impose religious tolerance on isrealis.

Now, if one goes the next step and begins to exterminate people of a specific religion, that is genocide under international law. Further, if one forceably transfers population, that is a crime against humanity.

Now, Israel may have been guilty of the latter in 1948-9. But today, it is not guilty of apartheid, in my view.

The damage has been done, whether Isrealis are 'guilty' of a crime or not. Even if it was integrated now, Arabs would complain that they would have hard time finding rent, etc due to Israeli presence there already... Either way it's not gonna be an easy solution and I for sure cannot see any ideal just solution being worked out.

[Ned]

Calc II, we seem to be on the same page on the refugees. The problem I have is the Arab insistance on GA 194 passed in 1949. When it was passed, the war was still ongoing or just winding down. The refugees had just been displaced and still had homes to go back to. I also assume that the UN assumed that the warring parties would enter into a peace treaty of some sort.

Well, the Arabs agreed only to stop fighting. They then entered into a cold war with Israel that flared up again in '67 and '73. That cold war continues even 'til today.

But the adherence to GA 194 also continues even though the ability to implemented it (easily) has long since vanished. At the same time, the refugees have been in those camps for 50+ years. Whole generations have been born who have never seen their ancient homeland. To say that these people as well have a right of return is a stretch.

But this issue also explains why Palestine cannot be solved with only Arafat at the table. This is not an issue between the Palestinians and the Israeli's only. The very absence of the other Arabs states from the table illustrates their unwillingness to help solve the refugee problem.