Dream wrote:Since you saw fit to take just a single word from an article that clearly is the poalr oppoite of your position, and from this word argue that it agrees with you, I can only conclude that you are either divorced form reality, or are not bothering to make any effort with this discussion.
Fortunately, I don't need to "bother" much - the arguments you put forth are rather standard fare.
And yes, on that point, B'tselem does agree with me, whether you like it or not. In fact, any sane individual that knows even a bit regarding this conflict agrees that the territories are indeed 'occupied' - whether they are on the Israeli or Palestinian side. B'tselem included, as clearly evidenced by their terminology.
Yes they are "the occupied territories" as they are on palestinian land occupied by Israel. Thus occupied territories. It is illegal under international law to create new settlements on Occupied territories and so the Settlements are illegal. Really it's not very difficult, and every expert on international law agrees with me. Amnesty does, Human rights watch does, B'tselem does.
Dream wrote:...It actively promotes the idea that the settlements are illegal...
That it does not agree with me on, you're correct. And that, I've already provided a counter-argument to, which you (and B'tselem) have yet to refute.
Please restate this, as I wrote earlier every authority on internatoinal law in the world I can think of (the world court in the united nations included) agree with me, and dream, that the settlements are illegal. Please show this revolutionising documnet which puts all of this on its head.
Dream wrote:Yes, the rights of Lebanese civilians living in peace trumps the right of Israel to choose it's methods of self defence. If you don't understand that I believe this...
You seem to be under the assumption that I care about what you "believe" in. You can feel free to believe that should you wish to do so, but it doesn't mean it has any basis in reality. I've asked you to provide evidence for such a basis, and you've failed to do so.
The basis is international law which deals with things like not killing four thousand [insert group] in responce to an attack that killed two [insert other group] and declares that this is infact illegal. So you might say "But israel has to defend itself!" but if the threat is that occasionally a border soldier will get kidnapped for ransom, and the method of defense is devestating an entire nation then infact this is illegal and again most authorities on international law who had their say about it (never came to the world court ofcourse) agreed that Israel was using agregious amount of force in responce to a fairly insignificant act, deliberatly targeting civilian structures such as power plants, roads, and various infrastructure and taking little into account the civilian lives at stake.
Now if you find these laws that are designed to prevent escalation of violence, which is essentally what Israel has been doing for the past 50-60 years, are poor or immoral then fine, but to me they seem infact very sensible and somewhat understated.
Dream wrote:In short: No gratuitous killing of civilians just because it makes you more secure. They don't deserve it.
And again, your continued use of a straw-man argument. Quite frankly, if that's the argument you're trying to go against, then you should be rather embarrassed considering it'd be rather easy to find the Geneva Conventions prohibiting deliberate targeting of civilians.
But as always, I never argued that "gratuitous killing of civilians just because it makes you secure" is legitimate.
Yet you do seem to have supported an ethnic cleansing, the lebanon wars, both of which were gratuitous killing for a sense of Israeli security when infact, and I find it hard to believe Israeli mlitary advicers were not aware of this, they are and were couter productive to Israeli safety.
Either way, I do condemn any deliberate bombing of exclusively civilian targets, as well as the use of cluster bombs in Lebanon (that was just downright stupid).
What about the deliberate shooting of exclusively civilian targets? It's uncontroersial that it occurs with some frequency, though ofcourse the IDF denies either the deliberate, the exclusive or both. But if you trust witnesses more than the accused then it's uncontroversial.
My point is that it is not purely on the basis of ethnicity. If you look at the definition I quoted above, it is clear that the purpose of ethnic cleansing is to make an area ethnically "pure" in some sense of the word. There's a whole article there to read if you want to. The issue here boils down to a semantic argument. You are using all the negative connotations of ethnic cleansing to argue against what Israel did in 1948, when in fact these connotations apply to a definition of the term which is not equivalent to the one you are using.
The creation of an Israeli state in the desired location would require an ethnic cleansing of Arabs to infact be a majority jewish state, this is known and it was known. Now you might say "but look they were dangerous!" or whatever but everyone knew the arabs had to go and out the arabs went, it had alot to do with ethnicity.
as for "negative connotations" denying refugees the right of return is infact, a bad thing. It's not like we're skillfully using words in order to make it seem bad. It is bad. It's like saying we are using the "negative connotations" of murder in order to make Israel seem like a bad guy for killing children who throw rocks at Israeli oppressors.
As for ethnic cleansing, promising to drive the Jews into the sea would clearly be an example of ethnic cleansing, were it carried out. Removal of people that have a relatively high (but still possibly low) chance of being terrorists is not ethnic cleansing. If there were no terrorists, there would be fewer difficulties between the Palestinian state/government/whatever it is right now and Israel.
Okey so you would like to make it legal for russia to move all thechnyans out into siberia on the pretext that they might all infact be terrorists, why not move all the Kurds in Iraq or turkey away somewhere else too, they might be terrorsts too.
This argument is incredibly poor, and what you are suggesting is collective punishment in some extreme way, ignoring the fact that Palestinian terrorism was quite rare untill the first intifada, while Israeli killings of Palestinians was not quite so rare. you define Palestinian actions against Israel as terrorism, Israeli actions against Palestine as "self defense" and then ascribe it legal for Israel, in self defense, to perform horrible terrorist act and human rights abuses on Palestinians because "they are all terrorists", though to be fair you didn't say they were all terorirsts, but that there was a higher chance they were. I hope you yourself see that this is infact insane.
Of course! After all the USA did during the Cold war to spread democracy/create allies, do you think it would give up on the one democratic state in the middle east (ignore Iraq for now)?
Hahaha, yeah Dream already adressed this but America during the cold war also backed Saddam Hussein, deposed several democratically elected socialist and or communist leaders and generally seemed to have no issue dealing with dictators as much as presidents or the like.
It showed up earlier on this thread that we should not condone Israel's discrimination, racism, and human rights abuses just because there are others out there that are worse. While this is true, why aren't more people complaining about the abuses that occur elsewhere, in the area and elsewhere as well - because this is Israel? How about the USA, which stole a third of a continent from the Native Americans? Sure, that was 150 years ago that it ended, but it was far worse than anything going on in Israel. My point is, just about any other nation would be criticized to a lesser degree.
So your sollution to this is we should infact ignore these abuses since we all do them, except to a varying degree? Again it should be obvious why this is an extremly poor choice of action. First of all complaining about the treatment of native americans 150 years ago would be quite inane, sure we should know about it but I would rather take care of people who are infact alive.
Second the reason so many people like to complain about Israel is because of people like you who infact defend these actions. There are quite few people trying to defend Stalin, but alot of people who support the oppression human rights abuses against the palestinians, so rather than Preach to the Choir about how terrible Stalin was it is more productive to point out how bad Israel is. This should not be controversial but it has come up again and again in this thread.
For both sides, peace is what matters more, IMO. Stop the terrorism first, but the Palestinian authorities are clearly helping, so that will be easily settled. With the excellent example set by the responses to the Oslo accords, we'll have a nice setup soon.
I agree, let's stop the terrorism, let's tear down the wall, actually punish soldiers who kill innocent civilians, free political prisoners and give suspected terrorists fair trials with the right to a legal defense. That might atleast be a good start but there are plenty of solutions.