Wars and Conflicts permalink
Israel's greatest threat?
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.
Posted by ShaneONeal (U14303502) on Tuesday, 28th September 2010
Legitimacy, or the lack thereof, is Israel's greatest threat.
“Israel cannot bomb it way to legitimacy.” ~ Ali Abunimah
“Israel” went to Palestine with the stated goal of taking over the land and creating a Jewish state. They proceeded in creating a de facto state in Palestine with its own military. After the UN General Assembly passed resolution 181, (that was never implemented) Israel sent its military from neighborhood to town to village driving the Palestinians out at the point of a gun. This is not conjecture it is historical fact.
International law states that it is inadmissible to acquire land through the threat or use of force. This is a major problem for Israel. It has military control over land, i.e. occupies land, that it cannot legally claim.
International law also states that an occupier cannot move its population into occupied territory. Does this mean that Israeli towns, like Sderot for example, are in fact illegal settlements? That would appear to be the case. -
Message 2
Posted by Thomas_B (U1667093) on Tuesday, 28th September 2010
ShaneONeal,
International law also states that an occupier cannot move its population into occupied territory. Does this mean that Israeli towns, like Sderot for example, are in fact illegal settlements? That would appear to be the case.
You may tell that example the after WWII driven Germans from the territories which are since then belonging to Poland, they´d be very happy upon your support. You might as well tell that the during WWII and in its aftermath driven Polish from the former Polish East-territories which are since then belongs to Ukraine, they either would as well be happy or puzzled upon your opinion, expressed in your OP.
Same principle, different times and different countries. So what it valid for the Palestinians, is valid as well for the Germans and the Polish and other people as well (?). -
Message 3
Posted by TimTrack (U1730472) on Tuesday, 28th September 2010
Same principle, different times and different countries. So what it valid for the Palestinians, is valid as well for the Germans and the Polish and other people as well (?).
Well, yes it is.
But we covered this very point on the other thread not so very long ago. I thought you had agreed that you can't justify one crime by reference to another.
But I am confused.
Are you now agreeing or dis-agreing that the Palestinians were forcibly ejected ? -
Message 4
Posted by Thomas_B (U1667093) on Tuesday, 28th September 2010
TimTrack,
Are you now agreeing or dis-agreing that the Palestinians were forcibly ejected ?
I disagree because if they hadn´t started the war against Israel in 1948, they wouldn´t had been "forcibly ejected" as you like to say. -
Message 5
Posted by TimTrack (U1730472) on Tuesday, 28th September 2010
I disagree because if they hadn´t started the war against Israel in 1948, they wouldn´t had been "forcibly ejected" as you like to say.
Your confusion seems complete.
Now your case SEEMS to be :
1) They were not forced off the land.
2) But they deserved to be forced off.
Whether it was Arabs or Jews who started it is rather moot only on the basis that it was a simmering tension over a 70 year period. That, for Zionists, the war, and persuant expulsions, were necessary in order to obtain a set goal, is less easy to doubt. -
Message 6
Posted by Thomas_B (U1667093) on Tuesday, 28th September 2010
TimTrack,
Your confusions are made up by your own interpretations of my posts. So I leave you alone to sort your confusion out by yourself and consider yourself whether your interpretation is correct (which I assume you´ll see it that way), or you´ve missed some aspects in the historical development of that area (which I really doubt you will).
Have a good time.
Bye then. -
Message 7
Posted by U3280211 (U3280211) on Tuesday, 28th September 2010
To Thomas
if they hadn´t started the war against Israel in 1948, they wouldn´t had (sic) been "forcibly ejected" as you like to say.
Don't be absurd. Please provide the sources you are using to back-up these corruptions of history.
Israel exists because a mass of mostly European Jews invaded and took-over Palestine. The expulsion was started by the Jews.
Palestine had fewer than 10,000 Jews in 1900, most in and around Jerusalem. By 1939 Palestine had 430,000. When the DP camps were emptied after the German Holocaust against European Jews, the DP's moved to Cyprus then to Palestine by 1948. 700,000 Palestinians were driven from their homes. How can you deny that?
Palestinians were pushed aside from their own land. Ben Gurion admitted this, so why can't you? (See Ron David "Arabs and Israel" (2001).
Have you heard of the IDF media spokesman, Mark Regev?
Check out his real name:
Freiburg! Have you ever heard of such a place?
His attempt to hide his European ancestry is typical of Israel Jews who pretend to have enduring links to a land they took over by force and ethnic cleansing. -
Message 8
Posted by U3280211 (U3280211) on Tuesday, 28th September 2010
Shane (OP)
Legitimacy, or the lack thereof, is Israel's greatest threat.
Exactly.
Keep up the good work. -
Message 9
Posted by Idamante (U1894562) on Tuesday, 28th September 2010
I am concerned that Shane ONeal and U3280211 are trying to turn this into an Israel-bashing forum. I hope the moderator is keeping an eye on this.
If I wanted to read this kind of historically illiterate left-wing propaganda I would go to the Guardian comment pages, not a 鶹Լ forum on 'Wars and conflicts'. -
Message 10
Posted by Vizzer aka U_numbers (U2011621) on Tuesday, 28th September 2010
Palestine had fewer than 10,000 Jews in 1900, most in and around Jerusalem. By 1939 Palestine had 430,000.
Palestine was UK occupied territory from 1917 to 1948. Does this mean that all those who settled there during those years were in breach of international law? -
Message 11
Posted by suvorovetz (U12273591) on Tuesday, 28th September 2010
I am concerned that Shane ONeal and U3280211 are trying to turn this into an Israel-bashing forum. I hope the moderator is keeping an eye on this. Don't hold your breath. One of them repeatedly stated that he keeps these threads going to promote "the Palestinian Cause," which is a violation of the "Rules and Guidlines"
...by definition. -
Message 12
Posted by ShaneONeal (U14303502) on Tuesday, 28th September 2010
"I am concerned that Shane ONeal and U3280211 are trying to turn this into an Israel-bashing forum. I hope the moderator is keeping an eye on this"
Oh! Do you prefer censorship to discussion, Idamante? -
Message 13
Posted by ShaneONeal (U14303502) on Tuesday, 28th September 2010
"One of them repeatedly stated that he keeps these threads going to promote "the Palestinian Cause,"
Who said that and where? -
Message 14
Posted by suvorovetz (U12273591) on Tuesday, 28th September 2010
Who said that and where? Here's a sample - one of many (see mssg 305 @ the top):
...real expose of a powerful Marxist mind at work...sophisticated historical deliberation of the highest quality, no less. -
Message 15
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Tuesday, 28th September 2010
I just dipped into Bruno Bettelheim's "The Children of the Dream" again and found out about the two violently opposed strands within the Jews who created Israel. Because he was really interested in the kibbutz as an experiment in child-rearing that was the focus of his study, and it seems that a great many kibbuzim were very strongly Socialist and Communist, as well as atheist. They believed in the communalism and rejection of private property and bourgeois ownership that was a feature of Russian Communist ideology- and was being acted upon in much of Eastern Europe, especially East Germany where the USSR helped itself to "reparattions". But then the USSR did not end the Second World War till 1955.
So Iwonder how did the USSR act on the issue of Israel in 1948?
And yes. The whole question of legal ownership seems to be fundamental to this whole question.. To what extent does mere occupancy, or the sense of belonging to a place create a right of ownership. On the Rome thread I recently posted that Rome "owned" all of its Empire. What about Turkey? Were the Arabs not a subject people in the Turkish Empire? They certainly do not appear to have been a free and autonous one. Hence their joining with Britain and her Allies in what was for them a war of Liberation.
In British history, Socialist historians have made much capital out of what happened during the enclosure movement to those with no legal right to be in that community apart from the right of squatters not to be evicted from accommodation if they managed to move into a parish overnight and have a roof over their head and a fire burning under it by morning.
Over the years. often centurues, most had found paid work and supplemented that with use of the free commons. But when the villagers opted to move from communal living to ownership, and received allocations of land from the old open fields- according to their old copyholder rights-squatters could present no legal title.
But those who were allocated land were not just given "ownership". They had to pay a proportionate share of the cost of the whole enclosure process, and also they were required by law to fence and ditch their property to show their clear possession and responsibility. Many of them in fact could not afford ownership and sold up their family stake.
Rights of ownership are only viable like other rights when balanced by responsibilties.
Cass -
Message 16
Posted by ShaneONeal (U14303502) on Tuesday, 28th September 2010
"Rights of ownership are only viable like other rights when balanced by responsibilties."
Right...so, you agree then that "International law states that it is inadmissible to acquire land through the threat or use of force. This is a major problem for Israel. It has military control over land, i.e. occupies land, that it cannot legally claim.
International law also states that an occupier cannot move its population into occupied territory." -
Message 17
Posted by suvorovetz (U12273591) on Tuesday, 28th September 2010
Right...so, you agree then that "International law states that it is inadmissible to acquire land through the threat or use of force. This is a major problem for Israel. It has military control over land, i.e. occupies land, that it cannot legally claim. What land exactly are you talking about? Did you even hold a school map in your hands - ever? I think Idamante is on to something; it looks as if all your "knowledge comes from Guardian editorials.
-
Message 18
Posted by Vizzer aka U_numbers (U2011621) on Tuesday, 28th September 2010
International law also states that an occupier cannot move its population into occupied territory. Does this mean that Israeli towns, like Sderot for example, are in fact illegal settlements? That would appear to be the case.
Hardly. Considering Sderot is on land already recognised as Israeli prior to the signing of the United Nations Charter by Israel in 1949. -
Message 19
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Tuesday, 28th September 2010
ShaneOneal
I think that international law is a very interesting "animal" since there is in fact no international government.. And to some extent all law is theoretical and notional, since what really matters is law enforcement and not legality..
In my experience those who are most likely to say "I know my rights" are exactly those who do next to nothing to ensure that everyone gets as many of "their rights" as possible.The most famous example- as has been noted on the MB many times- is that the American Declaration of Idependence claimed inalienable rights for the colonists in their relations with the Crown, but unlike Magna Carta was not applied by those claiming those rights to others like the slaves or the native Americans.
The art of politics, government, law enforcement, and ,in fact, both classroom teaching and family life is very much all about knowing when to apply laws or not, and when the spirit of the law would be undermined by the application of the letter.
As for saying that land acquired through the threat or use of force can not be legally owned surely that throws into question the land settlement of much of the world: or is it OK to pass a statute of limitations on such aquisitions in ages past.. All property is theft.
The root problem is this obsession with the whole idea that people can own anything either individually of collectively. It was an idea that became so important in the reign of George III in England- the idea that the land, the Earth, the mineral rights and all of our Earthly inheritance can be exclusively owned by anyone , or group or nation through an extension of chattell ownership that became associated with Lord Chief Justice Mansfield- who was able to apply it to the slaves drowned by the captain of the Zong.
But I read recently that Scottish law was much closer to Roman law- and Roman law said that the Romans owned all the land that they conquered.
I believe that both Judaism and Islam share the same basic religious idea that we are not the owners of the Earth, but rather that we are mere stewards who have a responsibility for looking after it and cherishing it. Both also believe that we are all children of one God and should live together as brothers.. Much more sensible than squabbling and destroying life on earth through increments.
Cass -
Message 20
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Tuesday, 28th September 2010
Further to my last, I believe that recourse to the law indicates a breakdown and failure in human relations that a legal judgement is just as likely to perpetuate as to diminish.. And only when backed by arbitrary and effective power is it possible to say "and this will be the end of the matter". But even then reconciliation is almost impossible.These days even law courts do not seem to possess that authority and people are glad to make endless appeals against judgements- especially, it seems, when it is at the public expense and not their own.
Mohandas K. Gandhi had a very successful career as a barrister within the ex-pat "Coolie" community of South Africa by keeping parties in a civil dispute out of court. He regarded it as the best use of his training in the law to bring together both parties that were "brothers" within the Indian community, whatever their religion, and to try to spare them all of the expense and bother of court procedings that would leave lasting bitterness and enmity. His task as he saw it was to negotiate an amicable out-of-court settlement which produced a positive outcome in which both parties could look forward and might be future friends instead of enemies.
Cass -
Message 21
Posted by Thomas_B (U1667093) on Wednesday, 29th September 2010
U3280211,
Palestinians were pushed aside from their own land. Ben Gurion admitted this, so why can't you? (See Ron David "Arabs and Israel" (2001).
You are still picking the pieces that suits, do you?
As usual, you don´t bother to tell about the background of what and why Ben Gurion admitted what you like to use as a citation.
Frankly, I wouldn´t be surprised if you would as well had sympathies for the Provisional IRA, because they had "good relations" to their "terrorist comerades of the PLO". For they both shared one similar cause. Their "fight" against an "oppressive government". The PIRA against the British Government in NI, the PLO against the State of Israel. Further to place bombs at public spots to kill innocent people as well. What "honourable" attitudes they share and "for the sake of the cause to get freedom", you don´t bother to consider these kind of "guerilla warfare" as wrong. They stand in line with Al-Quida in their attempts to achieve political aims by using violence and terrorizing the country.
I don´t give much attention to the figures you´ve brought up in your post, you can have it for yourself, it doesn´t matter, because to me, it doesn´t justify your claims upon an "invasion" of Palestine by the Jews. You also neglect that the Jews didn´t robbed the land from the Arabs, they payd for that legally. -
Message 22
Posted by Andrew Host (U1683626) on Wednesday, 29th September 2010
Hi all,
We already do have a thread on a very similar theme here:
Furthermore this discussion seems to relate more to the present-day situation in the Middle East than its history and so is off-topic for these boards. I'm going to close this thread in favour of the older one. When contributing to the other thread please remember to keep it historical.
Many thanks
Andrew
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
鶹Լ iD
鶹Լ navigation
鶹Լ links
鶹Լ © 2014 The 鶹Լ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.