Israel/Palestine discussion

[LaserGuy]

It's not a strawman, it is applying the criteria you specified to an equivalent situation.

No, you're not. As I said, just a negative impact on another country doesn't determine a right or lack thereof to sovereignty. I specified several criteria and the only one you're using is the one I explicitly said wasn't a criterion.

I'm going to chalk this one up to partially a reading comprehension fail on my part, although it is still not clear to me what criteria other than "harms another nation" you are actually using, in practice. The problem here is that I'm reading this statement

These are strawmen. I never said that, if the existence of your country harms another country then you don't have a right to sovereignty.

as "I never said that. If the existence...", when you are wanting it to be read as "I never said that if the existence..."


That said, I still contend that you have the situation entirely backwards. A people can assert sovereignty over certain lands, regardless of whether another state already controls those lands. An assertion of sovereignty is almost necessarily unilateral, because the other nation is almost never going to want to lose those territories. Most nations aren't formed by negotiations or by being "given" lands (this latter case has almost never happened, AFAIK). It's not clear to me why you feel that the sovereignty movement of the American colonists was acceptable (or maybe you don't?) and the sovereignty movement of the Palestinians is not.

[EdgarJPublius]

Sourmilk: that's not how the international community defines sovereignty, and it doesn't even particularly make sense as a moral/ethical definition of sovereignty.

[sourmìlk]

LaserGuy: the American revolution was justified because it was necessary to preserve the American's right to self-determination, which the British refused to do. However, if the Americans had no justification for revolting and simply arbitrarily wanted to, the British would be under no obligation to help them or even let them as it would harm their empire. That's my point.

Jules: that principle is entirely irrelevant to what I'm discussing. Rather, I'm discussing a country's right to self-determination, which says that a country should not have its borders changed by any other entity, and that's something that secession does. I've detailed the problems with granting people the right to arbitrarily secede: do you have a specific criticism of my argument there, or can we accept that simply wanting sovereignty at the expense of another country is not sufficient grounds for having a right to it?

Edgar: I really don't see the problem of it. It allows people sovereignty if they need it, were promised it, or if they already had it, and denies others the rights to enforce their will upon the borders of another country. If you find a definition that contradicts mine, please share.

And just to make sure that is all of your view: are you all saying that any person or group has the right to secede from another country at any time for any or no reason?

[yurell]

Israel refuses to co-operate with UN Human Rights Council, and then sulks to the countries that think human rights should take precedence over political expediency.

[sourmìlk]

I don't see how that's going to help Israel, but the Human Rights Council is such an egregiously biased piece of crap that I really don't think their opinion deserves any consideration. In their 8-ish years of existence they have only passed resolutions regarding Israel, despite the fact that there are actual terrorist organizations in action and genocides going on. They've had Libya and Iran on the council, and those two countries have some of the worst human rights track records in recent history. I don't think this move gets Israel anywhere, but I don't see anything wrong with it

[zmic]

And just to make sure that is all of your view: are you all saying that any person or group has the right to secede from another country at any time for any or no reason?

If the Palestinians have no right to sovereignty, then what is the status of the land they inhabit supposed to be? Do you propose that they live in a stateless territory for the remainder of human history? That would be a rather unique situation.

You're talking about seceding but what are they seceding from? From Israel?

[zmic]

I don't see how that's going to help Israel, but the Human Rights Council is such an egregiously biased piece of crap that I really don't think their opinion deserves any consideration.

I agree that for human rights reports it's better to turn to organizations that are more neutral and less politicized, like Amnesty International.

[EdgarJPublius]

Why do you think 'national borders' supersede the will of the people actually living there?

[yoni45]

Israel refuses to co-operate with UN Human Rights Council, and then sulks to the countries that think human rights should take precedence over political expediency.

You know you could at least try to put that situation in perspective... =)

Tbh, I'm not entirely sure as to how Israel's supposed to act in these regards: the UN HRC is clearly fundamentally biased against Israel. There's not an iota of doubt in that regard. On the other hand, if they've got nothing to hide, why interrupt independent investigations? But back to that bias point -- why would Israel be expected to facilitate clearly biased actions against them?

Actually yeah -- I can't say I see anything all that wrong here: the UN HRC has thoroughly discredited itself as a competent body, so why would Israel pretend otherwise in facilitating them? Moreover, Israel's complaints to the EU states make sense: they're supporting the work of a fundamentally biased body against them, thereby granting it legitimacy.

Yeah, the UN HRC happened to hit on a point that Israel's more than likely guilty of, but the UN HRC is far from a body that can be trusted to draw that kind of conclusion either way.

[sourmìlk]

If the Palestinians have no right to sovereignty, then what is the status of the land they inhabit supposed to be? Do you propose that they live in a stateless territory for the remainder of human history? That would be a rather unique situation.

I think they should get their own state, but not because they have a right to it. Just because it's easier than absorbing them.

You're talking about seceding but what are they seceding from? From Israel?

For a given definition of "seceding", yeah.

Why do you think 'national borders' supersede the will of the people actually living there?

Because the will of a minority of people in a country wanting to redefine borders doesn't supersede the will of the majority to maintain territorial integrity. Otherwise anybody can secede at any time. It shouldn't be the case that I can simply withdraw property I own from my current country for any reason. Madness lies down that path. And furthermore, it violates the right of the country to self-determination, which allows that the country's borders are inviolable.

I agree that for human rights reports it's better to turn to organizations that are more neutral and less politicized, like Amnesty International.

A
mnesty international isn't much better. They focus disproportionately on Israel (much more than countries actually committing genocide, more than countries run by terrorist groups) and regularly express bias against Israel. They supported the Goldstone Report, an egregiously unfair report that automatically assumed the worst possible interpretation of Israel's actions without evidence. And they've hosted events with horribly anti-Semitic speakers (e.g. ones that would be happy if Iran attacked Israel and who claim that terrorist attacks on Israel are justified.)

[zmic]

If the Palestinians have no right to sovereignty, then what is the status of the land they inhabit supposed to be? Do you propose that they live in a stateless territory for the remainder of human history? That would be a rather unique situation.

I think they should get their own state, but not because they have a right to it.

well that's.. subtle

Just because it's easier than absorbing them.

You're talking about seceding but what are they seceding from? From Israel?

For a given definition of "seceding", yeah.

Then you're implying those Palestinians are currently inhabitants of Israel. Do they have the right to vote?

[sourmìlk]

The Palestinians in the areas beyond the '49 armistice lines that Israel annexed have been offered Israeli citizenship, though few decided to take it. Those in Areas A, B, and C are allowed to vote in the PA. The Palestinians' right to self-determination has been satisfied since Oslo. The only reason they even got that far is because nobody wanted to integrate them.

[zmic]

The Palestinians in the areas beyond the '49 armistice lines that Israel annexed have been offered Israeli citizenship, though few decided to take it. Those in Areas A, B, and C are allowed to vote in the PA. The Palestinians' right to self-determination has been satisfied since Oslo.

The whole point of self-determination is that the Palestinians get to judge whether their right to self-determination is satisfied, rather than you.

The only reason they even got that far is because nobody wanted to integrate them.

have they asked Iran? Maybe Iran would love some common border with Israel.

[Mambrino]

Why do you think 'national borders' supersede the will of the people actually living there?

Because the will of a minority of people in a country wanting to redefine borders doesn't supersede the will of the majority to maintain territorial integrity. Otherwise anybody can secede at any time. It shouldn't be the case that I can simply withdraw property I own from my current country for any reason. Madness lies down that path. And furthermore, it violates the right of the country to self-determination, which allows that the country's borders are inviolable.

Addressing the point I emphasized.

Actually, one could argue that every citizen has right to "secede", as you put it. The fact that, say, John Doe the random US citizen does not try to secede his ranch from US even though he has the right to do so, would be the primary reason why the US Government is a legitimate government. In terms of traditional political theory, that would be known as a right to revolt, just little modified to emphasize the role of land ownership, I think.
_{E: clarified to make more sense, I hope, English is not my first language}

[sourmìlk]

The whole point of self-determination is that the Palestinians get to judge whether their right to self-determination is satisfied, rather than you.

Whether a specific right has been satisfied isn't that subjective a thing. I'm not sure where you're getting this.

Addressing the point I emphasized.

Actually, one could argue that every citizen has right to "secede", as you put it. The fact that, say, John Doe the random US citizen does not try to secede his ranch from US even though he has the right to do so, would be the primary reason why the US Government is a legitimate government. In terms of traditional political theory, that would be known as a right to revolt, just little modified to emphasize the role of land ownership, I think.
_{E: clarified to make more sense, I hope, English is not my first language}

Your English is substantially better than that of most of the native English speakers I've encountered. That said, I recognize the right to secede given a necessity to. And I understand that you're trying to advocate a people's right to express its opinion of its government. But that doesn't mean that any person should be able to redefine the borders of another country at his whim. If a majority of people choose to redefine their own borders (not at the expense of others), then that is their prerogative. If a minority decides to change the borders of a majority, that isn't acceptable.

[EdgarJPublius]

Countries don't have a right to self-determination separate fromt he rights of the people making up the country, that's nonsense.

If the population of a specific seceded territory is all in favor of secession, then who exactly is hurt by the secession?

However, if individuals who wish to secede are prevented from doing so, the result is frequently violent and to the detriment of all involved.

[Djehutynakht]

Israel, as a political entity, makes me shake my fist in anger. In truth though, a large part of my anger is the pro-Israel lobby, which pushes for the idea that Israel is good and peaceful while Palestinians are dirty unlawful terrorists. In truth the whole double-standard in the region is something that I abhor. The history is just so messed up.

But, to look towards the future.

Disregarding their idiotic history, the pure fact of the matter is that you have your good and your bad on both sides. On both sides you do have inherently good citizens, who may also possibly just be mad at the other entity. Then you have the good parts of the two governments... those pushing for peace and security. And then you have the bad aspects... the Palestinian activists who commit acts of terror to gain ground and the Israeli security forces which treat the Palestinians despicably (going so far as to strap a 13-year old to their windshield for protection against stone-throwing).

But, hereas, a fundamental truth must also be realized. It doesn't matter who was right in the past anymore. The Israelis today have grown up on that land. They know no other.. it is their homeland. The Palestinians, likewise, have grown up on the same land... it is their homeland too. Both groups have equal claim to sovereignty over their land and the right to be treated equal to the other. So unless they're going to form a joint state (hahahaha....) each group has the inherent right to have their own state in that territory, both Israel and Palestine have the right to be a state. And both have the right to have the injustices by the other ceased (the terrorist attacks, the army occupation, et cetera, et cetera).

Some may say that the HRC is biased towards Israel (and it is considerably less so since the US joined it), but, let us face it; Israel, for all that it does, has a history of treating Palestinians like scum. I could go into the whole list of abuses they have committed (and Palestine too), but I'll save it.

Israel needs to get out of Palestinian lands and respect Palestinian sovereignty as its own state. Palestine, likewise, needs to stop any attacks on Israel, sort out its political and social mess, and respect Israeli sovereignty as its own state. They need to agree on the border. Resolve their human rights issues, and come to peace and understanding as two equal states. Neither group is going anywhere (unless the other decides to be evil) and the pure and utter nonsense going on is not going to be resolved until they come to equal and peaceful understanding and recognition.

They can bemoan however they like, but honestly, that's the only solution. Respect each other as equals, stop being violent and mean, and co-exist peacefully. Unless both sides can do this and make those concessions, there's always going to be a fight in that territory.

That's about my general summary on my view on Israel/Palestine news. My opinion does tend to fluctuate towards a devil-advocate persuasion though depending on what sides voice is currently dominating and how wrong and/or obnoxious they're being.

[yoni45]

...(going so far as to strap a 13-year old to their windshield for protection against stone-throwing)...

Bit of an aside, but have you looked at the evidence of that incident critically?

[yurell]

Yeah, I'm going to want a source for that ... it sounds incredibly unbelievable.

[sourmìlk]

Countries don't have a right to self-determination separate fromt he rights of the people making up the country, that's nonsense.

If the population of a specific seceded territory is all in favor of secession, then who exactly is hurt by the secession?

The other people in the country. If New York decides to secede, that hurts the rest of the United States. I know that countries don't have a right to self-determination separate from the rights of the people. That's why, if the majority of people in a country agree to a secession, I'm okay with that. But it can't be a majority of people in the seceding territory. Then any person can arbitrarily secede at any time for any or no reason, and that violates their current country's right to inviolable borders. Obviously a majority of people can choose to change their borders (assuming that doesn't affect another country or the other country is cool with it), but a minority within a country shouldn't be able to make the majority within a country change its borders.

Djehutynakht, I think you should read this thread. These things have been discussed.

[Angua]

I seem to remember a very similar conversation to this coming up before in this thread.

Why has no one mentioned Kosovo yet?

[yoni45]

Yeah, I'm going to want a source for that ... it sounds incredibly unbelievable.

To clarify -- there *was* an incident publicized as what's claimed there. It's just that I found the photo evidence itself rather weak if not contradictory to the claim.

[LaserGuy]

The other people in the country. If New York decides to secede, that hurts the rest of the United States.

Except that doesn't matter, according to you:

A negative impact on another country doesn't determine a right or lack thereof to sovereignty.

I never said that if the existence of your country harms another country then you don't have a right to sovereignty.

As for this...

That's why, if the majority of people in a country agree to a secession, I'm okay with that.

Let's see.

Population of Israel is 7.6 million. Of those, 1.4 million are Arab Israelis who would probably support secession. Let's assume the rest oppose.
So there are 6.2 million opposed, 1.4 million in favour.
There are 4.2 million people living in the Palestinian territories. Let's assume they all support. That's 5.6 million. You're already teetering on the edge. Population growth in the Palestinian territories is about 1% higher than in Israel proper, so they'd have a majority in 10 years or so. At that point, would you say that they are in a position to secede? Then there's also 3 million Palestinian refugees who would join the Palestinian state given the opportunity to do so. If we count those, the Palestinians are 8.6 million in favour, 6.2 million opposed, and secession passes.

[sourmìlk]

LaserGuy, I was specifically addressing the question of whom it would harm. I was not saying that that, in and of itself, makes it so that New York can't secede.

Anyways, the Palestinians have already 'seceded'. They've had their own land since Oslo. The question was not whether the Palestinians should or should not have their own state, but whether they have a right to their own state.

And not only that, but you're math is weird. Why are you counting the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza as able to decide whether Israel is willing to change its borders? The West Bank and Gaza are already separate entities from ISrael: they don't get a say in whether Israel is going to change its borders or not. If the West Bank and Gaza were part of the voting Israeli public ,then yes, their opinion would matter. But that's not the case.

[LaserGuy]

Anyways, the Palestinians have already 'seceded'. They've had their own land since Oslo. The question was not whether the Palestinians should or should not have their own state, but whether they have a right to their own state.

Uh, if the Palestinians have already seceded from Israel, then Israel has no right to stop them from making their own state, in whatever fashion that they choose to make it. They don't need Israel's permission, they don't need to negotiate anything; Israel's opinion of their internal affairs would be totally irrelevant. Now, certainly, if they claim pieces of territory that are currently under Israeli control, then those lands would be disputed, and that part of it would need to be settled by negotiation (or war). And other shared resources like water rights and whatnot might also need to be negotiated. But if the Palestinians are already independent, why do you think that they need Israel's permission to become a state and a functioning member of the international community?

And not only that, but you're math is weird. Why are you counting the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza as able to decide whether Israel is willing to change its borders? The West Bank and Gaza are already separate entities from ISrael: they don't get a say in whether Israel is going to change its borders or not. If the West Bank and Gaza were part of the voting Israeli public ,then yes, their opinion would matter. But that's not the case.

We're talking about whether the Palestinians can form their own state within the West Bank and Gaza. It is those lands that would be becoming independent of Israeli control.

Your position here is really confusing to me.

[zmic]

LaserGuy, I was specifically addressing the question of whom it would harm. I was not saying that that, in and of itself, makes it so that New York can't secede.

Anyways, the Palestinians have already 'seceded'. They've had their own land since Oslo.

Then why the outrage over Palestine's seat in UNESCO?

The question was not whether the Palestinians should or should not have their own state, but whether they have a right to their own state.

[yedidyak]

Then why the outrage over Palestine's seat in UNESCO?

Because it includes sites not under PA control, because it was against previous agreements, because it hijacks Jewish historic and cultural sites as Palestinian, and because it ignores the blatant archaeological vandalism going on on the Temple Mount by the PA.

[zmic]

Then why the outrage over Palestine's seat in UNESCO?

Because it includes sites not under PA control, because it was against previous agreements, because it hijacks Jewish historic and cultural sites as Palestinian, and because it ignores the blatant archaeological vandalism going on on the Temple Mount by the PA.

That's no reason. Nations that commit far worse crimes are member of the United Nations. Why the exception for Palestinians?

[sourmìlk]

That's no reason. Nations that commit far worse crimes are member of the United Nations. Why the exception for Palestinians?

Nations that commit worse crimes in terms of culture shouldn't have seats in UNESCO.

So LaserGuy, I'll try to clarify my position here. It's been confusing because we're using odd terminology like 'secession' that doesn't necessarily apply to this situation.

The Palestinians have no right to a state. A state is not necessary to fulfill their right to self-determination, and there aren't any other potential criteria for statehood that they might meet. It's just easier to give them a state than it is to absorb them. Now, since Oslo, the Palestinians have had their right to self-determination fulfilled. Thus if Israel were to annex the entirety of Area C, that would be stupid, but entirely within its right. This means that they don't actually have a right to any of the things they're demanding in negotiations with Israel. They're only getting those things because Israel can exchange it for an end to the conflict.

[zmic]

That's no reason. Nations that commit far worse crimes are member of the United Nations. Why the exception for Palestinians?

Nations that commit worse crimes in terms of culture shouldn't have seats in UNESCO.

are you saying that the USA cut UNESCO funding out of concern for archaeological vandalism going on on the Temple Mount?

[LaserGuy]

self-determination

Self-determination is the ability for nations (distinct from states/countries, just so we're clear) to choose their sovereignty and international political status free of outside influence.

[sourmìlk]

are you saying that the USA cut UNESCO funding out of concern for archaeological vandalism going on on the Temple Mount?

That would be a good reason, but no. They're doing it because recognizing Palestinian statehood without Israel's permission is contrary to peace.

Self-determination is the ability for nations (distinct from states/countries, just so we're clear) to choose their sovereignty and international political status free of outside influence.

I'm well aware of what self-determination is. And nations are not necessarily distinct from states or countries. In fact, in this use, it probably means state or country. From wikipedia:

In international relations, nation can refer to a country or sovereign state.

[zmic]

are you saying that the USA cut UNESCO funding out of concern for archaeological vandalism going on on the Temple Mount?

That would be a good reason, but no. They're doing it because recognizing Palestinian statehood without Israel's permission is contrary to peace.

When was it established that the US needs Israel's permission to do anything?

[yedidyak]

Then why the outrage over Palestine's seat in UNESCO?

Because it includes sites not under PA control, because it was against previous agreements, because it hijacks Jewish historic and cultural sites as Palestinian, and because it ignores the blatant archaeological vandalism going on on the Temple Mount by the PA.

That's no reason. Nations that commit far worse crimes are member of the United Nations. Why the exception for Palestinians?

I think you are confusing the UN and UNESCO.

[sourmìlk]

are you saying that the USA cut UNESCO funding out of concern for archaeological vandalism going on on the Temple Mount?

That would be a good reason, but no. They're doing it because recognizing Palestinian statehood without Israel's permission is contrary to peace.

When was it established that the US needs Israel's permission to do anything?

The US doesn't need Israel's permission, but in this case it's best that people not recognize Palestinian statehood until negotiations have completed, for reasons I've listed earlier.

[Djehutynakht]

Yeah, I'm going to want a source for that ... it sounds incredibly unbelievable.

Here you go:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3650791.stm
__________

Critically? Howso? I haven't heard anything conflicting this account so far. I mean, yes, the photo evidence isn't much, but not even Israel has come out blatantly claiming that they haven't done it.
________________________


Personally, I liken the "Israeli" return to the "Israel" area as akin to a 70 year old showing up to his childhood home and telling the new owners that he has decided to reassume ownership of the house and kick them all out.

But I digress, we cannot continue to base what should be done now in Israel and Palestine on what's happened in the past. The pure fact is that both Israelis and Palestinians live there now. It's both of their homeland now. Neither one of them wants to live in the same country of the other, but each is entitled to their own country in their own land.

In my opinion, as stated, both sides need to shut up, stop committing human rights violations, attacks, etc., recognize the other, recognize each other's state and borders, enter in to peace, and get on with their lives.

A definitive solution to Israel will never be found in the current arguing, fighting and bickering over who's right. Neither side's right. Both sides need to accept the fact that they have landed up with someone they don't like in the apartment next door, tone the fighting down to mean glares when they meet each other in the hallway and move on with their lives.
________________________________


Since this is the news topic:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-17560066

"Land Day" in Palestine has seen protests by many Palestian crowds against Israel. As usual, the Palestinians got very rowdy and rioted a bit. The Hamas police tried to stop them from getting to the Israeli border, in an ironic twist, and failed. Israel's shot someone... same old same old.

[yoni45]

Critically? Howso? I haven't heard anything conflicting this account so far. I mean, yes, the photo evidence isn't much, but not even Israel has come out blatantly claiming that they haven't done it.

Has Israel come out saying they did? They probably did say something since there was an investigation, but barring that, your evidence is essentially the picture.

Does the kid look even remotely threatened by any stones? Like, at all? Look at his posture, his demeanor, etc. Does someone that's "shivering from fear" because they're afraid of getting hit by rocks generally just sit back relaxed? At the very least, I'd imagine first instinct would be to shield your face, no?

This kind of crap is why it's almost impossible to take claims of IDF offences against Palestinians at face value. Thing is, I'm sure plenty occur (it'd be miraculous if they didn't), and often the evidence *will* actually point towards a serious incident. But with the rate of staged BS coming out from the Palestinians and the journalists that often help in the matter, it really puts into question as to just how pervasive the issue is when the journalists are this desperate for a story of this sort.

It's a shame too, since this kind of stuff discredits any legitimate claims that don't have incontrovertible evidence behind them.

[sourmìlk]

Obviously that incident with the 13-year-old on the hood of the car is horrible if true, but even if it is true, I don't think it comes close to justifying Djehutynakht's point that the actions of Israel and Palestine are comparable. Assuming this is true, we have an isolated incident of inappropriately behaving IDF soldiers. This happens everywhere in every army ever no matter what. It's horrible, but it does not, in any way, approach a systematic policy of targeting civilians for the purposes of genocide, which is what Hamas has.

[zmic]

Obviously that incident with the 13-year-old on the hood of the car is horrible if true, but even if it is true, I don't think it comes close to justifying Djehutynakht's point that the actions of Israel and Palestine are comparable. Assuming this is true, we have an isolated incident of inappropriately behaving IDF soldiers. This happens everywhere in every army ever no matter what. It's horrible, but it does not, in any way, approach a systematic policy of targeting civilians for the purposes of genocide, which is what Hamas has.

Isn't Hamas trying to prevent rocket attacks by rogue groups at this point?

[sourmìlk]

I don't think now it is. Occasionally it does that during regroupings, but even that's not actually a change in their policy of genocide, it's just a chance for them to gather their forces to continue again.