Is Israel a Rogue State? A Discussion on International Controversy

[kyleb]

I meant rogue of course, please pardon my dyslexia.

http://us.cnn.com/video/?/video/world/2009/11/29/Newton.israel.rogue.cnn". I'm curious see the opinions of everyone here, so please vote in the poll and post your thoughts on the matter.

I agree with the two scholars interviewed, while the politician's argument seems absurd. Of course there are some who are challenging Israel's legitimacy to exist at all, but I'm at a loss as to how one could reasonably blame them for Israel's refusal to even consider a two-state solution on the basis of international law. Does anyone here think Regev's argument makes any sense at all?

 

[mgb_phys]

Well I suppose the desert bits are a bit pink - but not really rouge.

 

[DaveC426913]

First planets...
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=884752&postcount=3

..then asteroids...
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=1624756&postcount=154

and now states??

What's next?? Cities? Neighborhoods? Streets?

 

[kyleb]

How about next people start respecting the intent of the question, as is obvious in the context, rather than nitpicking the typo?

 

[Sorry!]

First planets...
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=884752&postcount=3

..then asteroids...
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=1624756&postcount=154

and now states??

What's next?? Cities? Neighborhoods? Streets?

You know, I always thought Etobicoke was a pretty rogue area... not even going to lie. Is it part of Toronto? Who knows. Not I.

As for Israel... I do not think that Israel is a rogue state. Isn't a rogue state one that threatens world peace?

EDIT: I didn't even notice the typo LOL.

 

[Astronuc]

I think the answer will depend on who one asks.

 

[waht]

Also a rouge state is defined:

In virtually all international foreign policy circles, rogue states are considered to be those nations utterly ruled by individuals (rather than subject to a popular electoral process) and whose legitimacy, intentions, and notions of the process of legitimate succession (if any) is highly suspect.

and so Israel doesn't fit that description. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogue_state

 

[DaveC426913]

How about next people start respecting the intent of the question, as is obvious in the context, rather than nitpicking the typo?

It's how we show you we like you. :!)

 

[kyleb]

As for Israel... I do not think that Israel is a rogue state. Isn't a rogue state one that threatens world peace?

I don't rightly think Israel threatens world peace, but I've never seen such a standard set for the term. Granted I don't think they are currently being beneficial to world peace either, or to themselves for that matter. Anyway, in contrast to the narrow definition waht presented from a Wiki entry which absurdly cites an article from A. Q. Khan to support it, http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/rogue+state?r=75":

a state that does not respect other states in its international actions

I contend that fits Israel to a T, the Gaza massacre and Israels refusal to respect the recommendations of the Goldstone Report on the matter which is backed by the vast majority of UN member states being just one recent example of this.

I think the answer will depend on who one asks.

Of course, if everyone was going to agree it wouldn't have been worth making a thread about. Any chance you'd present your opinion?

 

[kyleb]

It's how we show you we like you. :!)

Well then, I suppose I'll make a point to nitpick your comments while ignoring your intent in the future.

 

[russ_watters]

I think the answer will depend on who one asks.

And more importantly, one's definition of "rogue state".

Kyleb, in order for this to be a productive thread, you're going to need to give us a clear definition of what you mean aby "rogue state".

Of course there are some who are challenging Israel's legitimacy to exist at all, but I'm at a loss as to how one could reasonably blame them for Israel's refusal to even consider a two-state solution on the basis of international law.

Confusingly worded run-on-sentence issues aside, I am curious as to how you can believe/assert that Israel "refus[es] to even consider a two-state solution" when it has been actively discussing and negotiating the issue on and off for close to two decades:

In the 1990s the pressing need for a peace in the area brought the two-state idea back to centre stage. At one point in the late 1990s, considerable diplomatic work went into negotiating a two-state solution between the parties, including the Oslo Accords and culminating in the Camp David 2000 Summit, and follow-on negotiations at Taba in January 2001.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-state_solution

 

[russ_watters]

I contend that fits Israel to a T, the Gaza massacre and Israels refusal to respect the recommendations of the Goldstone Report on the matter which is backed by the vast majority of UN member states being just one recent example of this.

In my view, respect is a mutual condition and Israel is far more respectful of her neighbors than they are of her. Viewed in a vacuum, yes, Israel doesn't have much respect for her neighbors. But viewed in context, Israel has much more than her neighbors have for her. As a result, I consider such a characterization based soley on that definition to be unfair and inappropriate.

In other words: Israel treats with respect, those countries that treat her with respect. And those that it disrespects, it (typically) disrespects fairly.

 

[tiny-tim]

From http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/MFAArchiv... Lives- Israel-s anti-terrorist fence - Answ" …

http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Terrorism...+Palestinian+Violence+and+Terrorism+sinc.htm" in attacks carried out by Palestinian terrorists since late September 2000.

Thousands of Israelis have been injured, many of the victims maimed for life. The terrorists infiltrated Israeli cities and towns and carried out attacks - often in the form of suicide bombings - on buses, in restaurants, shopping malls, and even private homes.

No other nation in the world has before this time faced such an intense wave of terror, especially in the form of suicide bombings.

In almost all of the cases, the terrorists infiltrated from Palestinian areas in the West Bank. The Palestinian leadership has done nothing to stop them and has even encouraged them.

Pro rata, 900 people would be about 45,000 people in the USA.

 

[kyleb]

Kyleb, in order for this to be a productive thread, you're going to need to give us a clear definition of what you mean aby "rogue state".

I didn't expect it would be a point of contention, but I hope everyone here can abide the definition as explained in the dictionary.com entry I cited above.

Confusingly worded run-on-sentence issues aside...

It's a complex sentence; the first part noting Regev's argument from the CNN clip, and the latter iterating my contention to it.

...I am curious as to how you can believe/assert that Israel "refus[es] to even consider a two-state solution" when it has been actively discussing and negotiating the issue on and off for close to two decades:

You left out my "on the basis of international law" qualifier, which Israel's "two-state" terms consistently fall short of.

In my view, respect is a mutual condition and Israel is far more respectful of her neighbors than they are of her.

I agree on the first part, but am at a loss as to how one could reasonably figure the latter. Any chance you'd explain the basis for your position here?

 

[kyleb]

From http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/MFAArchiv... Lives- Israel-s anti-terrorist fence - Answ" …
Pro rata, 900 people would be about 45,000 people in the USA.

Yes it is horrible, as is the http://www.pchrgaza.org/files/PressR/English/2008/36-2009.html" before that. Pro rata that is about 225,000 people in the USA. I'd like to see and end to that madness, which support just two-state solution to the conflict on the basis of international law, for the sake of Israelis along with everyone else.

 

[tiny-tim]

I am curious as to how you can believe/assert that Israel "refus[es] to even consider a two-state solution" when it has been actively discussing and negotiating the issue on and off for close to two decades:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-state_solution

You left out my "on the basis of international law" qualifier, which Israel's "two-state" terms consistently fall short of.

What on Earth are you talking about? How do Israel's proposals even remotely contravene international law?

http://www.pchrgaza.org/files/PressR/English/2008/36-2009.html"

That's the Palestinians' figure. Israel's figure of civilians killed is about 300.

… and http://www.btselem.org/English/Statistics/Casualties.asp" before that. Pro rata that is about 225,000 people in the USA.

From your own link (http://www.btselem.org/English/Statistics/Casualties.asp") …

"Palestinians killed by Palestinians: 593 (Gaza Strip 458, West Bank 135)"

Pro rata that is about 150,000 people in the USA.

The chief difference between Israel and the Palestinians is that the Palestinians try to kill as many innocent civilians as possible, while the Israelis try to kill as few innocent civilians as possible. ​

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I didn't expect it would be a point of contention, but I hope everyone here can abide the definition as explained in the dictionary.com entry I cited above.

I think that, as dictionary definitions tend to be, it is a bit simplistic and vague.

A state may be considered rogue, to have not respected other nations in its international actions, if the state refuses to abide the opinions/suggestions/will of the international community. 'Rogue' carries a negative connotation though, that what the entity is doing is wrong, and I do not think that a state who refuses to respect the will of the international community, if that will is oppressive and inequitable for instance, is necessarily wrong. So we have in this a definition that is based on opinion.

A better definition may be that a state is considered 'rogue' if it has flouted international law. This is still based in some part on opinion but at least theoretically it is a dispassionate democratically constructed measure rather than being based on some transitory national interest or inflamed righteousness.

So perhaps the best measure is whether or not Israel has willfully broken international law?

 

[kyleb]

What on Earth are you talking about? How do Israel's proposals even remotely contravene international law?

They flagrantly contravene international law by ignoring the rights of the refugees and by refusing Palestinians' right to sovereignty over various portions of the West Bank. This is evidenced by Israel's votes against the UNGA's http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/a06f2943c226015c85256c40005d359c/73d3c4b4b95d2ff285257551005a67f0?OpenDocument" , Israel having done so every year for decades.

That's the Palestinians' figure.

Of course it is, just like the figure you presented for Israelis murdered is the Israeli figure.

Israel's figure of civilians killed is about 300.

Sure, but the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights figure I cited is much closer to the other reports, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8245433.stm" .

From your own link (http://www.btselem.org/English/Statistics/Casualties.asp") …

"Palestinians killed by Palestinians: 593 (Gaza Strip 458, West Bank 135)"

I'm familiar with the figures, and http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/04/gaza200804" accounts for a large chunk of the one you cite. I'm ashamed that my tax dollars helped fuel such madness.

The chief difference between Israel and the Palestinians is that the Palestinians try to kill as many innocent civilians as possible, while the Israelis try to kill as few innocent civilians as possible.

That claim stands in contradiction to the the much higher civilian death toll on the Palestinian side in general, and more specifically to investigations such as the http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/12session/A-HRC-12-48.pdf" which found that:

While the Israeli Government has sought to portray its operations as essentially a response to rocket attacks in the exercise of its right to self-defence, the Mission considers the plan to have been directed, at least in part, at a different target: the people of Gaza as a whole.

Of course they also found that terrorist groups such as Hamas targeted Israeli civilians too, but two wrongs doesn't make anything right.

So perhaps the best measure is whether or not Israel has willfully broken international law?

I don't see how one could rightly consider a state's conduct disrespectful if they do show regard for international law, so the messure is the same to me.

 

[planck]

I don't see any "rogue" about israel. As far as I'm aware, it's a legitimate state no matter how one defines the parameters. If israel is "subjugating" their palestinian minorities---then so be it. After all, it's "stolen" land won fairly in a war. But if it's a perpetual war, and might makes right...then so be it too. The onus for peace is not on Israel, it's with the people who live amongst it looking to wipe it out.

 

[russ_watters]

I didn't expect it would be a point of contention...

You can't be serious.

...but I hope everyone here can abide the definition as explained in the dictionary.com entry I cited above.

Unlikely - it is a very weak and simplistic definition, which you yourself have already wavered from, using "flagrantly contravene international law" in another post...

You left out my "on the basis of international law" qualifier, which Israel's "two-state" terms consistently fall short of.

"On the basis of international law" isn't part of the dictionary definition... So you'll need to explain what you mean by "international law" and show how they "flagrantly contravene" it. Also, I'm sure you must know that the idea of "international law" is pretty loose.

I agree on the first part, but am at a loss as to how one could reasonably figure the latter. Any chance you'd explain the basis for your position here?

Sure. On the point you've already raised, the two-state solution, Israel is more willing to consider it than her neighbors. Arafat's statement aside, Israel's neighbors have been pretty consistent in not recognizing Israel's right to exist. And talk is great, but actions are better: Israel has taken the action of ceding territory it won in a defensive war, without a promise of cessation of hostilities from the enemy in that war! Absurd, but it shows a commitment to peace that Israel's enemies have never come anywhere close to matching.

Second, Israel's neighbors consistently purposely target civilians (in short, it's that pesky terrorism thing - yeah, it really exists). Israel does not. And don't pull out the body count ratio argument: it's nonsense. It fails to recognize the reality of the tactical situation and the intent of the actions being taken by both sides.

They flagrantly contravene international law by ignoring the rights of the refugees and by refusing Palestinians' right to sovereignty over various portions of the West Bank. This is evidenced by Israel's votes against the UNGA's Peaceful Settlement of the Question of Palestine resolution, Israel having done so every year for decades.

So you are claiming a reslution is a binding international law? Really? Could you explain how that works, please? From the wiki definition: "In a house of a legislature, the term non-binding resolution refers to measures that do not become laws." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resolution_(law )

The beautiful thing - for Israel's enemies - about UN General Assembly resolutions is that all countries, rogue or not, stand on equal footing in the eyes of the UN and as a result, there have been a number of rediculously biased resolutions passed by it, including the one you linked. If they were actually laws and if they were actually legitimate, they'd be pretty damning. But they aren't either.

That the rogue states of the world can gang up on Israel (or anyone else) - that the inmates can take over the asylum - is the biggest flaw in the UN and will probably eventually be its downfall.

I don't see how one could rightly consider a state's conduct disrespectful if they do show regard for international law, so the messure is the same to me.

See: North Korea. Very little of what they have done could really be considered true violations of international law. What makes them rogue is more their attitude, and that's what "respect" implies to me in that definition you first posted. But if violating international law was what you really meant, you should have explained it instead of posting the simplistic definition that just said "respect".

 

[russ_watters]

Also, please universalize your definition and explain it's scope/applicability. There are few nations in the world who haven't flouted the UN's wishes from time to time. Is once enough to consider a country "rogue"?

The exercise of attempting to pin down the definition should be instructive: it should help you understand just how subjective such characterizations are.

 

[WhoWee]

Israel has a right to defend itself. They live in a bad neighborhood. If one or more of your neighbors threatened to kill you or burn your house down - how would you respond?

 

[GeorginaS]

Israel has a right to defend itself. They live in a bad neighborhood. If one or more of your neighbors threatened to kill you or burn your house down - how would you respond?

I'd move. The "neighbourhood" is a bad analogy.

 

[carstenk]

Seeing that I'm in such a minority here (having voted yes), here is my reasoning: While I wholeheartedly support Israels right to exist and have great sympathy for the plight the nation has found itself since the inception, there are some 'rogue' traits that need to be pointed out: Firstly, I'm interpreting rogue as something that has veered off a legitimate command structure, like a soldier that goes rogue, or a rogue programmer that doesn't follow standard guidelines. The command structure would be international law in this case, which Israel is regularly breaching imho.
1. "International humanitarian law forbids deliberately harming civilians and other persons no longer taking part in hostilities, including wounded or captured combatants. It also provides rules on the conduct of hostilities to minimize unnecessary suffering." Read the Goldstone report. The rogue trait in this respect is both the usage of collective punishment AND refusal to cooperate with impartial bodies in investigating the charges.
2. Failure to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (with India, Pakistan and N.Korea), generally interpreted as a policy of strategic ambiguity, although there is little doubt that Israel possesses nuclear warheads.
3. The continued advance of Israeli settlements in the occupied territories in a plain disregard of international law.

Many (not all) Israeli regimes would contest these points, but that doesn't change the facts. Looking forwards to the day when both Israel and her adversaries will snap out of the current vicious cycle of hate and revenge mixed with religious exceptionalism that currently holds the region in such a stranglehold.

 

[Sorry!]

I'd move. The "neighbourhood" is a bad analogy.

I'd nuke them or call the Americans.

 

[mheslep]

I didn't expect it would be a point of contention, but I hope everyone here can abide the definition as explained in the dictionary.com entry I cited above...

I don't accept it. A real dictionary (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rogue%20state" ) won't supply a definition for a phrase.

 

[mheslep]

[...]That claim stands in contradiction to the the much higher civilian death toll on the Palestinian side in general, and more specifically to investigations such as the http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/12session/A-HRC-12-48.pdf" which found that:...

If Goldstone is linked in here we should at least note:

1. The presidency of the Human Rights Council in April of 2009, who commissioned the report, was held by Nigeria. The other HRC members at the time per Wiki were:

African States: Cameroon, Djibouti, Mauritius, Nigeria, and Senegal.
Asian States: Bangladesh, China, Jordan, Malaysia, and Saudi Arabia.
Eastern European States: Azerbaijan, and the Russian Federation.
Latin American & Caribbean States: Cuba, Mexico, and Uruguay.
Western European & Other States: Canada, Germany, and Switzerland.​

2. The Israeli PMs response at the UN recently:

[...]The same UN that cheered Israel as it left Gaza and promised to back our right of self defense now accuses us –my people, my country - of war crimes? And for what? For acting responsibly in self-defense. What a travesty!

Israel justly defended itself against terror. This biased and unjust report is a clear-cut test for all governments. Will you stand with Israel or will you stand with the terrorists? We must know the answer to that question now. Now and not later. Because if Israel is again asked to take more risks for peace, we must know today that you will stand with us tomorrow. Only if we have the confidence that we can defend ourselves can we take further risks for peace.

http://www.nypost.com/f/print/news/international/item_ix2gXkzh5VFshJUxxcb5HJ

 

[WhoWee]

I'd move. The "neighbourhood" is a bad analogy.

Let's call it a "hostile" neighborhood.

Either way, you would take precautions to protect yourself:
fence, security system, bars on windows and doors, guard dog, steel doors, intercom, camera, razor barbed wire - maybe weapons? Might you also solicit assistance from a powerful associate or an official body? Perhaps you would also try to project confidence and strength?

I like the neighborhood analogy.

 

[Proton Soup]

it is entirely an internal affair. there is no Palestinian state, so there is not an International conflict.

there are no refugees. the Gazans could simply escape into Egypt, but they want to stay. so that means they are occupying the land.

now, for some reason, they saw fit to smuggle in rockets to fire at Sredot in lieu of smuggling in food and medicine. so, they're fair game when it comes to returning the blow.

 

[drizzle]

I'd nuke them or call the Americans.

why don't you read some history Sorry! :)

 

[drizzle]

... the Gazans could simply escape into Egypt, but they want to stay. so that means they are occupying the land...

...Sorry but really

 

[Astronuc]

Of course, if everyone was going to agree it wouldn't have been worth making a thread about.

The point then is to argue or bicker?

Any chance you'd present your opinion?

Choose peace. It's a rather simple proposition. Peace is a much better and productive alternative to persistent violence and hatred.

Tikkun olam.

Salaam - Shalom

 

[mgb_phys]

The first people with any written deeds to the place are Sumerians from Uruk.
So just let the Iraqi's return to their 'home' - simple solution.

Next week - how to solve Afghanistan by renaming it in Welsh.

 

[Proton Soup]

"All the territorial possessions of all the political establishments in the earth--including America, of course-- consist of pilferings from other people's wash. No tribe, howsoever insignificant, and no nation, howsoever mighty occupies a foot of land that was not stolen."

 

[kyleb]

I don't accept it. A real dictionary (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rogue%20state" ) won't supply a definition for a phrase.

It will supply the definition of the two terms which it contains, and no one has yet to provide a more authoritative source for the definition of those two terms than that of dictionary.com, which cites Princeton University's WordNet as it's source.

I like the neighborhood analogy.

I think the neighborhood analogy is fine, and in that regard; would you think it acceptable to expropriate what is legally your neighbor's property to build fences and housing for yourself on? I ask because that is analogous to what Israel is doing in the West Bank, as affirmed by the http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?pr=71&code=mwp&p1=3&p2=4&p3=6&case=131&k=5a".

it is entirely an internal affair. there is no Palestinian state, so there is not an International conflict.

There is Israeli occupied Palestinian territory, outside Israelis international recognized borders. This is explained in our http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2008/nea/119117.htm" among other places.

there are no refugees.

There are millions of Palestinian refugees, as the UN accounts http://www.un.org/unrwa/publications/pdf/rr_countryandarea.pdf" .

the Gazans could simply escape into Egypt, but they want to stay. so that means they are occupying the land.

In that sense, everyone on this planet is occupying land, aside from those living on boats anyway.

now, for some reason, they saw fit to smuggle in rockets to fire at Sredot in lieu of smuggling in food and medicine.

You've constructed a false dichotomy here; rockets, food and medicine all are smuggled in under the Israeli blockade of Gaza. Also, the vast majority of rockets fired by Palestinian terrorists aren't smuggled in at all, but rather constructed locally.

so, they're fair game when it comes to returning the blow.

There is nothing fair about punishing a whole population for the crimes of a few.