Is Israel a Rogue State? A Discussion on International Controversy

[mheslep]

"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."

Later in his life, when Twain published Follow The Equator (1899) the source of that quote and after the death of one his children, I think he unfortunately increasingly became a curmudgeon, maybe even a crank.

 

[kyleb]

The point then is to argue or bicker?

My intent is to see the range of opinions here in regard to whether or not Israel is a rouge state, as I noted in the OP. What is your point in making posts which dance around that question?

"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."

That always struck me as a ridiculously lame attempt to justify barbarism.

 

[Proton Soup]

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.

show me the part where we recognize Palestine as a State.

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 you admit that they are smuggling in arms for those attacks, you just dispute the amount.

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

you think there would be less violence if the israelis sent in troops to police the population at that level?

 

[mheslep]

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

It is unfortunate, but that's the price paid for having a separate territory and government: Gaza is responsible for policing the actions of its own. As was, say, the Taliban in Afghanistan ca 2001. If Gaza had remained part of Israel, then legal protections would apply to individuals and only police action warranted.

 

[Proton Soup]

That always struck me as a ridiculously lame attempt to justify barbarism.

it strikes me as a call against self-righteousness

 

[mheslep]

It will supply the definition of the two terms which it contains, and no one has yet to provide a more authoritative source ...

Hence the responsibility on your part to start the thread with a clear logically derived definition which can be built upon, as Russ called for, and not an exercise in well poisoning.

 

[kyleb]

Again, dictionary.com, which cites Princeton University's WordNet as it's source, supports my understanding of the terminology. What do you have but but handwaving to support your argument against that definition here?

 

[Hurkyl]

While quibbling over technicalities in definitions of words is always entertaining -- you do realize that you lose all sense of connotation by doing so, right?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

http://web.pdx.edu/~kinsella/ps448/arend.pdf
I've only browsed the first few pages or so but this looks like an interesting paper on the subject of the "Rogue State" with respect to historical example and international law. From what I have gleaned so far though the paper seems as though it would more likely label Hamas as a "rogue state" rather than Israel. Here is the opening paragraph...

The concept of “rogue state” has been much maligned in the past. Appearing
to some to be nothing more than an ideological tag with no content,
the term was being eased out of much official discussion. As is well noted,
the Department of State had changed its designation from “rogue states” to
“states of concern.” But in the wake of the terrorist attacks of September 11,
2001, the idea of a “rogue state” seems to have returned. Indeed, in his State
of the Union Address in January 2002, President George W. Bush went so
far as to place three states -- Iran, Iraq, and North Korea -- in an “Axis of
Evil.”1 Without going to that extreme, the moniker “rogue state” nonetheless
does seem to be useful for understanding the behavior of certain regimes
in light of international law. In a sense, a rogue state is one that does
not follow the rules. While almost all states may at times violate international
legal rules, a rogue state would be a perennial violator. It would, in
essence, be a state whose identity is to some extent defined by acting outside
of the standard rules of international law.2 But from the perspective of
international jurisprudence an even greater problem is that while as such a
state may be violating well-established international legal rules, it may also
be engaging in behavior that was not anticipated when the rules were developed.
In particular, a rogue state may use military force in ways that classic
international law did not address. And here is the problem for international
law. Since the rules developed to respond to certain classic uses of force, it
is often unclear how the traditional rules of international law apply to the
behavior of rogue states. How does international law respond to actions by
rogue states that fall outside the parameters of traditional international law?
If a rogue state engages in covert actions against another state, supports
rebels in another state, supports the work of terrorist groups, commits human
rights abuses against its own citizens, or develops weapons of mass
destruction, how does the existing international legal regime respond?

I've been looking and have not been able to find a definition of "rogue state" by the UN or International Law. It would seem that the term has no technical or legal definition and anyone that we find will likely be suitably vague so as to encompass all definitions in its generality or tainted by opinion.

 

[drankin]

http://web.pdx.edu/~kinsella/ps448/arend.pdf
I've only browsed the first few pages or so but this looks like an interesting paper on the subject of the "Rogue State" with respect to historical example and international law. From what I have gleaned so far though the paper seems as though it would more likely label Hamas as a "rogue state" rather than Israel. Here is the opening paragraph...


I've been looking and have not been able to find a definition of "rogue state" by the UN or International Law. It would seem that the term has no technical or legal definition and anyone that we find will likely be suitably vague so as to encompass all definitions in its generality or tainted by opinion.

bingo. This whole thread is intended to demonizing Israel via biased allegation. The poll shows that the majority of PF sees how it is nonsense.

A more interesting thread might offer objective solutions as to how Isreal can be at peace with it's neighbors without giving up it's borders.

 

[kyleb]

From what I have gleaned so far though the paper seems as though it would more likely label Hamas as a "rogue state" rather than Israel.

I'm at a loss as to how one could rightly consider Hamas a "state" at all, but I'd prefer not to drag the thread off topic discussing that further. As for Israel, I'm interested in knowing how you can view their ongoing colonization of Palestinian territory without considering them a perennial violator of international law?

This whole thread is intended to demonizing Israel via biased allegation.

This comment seems intended to demonize me via biased allegation.

The poll shows that the majority of PF sees how it is nonsense.

The Twain quote earlier reminded me of another quote from him I am quite fond of "Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect."

A more interesting thread might offer objective solutions as to how Isreal can be at peace with it's neighbors without giving up it's borders.

No one is stopping you from creating such a thread.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I'm at a loss as to how one could rightly consider Hamas a "state" at all, but I'd prefer not to drag the thread off topic discussing that further.

Sorry for the sloppy reference, I was meaning Hamas as the predominant political and military power in the region in question. I am not comfortable lumping them together with the Gazans or the Palestinian people as a whole so I mentioned them as a separate entity.

As for Israel, I'm interested in knowing how you can view their ongoing colonization of Palestinian territory without considering them a perennial violator of international law?

They consider the legality debatable and if you wish to call them "rogue" I would suggest finding some more roguish activity than settlements of farmers and the like.

 

[Sorry!]

Sorry for the sloppy reference, I was meaning Hamas as the predominant political and military power in the region in question. I am not comfortable lumping them together with the Gazans or the Palestinian people as a whole so I mentioned them as a separate entity.

This actually isn't wrong at all... As far as I know throughout history in the region (from Ottoman empire) different 'groups' (mostly due to religion or nationality) were considered their 'own state within a state'... so I can see why you made that reference. It's all just the way society and government has been run in this area for hundreds of years.

 

[kyleb]

They consider the legality debatable...

Of course they do, just like if someone wanted to force himself into your home he'd likely consider the legality of doing so debatable too.

...and if you wish to call them "rogue" I would suggest finding some more roguish activity than settlements of farmers and the like.

It's not a matter of wishing on my part. The Geneva Conventions doesn't make any exceptions, for farmers or otherwise, when http://www.icrc.org/IHL.nsf/WebART/380-600056?OpenDocument":

The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.

Is it simply that you wish to not consider doing so rogue, but lack a rational argument to substantiate the position? Besides, those a faction of those settlers you dismiss as farmers and the like regularly attack Palestinians there while the Israeli military turns it's heads, as explained in http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=49378" for example sake.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

This actually isn't wrong at all... As far as I know throughout history in the region (from Ottoman empire) different 'groups' (mostly due to religion or nationality) were considered their 'own state within a state'... so I can see why you made that reference. It's all just the way society and government has been run in this area for hundreds of years.

Certainly, though in context of the discussion we have to consider whether or not such a group would be considered a state by legal definition. In this regard Kyleb is right to question labeling them as a state. Hamas are the ones responsible for the violence but they are not the only party in the government in Palestine. We might also consider the Hamas political party as separate from the militia responsible for the attacks but that would be just splitting hairs I think.

Thank you though. :-)

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Of course they do, just like if someone wanted to force himself into your home he'd likely consider the legality of doing so debatable too.


It's not a matter of wishing on my part. The Geneva Conventions doesn't make any exceptions, for farmers or otherwise, when http://www.icrc.org/IHL.nsf/WebART/380-600056?OpenDocument":

The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.

Is it simply that you wish to not consider doing so rogue, but lack a rational argument to substantiate the position?

I am assuming that the Geneva conventions has no provisions regarding persons who lived in a territory prior to the occupation which are now citizens of the occupying nation? Jews have lived in many of these areas for quite some time. They were banned from returning or settling in these areas by Israel but did so any way. Were evacuated and had their homes destroyed and returned any way. They have been settling in occupied territory and then getting removed by Israel over and over again since 1967. It looks to me like there is a group of people who wish to live there and Israel is having trouble dealing with them. They approve the building of the settlements because they don't know what else to do with them and likely they have sympathizers in the government. There are also settlements which are officially deemed illegal by the Israeli government.

Besides, those a faction of those settlers you dismiss as farmers and the like regularly attack Palestinians there while the Israeli military turns it's heads, as explained in http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=49378" for example sake.

And there are violent racists in the US. You have probably heard of them, the KKK? They are mostly farmers and the like. They are also not run by the government and their actions would hardly be considered actions of the US. I don't know why bigoted Israeli farmers would be considered agents of Israel.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/26/world/middleeast/26settlers.html
As far as I can tell this is a major political issue for Israel and not an act of the Israeli government. Israel, the state, does not appear to be actively attempting to displace the Palestinians. So no, I do not consider it the actions of a rogue state.

 

[planck]

I affirm Israel's legitimacy as a state, contend that they are engaging in rogue conduct.

Ahhh, and there in lies the crux of the debate. You see, israel's neighbors don't agree to any that legitimacy.

I'm curious, what would you consider rogue conduct, if not engaging in might makes right conquest by acquiring territory by force and subjugating the populations there?

Then, everybody is a "rogue" state. The US is a "rogue" state because they "subjugate" their native american populations on reservations as a result of a military conquest. Canada "subjugates" quebec. England "subjugates" scotland. Serbia "subjugates" kosovo. India--kashmir. Iraq/turkey--the kurds. You see where this is going?

Yet even Hamas has stated willingness to resolve the conflict on the basis of international law, as noted by the head of their political bureau in http://enduringamerica.com/2009/10/28/video-transcript-hamas-meshaal-on-goldstone-report-peace-with-recognition-and-1967-borders/" :


So, who specifically are you putting the onus on here, and how do you substitute your position?

LOL. Maybe I'm just a cynic, but I wouldn't believe Hamas if they told me that men landed on the moon back in the 60's. First of all, Hamas is a terrorist organization (US govt. certified) that happens to be governing a portion of the middle east. And secondly, if they really believed in "peace" with their israeli brethren, then why didn't they rejoice when Israel left the gaza strip a few years ago. A completely, israeli-free zone yet, the first thing they did was destroy israeli built greenhouses and launched rockets at the other side of the border.

 

[kyleb]

I am assuming that the Geneva conventions has no provisions regarding persons who lived in a territory prior to the occupation which are now citizens of the occupying nation?

It seems you are assuming there are people who fit that description, but there aren't any.

Jews have lived in many of these areas for quite some time. They were banned from returning or settling in these areas by Israel but did so any way. Were evacuated and had their homes destroyed and returned any way.

Rather, Israelis have been colonizing the West Bank since Israel took occupation over it in 1967, with official government support, starting with the re-establishment settlement of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gush_Etzion" , which was previously evacuated by Jordanian officials when they illegally took control over the West Bank in 1948.

They have been settling in occupied territory and then getting removed by Israel over and over again since 1967. It looks to me like there is a group of people who wish to live there and Israel is having trouble dealing with them. They approve the building of the settlements because they don't know what else to do with them and likely they have sympathizers in the government.

It's not a matter of likelihood, the Israeli government has long provided http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1246443727809&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull" . Sure, Israel removes some settlements too for various reasons, but the Israeli population of the West Bank didn't go from zero to nearly half a million without constant Government support.

There are also settlements which are officially deemed illegal by the Israeli government.

I am aware of this, but it does nothing to change the fact that all the settlements are all illegal under international law regardless.

And there are violent racists in the US. You have probably heard of them, the KKK? They are mostly farmers and the like. They are also not run by the government and their actions would hardly be considered actions of the US. I don't know why bigoted Israeli farmers would be considered agents of Israel.

The Israeli solders and police who turn a blind eye to those bigots attacks on Palestinians are agents of Israel.

As far as I can tell this is a major political issue for Israel and not an act of the Israeli government. Israel, the state, does not appear to be actively attempting to displace the Palestinians. So no, I do not consider it the actions of a rogue state.

Ignoring the fact that an occupying power transferring parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies is illegal regardless of whether or not the existing population is displaced, would the fact that "http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/954967.html" " change your opinion on the matter?

Ahhh, and there in lies the crux of the debate. You see, israel's neighbors don't agree to any that legitimacy.

I see that Israel's neighbors have offered to recognize and normalize relations with Israel in exchange for Israel respecting the rights of Palestinians under international law, which leaves the crux of the debate at Israelis refusal to do anything of the sort.

Then, everybody is a "rogue" state. The US is a "rogue" state because they "subjugate" their native american populations on reservations as a result of a military conquest. Canada "subjugates" quebec. England "subjugates" scotland. Serbia "subjugates" kosovo. India--kashmir. Iraq/turkey--the kurds. You see where this is going?

I see that you are ignoring the distinction between internal and international actions to construct an absurd argument, and apparently don't realize that both England and Scotland are parts of Great Britain.

LOL. Maybe I'm just a cynic, but I wouldn't believe Hamas if they told me that men landed on the moon back in the 60's. First of all, Hamas is a terrorist organization (US govt. certified) that happens to be governing a portion of the middle east. And secondly, if they really believed in "peace" with their israeli brethren, then why didn't they rejoice when Israel left the gaza strip a few years ago. A completely, israeli-free zone yet, the first thing they did was destroy israeli built greenhouses and launched rockets at the other side of the border.

From reports I've seen, the greenhouses were looted by by Gazans other than Hamas, while Hamas condemned the destruction. Can you cite any credible source to support your claim to the contrary?

In regard to Hamas being a terrorist organization, of course they are. However, considering the fact that Israel was refusing to settle the conflict on the basis of international law since long before Hamas existed, I don't see any reason to doubt Hamas's claim that they'd change their ways to conform to international law if Israel would do the same. As for why Hamas continued to launch rockets, since you've stated that you wouldn't believe them even when they are obviously telling the truth, I'll quote http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=485929" instead:

The disengagement plan is the preservative of the sequence principle. It is the bottle of formaldehyde within which you place the president's formula so that it will be preserved for a very lengthy period. The disengagement is actually formaldehyde. It supplies the amount of formaldehyde that's necessary so that there will not be a political process with the Palestinians.

Put simply, it was a cynical ploy which gave Israel cover to continue expanding their colonization of the West Bank, all while keeping Gaza under siege by controlling their coastline and airspace.

 

[seycyrus]

I think this whole thread is to create a dust storm of confusion in which the actions of Iran can be defended.

That's just what my crystal ball shows, of course.

 

[Sorry!]

I wonder what would happen if rockets started to bombard Southern States from say Mexico...

I love however how when rockets were constantly going over the border from the Gaza strip how the Palestinian (people I knew at least who live in the area and from what I saw on the news) were happy and joyous about their people fighting back... wonder what caused the change in emotions? (As I'm assuming has occurred from the post by kyleb)

 

[Hurkyl]

all while keeping Gaza under siege by controlling their coastline and airspace.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

 

[kyleb]

I think this whole thread is to create a dust storm of confusion in which the actions of Iran can be defended.

My intent, here and otherwise, is to dispel confusion though rational discourse.

I wonder what would happen if rockets started to bombard Southern States from say Mexico...

To make it a fair comparison, first wonder what would happen if we were holding Mexico under overwhelming military force while denying Mexicans civil rights and colonizing their homeland out from under them. Jon Stewart also made an excellent analogy of the situation http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-january-5-2009/strip-maul".

I love however how when rockets were constantly going over the border from the Gaza strip how the Palestinian (people I knew at least who live in the area and from what I saw on the news) were happy and joyous about their people fighting back...

I get the impression many people love watching such madness, and can't help but wonder if that is why our news likes to show you the Palestinians who were happy about the rockets while ignoring the ones who aren't. I personally find the whole situation revolting, which is why I'd like to see a just solution to the conflict on the basis of international law.

...wonder what caused the change in emotions? (As I'm assuming has occurred from the post by kyleb)

I wonder what change in emotions you are referring to, and how you managed to assume anything of the sort from my post.

 

[kyleb]

You say that like it's a bad thing.

I say that to dispel the myth that Israel lifted their siege on Gaza, as in fact they simply altered the tactics by which they continue to maintain it.

 

[Sorry!]

My intent, here and otherwise, is to dispel confusion though rational discourse.


To make it a fair comparison, first wonder what would happen if we were holding Mexico under overwhelming military force while denying Mexicans civil rights and colonizing their homeland out from under them. Jon Stewart also made an excellent analogy of the situation http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-january-5-2009/strip-maul".


I get the impression many people love watching such madness, and can't help but wonder if that is why our news likes to show you the Palestinians who were happy about the rockets while ignoring the ones who aren't. I personally find the whole situation revolting, which is why I'd like to see a just solution to the conflict on the basis of international law.


I wonder what change in emotions you are referring to, and how you managed to assume anything of the sort from my post.

your post that referred to Hamas being willing to SERIOUSLY seek out peace?

As well it was palestinians from MY AREA not only on the media. There are a bunch of people from that part of the world that live near me. They all support attacking Israel.

So before any attacks against Israel frmo neighbouring states occurred Israel randomly attack the Palestinian people?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

It seems you are assuming there are people who fit that description, but there aren't any.

No? I guess that the Arabs killed them all then? None of the Jews that lived there before the war were still alive after 1967? None of their descendent's or family? and none of those people's descendent's survive today? That would be rather surprising.

Rather, Israelis have been colonizing the West Bank since Israel took occupation over it in 1967, with official government support, starting with the re-establishment settlement of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gush_Etzion" , which was previously evacuated by Jordanian officials when they illegally took control over the West Bank in 1948.

Sorry what was that? Jews lived there before? And returned? I thought that such people didn't exist?

It's not a matter of likelihood, the Israeli government has long provided http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1246443727809&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull" . Sure, Israel removes some settlements too for various reasons, but the Israeli population of the West Bank didn't go from zero to nearly half a million without constant Government support.

From what I have been reading it has been a constant point of contention. The settler movement has people in the government. When their supporters fall out of power and the ground work they have laid for their support is uprooted they have back ups in other branches of government that continue to push for them. It goes back and forth even still. It is far from the government planned campaign to displace Palestinians that you seem to be saying it is. Even the authorization of the plan to re-establish Gush Etzion which you just referenced was grudging and originally quite limited per your own link.

I am aware of this, but it does nothing to change the fact that all the settlements are all illegal under international law regardless.

Allegedly illegal. I doubt that the signatories of the convention meant to prevent peoples dislocated by war from returning afterwards due to the redrawing of borders. In fact if you read the rest of the section you referenced earlier, with only a single line, it indicates that those displaced by war should be returned to their land as soon as possible. Obviously, such as the case of Gush Etzion, the Jews displaced from the Gazan region by the original war were never allowed back. They were capable of returning almost 20 years later and this supposedly means that they were breaking the very section of the convention that ought to have protected their return in the first place? Seems more than a little ridiculous to me.

I mention the settlements classified as illegal by Israel because I doubt that a country actively attempting to displace a population through colonization would deem any settlement of their people in the area illegal.

The Israeli solders and police who turn a blind eye to those bigots attacks on Palestinians are agents of Israel.

Yes, they are agents of Israel sent by their government to escort and protect the Palestinians. The individuals involved unfortunately are not doing their job properly. Fortunate for the Palestinians that there is an Israeli organization called Yesh Din made up of retired Israeli generals and politicians working to try to protect them, according to the article you cite.

Ignoring the fact that an occupying power transferring parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies is illegal regardless of whether or not the existing population is displaced, would the fact that "http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/954967.html" " change your opinion on the matter?

As already noted there is sufficient reason to question whether or not the settlements are really illegal (even if obviously ill advised) or that the government, as opposed to a movement among the Nation's people which would include some politicians (they are just people too of course), is actively attempting to displace the Palestinian people.

My opinion, as I already noted, is that this seems a major (and complex) political issue in Israel itself, that they are attempting to deal with it, and that this does not make them a "rogue state".

 

[kyleb]

your post that referred to Hamas being willing to SERIOUSLY seek out peace?

That's not new, as explained http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas#Goals":

A memorandum prepared by the political bureau of Hamas in the 1990s at the request of western diplomats, published in a book by Azzam Tamimi, states that Hamas is "a Palestinian national liberation movement that struggles for the liberation of the Palestinian occupied territories and for the recognition of Palestinian legitimate rights."

The problem being that Israel has always thumbed their nose at anything of the sort.

As well it was palestinians from MY AREA not only on the media. There are a bunch of people from that part of the world that live near me. They all support attacking Israel.

Many do, as many Jews support attacking Palestinians, but not all on either side, yet our media shamelessly by and large promotes that cycle of violence while ingoring those working for a peaceful resolution to the conflict.

So before any attacks against Israel frmo neighbouring states occurred Israel randomly attack the Palestinian people?

Not quite, as Israel was attacked the day after they declared statehood, but that was a response to their founders systemically ethnically cleansing hundreds of thousands of Palestinians from the region in the months before.

No?

No, there is no one that fits the discription you presented, and your string of arguments from ignorance does nothing to change that fact. Beyond that, this question I found particularly disturbing:

I guess that the Arabs killed them all then?

Despite my previously noting the fact that the residents of Gush Etzion were evacuated by Jordanian officials in 1948, you speculate killing and blame "the Arabs" as a whole. Should I take that to suggest you harbor disdain for Arabs in general?

From what I have been reading it has been a constant point of contention. The settler movement has people in the government. When their supporters fall out of power and the ground work they have laid for their support is uprooted they have back ups in other branches of government that continue to push for them. It goes back and forth even still.

There is back and forth on the details of the colonization, but no notable opposition to it as a whole.

It is far from the government planned campaign to displace Palestinians that you seem to be saying it is.

It's a government planned campaign to colonize the West Bank and deny Palestinian sovereignty over the territory, as exemplified by government sponsored financial incentives to encourage colonization I mentioned, and also http://www.knesset.gov.il/elections/knesset15/elikud_m.htm":

Settlements

The Jewish communities in Judea, Samaria and Gaza are the realization of Zionist values. Settlement of the land is a clear expression of the unassailable right of the Jewish people to the Land of Israel and constitutes an important asset in the defense of the vital interests of the State of Israel. The Likud will continue to strengthen and develop these communities and will prevent their uprooting.

Self-Rule

The Government of Israel flatly rejects the establishment of a Palestinian Arab state west of the Jordan river.

The Palestinians can run their lives freely in the framework of self-rule, but not as an independent and sovereign state. Thus, for example, in matters of foreign affairs, security, immigration and ecology, their activity shall be limited in accordance with imperatives of Israel's existence, security and national needs.

I hope you might take that as cause to question the credibility of whatever you have been reading.

Even the authorization of the plan to re-establish Gush Etzion which you just referenced was grudging and originally quite limited per your own link.

They squabbled over the details of the colonization, as they still do, nearly half a million settlers later.

Allegedly illegal.

Illegal, as demonstrated by http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?pr=71&code=mwp&p1=3&p2=4&p3=6&case=131&k=5a".

I doubt that the signatories of the convention meant to prevent peoples dislocated by war from returning afterwards due to the redrawing of borders.

Of course they didn't, but the vast majority of the nearly half a million settlers in the West Bank aren't even descendants of the few thousand peoples dislocated during the 1948 war, so where is there any reasonable dispute on the illegality of those hundreds of thousands of settlers who don't fit your description?

In fact if you read the rest of the section you referenced earlier, with only a single line, it indicates that those displaced by war should be returned to their land as soon as possible.

Given the option to return to their land that is, which Israel has constantly refused to the hundreds of thousands of Palestinians refugees and their descendants who were displaced from what is now Israel.

Obviously, such as the case of Gush Etzion, the Jews displaced from the Gazan region by the original war were never allowed back. They were capable of returning almost 20 years later and this supposedly means that they were breaking the very section of the convention that ought to have protected their return in the first place? Seems more than a little ridiculous to me.

Your citing the legitimate rights of a few thousand people to defend illegitimate colonization of hundreds of thousands of people is utterly ridiculous.

I mention the settlements classified as illegal by Israel because I doubt that a country actively attempting to displace a population through colonization would deem any settlement of their people in the area illegal.

They are colonists, not anarchists.

Yes, they are agents of Israel sent by their government to escort and protect the Palestinians. The individuals involved unfortunately are not doing their job properly.

Were it a few individuals rather than systemic disregard for the protection of Palestinians, I'd consider your argument here reasonable.

Fortunate for the Palestinians that there is an Israeli organization called Yesh Din made up of retired Israeli generals and politicians working to try to protect them, according to the article you cite.

Israelis like those in Yesh Din are far outnumbered by those who lack such regard for Palestinians rights under Israeli law, and ones who respct Palestinians rights under international law are even fewer.

As already noted there is sufficient reason to question whether or not the settlements are really illegal (even if obviously ill advised) or that the government, as opposed to a movement among the Nation's people which would include some politicians (they are just people too of course), is actively attempting to displace the Palestinian people.

My opinion, as I already noted, is that this seems a major (and complex) political issue in Israel itself, that they are attempting to deal with it, and that this does not make them a "rogue state".

What line would Israel have to cross before you would feel comfortable applying the term to them?

 

[mheslep]

Look, one can't claim this in one sentence:

My intent, here and otherwise, is to dispel confusion though rational discourse.

and then site mocking comedy shows in the next:

Jon Stewart also made an excellent analogy of the situation http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-january-5-2009/strip-maul"

 

[mheslep]

That's not new, as explained http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas#Goals"

First that's a Wiki link to highly charged political subject for which the underlying reference is not available on the net, and second there's no mention I can find of any association of the statement with the US Army War College.

 

[kyleb]

My bad, http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/pub894.pdf" I had originally intended to cite:

When HAMAS was established, it defined its mission as the liberation of Palestinians and cessation of Israeli aggression against them. That is to say, its goal is not the destruction of Israel, as is commonly asserted by the American and Israel media, and certainly HAMAS does not possesses the military means to attain that goal.

Which references the same source, but I changed to the Wiki article since it actually quotes the source, which can be seen http://books.google.com/books?id=qi...cognition+of+Palestinian+legitimate+rights."". I'll go back and correct my post now.

Edit:

Look, one can't claim this in one sentence:
and then site mocking comedy shows in the next:

Do you have anything even resembling a rational argument against the analogy, or just a compulsion to ad hominem the source?

 

[mheslep]

Do you have an rational argument against the analogy, or just a compulsion to ad hominem the source?

What analogy, and what ad hominem? Saying 'here is somebody else that thinks as I do' is not an analogy. I've not personally attacked you, I'm challenging your assertion.

You've asserted your intent "is to dispel confusion though rational discourse." I contest that you make that case by citing comedy shows and the like. Rather, it supports the notion of an intent to do exactly the opposite: emotionalize the issue.

 

[mheslep]

My bad, http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/pub894.pdf" I had originally intended to cite:



Which references the same source, but I changed to the Wiki article since it actually quotes the source, which can be seen http://books.google.com/books?id=qi...cognition+of+Palestinian+legitimate+rights."". I'll go back and correct my post now.

Thanks.

 

[kyleb]

What analogy, and what ad hominem?

The one Stewart made near the end of the clip I presented, which it seems you prefer to ignore based the character of the show rather than any rational dispute with the analogy itself. Am I to take it you didn't even watch the clip?

 

[mheslep]

The one Stewart made near the end of the clip I presented, which it seems you prefer to ignore based the character of the show rather than any rational dispute with the analogy itself. Am I to take it you didn't even watch the clip?

Yep watched it, not interested though I like Stewart, and ignoring Stewart is not an ad hominem here.

 

[kyleb]

Attacking the arguer to ignore the argument is ad hominem, which you are doing by dismissing Stewart/TDS as a comedy program rather than addressing the analogy they present.

 

[Hurkyl]

The analogy is being dismissed as comedy, because it is comedy, rather than any sort of serious political commentary. You think otherwise?