Israel vs. the rest of the world?

[P.K.]

2 hours ago, HeliX said:

Continue to provide the same "inputs" with regard to their treatment of Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank, and their illegal occupation thereof, and hope that the "outputs" spontaneously change for no reason.

Thanks to the Arab League there is no such thing as a Palestinian State. Therefore there can be no such thing as an "illegal occupation" of Gaza and the West Bank. Especially as Israelis are "Palestinians" as well.

Try again...

[HeliX]

1 minute ago, P.K. said:

Therefore there can be no such thing as an "illegal occupation" of Gaza and the West Bank.

You have lost any remaining connection to reality.

[P.K.]

15 minutes ago, HeliX said:

You have lost any remaining connection to reality.

You mean you have...

[HeliX]

4 minutes ago, P.K. said:

You mean you have...

Israel's most brazen lawyers wouldn't dare to claim that there can be no occupation of the West Bank because the Palestinian State doesn't exist. Do you think you've stumbled upon some genius thought they've never had? I suppose you do think you've a better understanding of the region than some of Israel's best historians, so anything is possible when you have a level of hubris unencumbered by being able to understand any oppositional viewpoint.

[Chinahand]

Christ, you two go and get a room. 

HeliX, believe it or not it is disputed who holds sovereignty over the Palestinian territories. 

P.K. your understanding seems to stop in about 1973. Yes, Egypt and Jordan both annexed the Palestinian territories, but since then they say they have given that sovereignty to the PLO which via the Oslo Accords have morphed into the Palestinian Authority which is widely recognised as the rightful holder of Palestinian sovereignty. 

But the PA is not able to exercise their sovereignty because it is held by Israel due to all the various wars and conflict in the area. 

Now all the lawyers and resolutions and diplomats don't have any sway over the anarchy of international relations where power definitely grows from a barrel of a gun and the economic suasion a deep bank account can bring. 

Multiple countries have disputes about sovereignty. The Irish constitution claimed Northern Ireland up to the Belfast Accords. The status of lower Jutland between Denmark and Germany. 

Nations can use them to start wars and killing and to stoke generations of distrust. Disastrous behaviour. A plague on both their houses. 

Or they can negotiate, compromise finding a way for dialogue to reduce conflict. 

What gets me, is that the reason Hamas, with Iran's encouragement, went "noisy" is because dialogue and diplomacy was working, with the Abraham Accords offering ways for the Arab world to work with Israel to reduce conflict. 

That wasn't what Iran and Hamas, with their rejection of the Zionist Entity, wanted. And so their response was violence and war. 

That was evil and they seem to be decisively losing in their bloody gamble to remain relevant. 

Goodness knows how it will all end. 

The men of violence have insisted on their right to be heardvlet slipping the dogs of war, which then bit them hard. I hope as the conflict ends diplomacy might resume. 

The Palestinians will be much weakened but believe it or not P.K. there is a very large global movement for Palestinians to gain sovereignty. We'll see. 

Defeat, elections both in Israel and the US and seeing how Iran emerges from what looks like a strategic disaster with its deterrence greatly reduced will be vital in understanding how this shit show might evolve. 

Too many moving parts to say, but no doubt in my mind Hamas made terrible decisions and have brought disaster on themselves and the Palestinian people. Good riddance to them. 

I hope HeliX can agree to that. 

And hopefully a way for trust to emerge and so sovereignty for Palestinian and Israeli to stably emerge can be found. 

 

 

 

 

[HeliX]

2 minutes ago, Chinahand said:

believe it or not it is disputed who holds sovereignty over the Palestinian territories. 

There's no dispute over who is illegally occupying the west bank.

[Chinahand]

Of course there is a dispute. Multiple Israeli, American and other scholars disagree with you. 

You are just unwilling to accept what they say. 

[HeliX]

Just now, Chinahand said:

Of course there is a dispute. Multiple Israeli, American and other scholars disagree with you. 

You are just unwilling to accept what they say. 

Yes I'm sure there are daft people saying daft things, but the occupation and settlement of the West Bank is literally illegal under international law. There are plenty of laws I don't agree with but that doesn't let me break them and argue it afterwards.

[Chinahand]

Dare you try to understand that people can rationally come to a different opinion to you?

That these aren't daft opinions and actually will be far more relevant in the next few months than your student I'm not listening efforts. 

https://press.armywarcollege.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3273&context=parameters

 

 

[Chinahand]

And again...

https://lieber.westpoint.edu/israels-right-self-defence-against-hamas/

 

[HeliX]

23 minutes ago, Chinahand said:

Dare you try to understand that people can rationally come to a different opinion to you?

That these aren't daft opinions and actually will be far more relevant in the next few months than your student I'm not listening efforts. 

https://press.armywarcollege.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3273&context=parameters

 

 

 

14 minutes ago, Chinahand said:

And again...

https://lieber.westpoint.edu/israels-right-self-defence-against-hamas/

 

I've read plenty of articles suggesting that Israel has a right to defence against Gaza - it's not as if it's not the prevailing message across the whole of western media across the last year is it? What's that got to do with whether the West Bank is illegally occupied under international law?

[Chinahand]

It is occupied but sorry it is disputed that that occupation is illegal. 

It is just silly to to claim that different countries don't have different opinions on this. 

The basic approach of most western countries is that there is a stalled attempt to return sovereignty to the Palestinians and the actions of Hamas make it that more difficult. 

 

[HeliX]

18 minutes ago, Chinahand said:

It is occupied but sorry it is disputed that that occupation is illegal. 

It is just silly to to claim that different countries don't have different opinions on this. 

The basic approach of most western countries is that there is a stalled attempt to return sovereignty to the Palestinians and the actions of Hamas make it that more difficult. 

 

Yes a "stalled attempt to return sovreignty" is certainly the Israeli propaganda. It's not borne out by their actions, though.

I think the debate around "Does Israel have a right to self defence" is a pointless and intentional distraction in western media from the much more important question of "Israel is currently committing atrocities on the scale of Oct 7th weekly, why the fuck is nobody doing anything about it?".

[TheTeapot]

12 minutes ago, HeliX said:

 

I think the debate around "Does Israel have a right to self defence" is a pointless and intentional distraction in western media from the much more important question of "Israel is currently committing atrocities on the scale of Oct 7th weekly, why the fuck is nobody doing anything about it?".

You just need to grow up Helix, then you'll see.

[Chinahand]

 

This is a speech by Einat Wilf ... an Israeli left winger, in favour of a 2 state solution, who eloquently shows how Palestinian rejectionism has weakened those in Israel trying to offer compromise.

 

[The Peace camp had a hypothesis that when the Israelis agree to a Palestinian State in Gaza and the West Bank is the day we have peace] And the hypothesis was tested. That thing seems to be completely erased. The fact we had successive prime ministers elected on that platform [a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza] Barak, even more than Rabin, Ohmet, who have actually proposed a Palestinian state, no settlements no occupation, capital in East Jerusalem including Holy sites only to see Arafat and Abu Masen walk away to no dissenting voices among their people. I was working with Shimon Peres when together with Arial Sharon in Government they carried out the disengagement in Gaza really to the last square inch. The hypothesis was tested, people like to completely erase it now, and it failed spectacularly. So as I was witnessing that, and living through that, I began asking myself what is the alternative hypothesis, what is standing between us and peace, what do the Palestinians want. And during that time I meet Palestinians I do the research ... and I realise to the credit of Palestinians they always told us what they wanted, we just didn't listen, or when we listened it sounded so preposterous we didn't take it as a serious position, but they told us from the River to the Sea Palestine will be free ... of what exactly, well you go to the original Arabic they say very clearly, from Water to Water Palestine will be Arab. 

... A Quote by British Foreign Minister Ernest Bevin in February 1947 in a speech to the British Parliament explaining why Britain can no longer carry out the mandate with which it was entrusted by the League of Nations and thus sending it back to the United Nation. Note the date - February 1947: there is no Israel, no refugees, no occupation, no settlements, no blockade - none of the ‘understandable causes’ for Palestinian violence.

“His Majesty’s Government have thus been faced with an irreconcilable conflict of principles … For the Jews the essential point of principle is the creation of a sovereign Jewish State. For the Arabs, the essential point of principle is to resist to the last the establishment of Jewish sovereignty in any part of Palestine.”