|
On July 26 2014 05:29 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2014 05:27 m4ini wrote:On July 26 2014 05:25 Chocolate wrote:On July 26 2014 05:09 Adreme wrote:On July 26 2014 04:16 radscorpion9 wrote:
I think the core problem is that Israel believes East Jerusalem is now definitively part of Israel, so much so that they've made it part of their new capital (in spite of protests from the UN). I think that, past a certain point in time even the UN will need to be realistic about calling East Jerusalem occupied territory, because there could be such a deeply established society that to uproot it in the name of historical ownership would do more harm than good, just like returning the majority of US land to native Americans would do more harm than good. The question is how much time will that take, or will the UN ever change its position?
Well I suppose they still have time to do something about it, but at this point I would rather support a peace plan that involves something like joint ownership over East Jerusalem rather than going back to pre-1967 borders. I really hope that the UN gets some "teeth" at some point in the near future. Would be cool to have the seeds of a world government So using the logic that if you just occupy a territory long enough you don't really have to give it back because its yours now and the people who lived there don't get to complain? Yeah that's how life works. Texas doesn't belong to Mexico, Virginia doesn't belong to the Powhatan, Russia doesn't belong to the Finns, etc. because none of those have occupied that territory in living memory. After enough time, your case for controlling that territory is that "my ancestors a long time ago used to live there" which is a shitty reason in general. This also is a factor in how much bullshit it was for Israel to be granted Palestine, how much bullshit their wars of conquest are, and how unlikely it is for what is now Israel to be given back to Palestine. Guess crimea doesn't belong to ukraine then, by that logic. Yet, quite alot of posters in here were outraged by what russia pulled. There is quite some difference between how things worked 70 years ago and how they do now. At the time of Israel's foundation the UN barely existed.Right now Russia is breaking international law that have been existing for quite some time. I can understand how Kings were fighting each other in the middle ages and accept it as a fact of that time. That doesn't mean I'm advocating it happening now and I can't judge territorial disputes from the past by today's standards.
While i agree that 70 years ago things worked differently - Israel is still forcing illegal settlements. As i said (rather, edited, so i guess i was too late with that), nobody is disputing what they were granted. It was a ridiculously retarded decision to grant it (not because those people don't deserve land, but because it was SO obvious what's gonna happen, and innocent people from today on both sides have to suck it up), but nevertheless, granted. In fact, in all the peacetalks, there is the demands for israel going back to pre-67 borders as condition, not to disappear completely. Even that has never been agreed to by Israel.
It depends on who lives there, Crimeans should get self-determination and all that good stuff. It's all about who lives in a territory (or very recently lived there), not who used to.
Also the outcry over Crimea is that Russia is known for fixing elections and thus any poll given to Crimeans that would just so happen to advance Russia's agenda is highly suspect. As for Germany, I don't understand the point. Russians generally weren't brought in to live there; east Germany stayed German, there was simply a political division.
Ukrainians live there. There's no "crimeans". It is not and never was a "country" in any sense. It's not crimeans, but ukrainians.
Not to mention, do you actually believe that the "elections" (obviously they were fixed) would've been accepted, regardless of how they were conducted?
About germany/russia - my point exactly. Because germany wasn't annexed, but occupied. In Israel the thing looks different, they're not occupying one house after another, they're annexing land. That's what i was saying (or tried to).
|
International laws, ratified by most countries in the world, consider illegitimate any land gained through war. This was actually put in place to prevent Israeli from taking the Sinaï peninsula if I remember well (it comes from south american right).
Anyway, as always, Nyxisto accept Israel breaking international law. If it was Russia, he would be enraged and would ask for sanction from the EU. Why the double standard ?
|
I don't agree on the settlements, I think they're illegal. Gaza is only technically occupied because of the containment. Sinai was already given back to Egypt ages ago.
The golan heights were annexed by Israel after Syria completely unnecessary entered the six day war. If you're the aggressor and lose territory my pity is limited tbh.
It's simply not comparable to the Ukraine Russia situation. Russia is a bully and has been strongarming her neighbouring nations for decades. Israel is a 8 million pop. country that is surrounded by countries that have repeatedly declared war on it and have sworn to kill every Jew they can find.
|
It was given back because of the international pressure on Israeli. Might I remember you that, after the start of the war, the French president at the time had an historical press conference condamning the annexation of Egyptian land and, as I said, international organisation did the same, changing international law.
The main difference is that taking part of Egypt would never have worked - Egypt is a different beast, something Israel would never have been to handle. Palestine is just a small country, colonialised since hundred years, so taking their land does not push occidental countries to lift an eyebrow.
Everything, the settlements, the annexed part of Jerusalem East, and the blocus of Gaza are illegal according to the UN, so discussing those matter is pointless anymore unless you disagree with international law, which is a point that I see no one making.
|
I don't disagree with International law, but if I were the Israelian Prime minister and had the responsibility to protect the country I wouldn't even dream about lifting the blockade, even Egypt is on the same team here.
|
On July 26 2014 06:03 Nyxisto wrote:
I don't agree on the settlements, I think they're illegal. Gaza is only technically occupied because of the containment. Sinai was already given back to Egypt ages ago.
The golan heights were annexed by Israel after Syria completely unnecessary entered the six day war. If you're the aggressor and lose territory my pity is limited tbh.
It's simply not comparable to the Ukraine Russia situation. Russia is a bully and has been strongarming her neighbouring nations for decades. Israel is a 8 million pop. country that is surrounded by countries that have repeatedly declared war on it and have sworn to kill every Jew they can find.
Lets not pretend that Israel is not by far the most powerful country militarily in that region in the same way Russia is by far the most powerful country militarily in its region. The Israeli military is an actual modern military which is something no other country in that region can actually claim.
|
On July 26 2014 06:19 Nyxisto wrote:
I don't disagree with International law, but if I were the Israelian President and had the responsibility to protect the country I wouldn't even dream about lifting the blockade, even Egypt is on the same team here.
Would you then agree that Israel should be sanctioned for breaking international law, which (thanks to the US) they're not?
|
Egypt is not putting a blocade on Gaza, it is just closing its own border, which altho heartless is completly OK. Israel can close its border to Gaza, but it is also controlling ressources IN gaza, controlling Gaza's sea, preventing any ship from going further than I don't know how much km, and controlling its air. So, in essence it is preventting gazans from trading with other countries, forcing them into impoverishment : this is a crime, possibly a crime against humanity according to the Goldstone report.
May I add that Hamas proved in history that it could respect truce and peace treaty (unlike Israel might I say) so if Israel would grant them their demand, Israel would have no concern for its own security, unlike today with the rockets.
|
On July 26 2014 06:23 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2014 06:19 Nyxisto wrote:
I don't disagree with International law, but if I were the Israelian President and had the responsibility to protect the country I wouldn't even dream about lifting the blockade, even Egypt is on the same team here. Would you then agree that Israel should be sanctioned for breaking international law, which (thanks to the US) they're not?
For the settlements, yes. I think it's the really 'unnecessary' thing Israel has done over the years and it certainly isn't helpful.
|
On July 26 2014 06:27 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2014 06:23 m4ini wrote:On July 26 2014 06:19 Nyxisto wrote:
I don't disagree with International law, but if I were the Israelian President and had the responsibility to protect the country I wouldn't even dream about lifting the blockade, even Egypt is on the same team here. Would you then agree that Israel should be sanctioned for breaking international law, which (thanks to the US) they're not? For the settlements, yes. I think it's the really 'unnecessary' thing Israel has done over the years and it certainly isn't helpful.
What you or i think is irrelevant. (edit: rather, not for us to decide what laws they broke)
Remember this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_flotilla_raid
edit: from another piece
Opinion on the legality of the blockade is mixed. In September 2011, the Chair and Vice-Chair of a UN Panel of Inquiry concluded in the Palmer Report that the naval blockade is legal and had to be judged isolated from the restrictions on goods reaching Gaza via the land crossings. Concerning the restrictions on goods reaching Gaza via the land crossings the Palmer report stated that they were the main reason for an unsustainable and unacceptable humanitarian situation in Gaza.[24][25][26] However a Fact-Finding Mission for the UN Human Rights Council chaired by a former judge of the International Criminal Court found that the blockade constituted collective punishment of the population of Gaza and was therefore unlawful.[27] UN envoy Desmond Tutu, United Nations Human Rights Council head Navi Pillay, the International Committee of the Red Cross and some experts on international law[28] consider the blockade illegal.
And that pretty much agrees with me, i can understand the blockade, but the restrictions of goods is basically just strongarming. And, apparently, not lawful.
Yet, nothing comes of it, obviously.
On 31 May 2010, Prime Minister Netanyahu asked President Obama to veto any UN Security Council condemnations of Israel, but the president refused to comply. At the UN Security Council, the US subsequently blocked demands for an international inquiry into the raid and the criticism of Israel for allegedly violating international law, as proposed by Turkey, Palestine and Arab nations.
|
|
|
I didn't know about this specific thing, but Wikipedia page says:
On 2 August 2010, United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon announced that the U.N. would conduct an investigation of the incident. The report was published on 2 September 2011 after being delayed, reportedly to allow Israel and Turkey to continue reconciliation talks. The report found that the Israeli naval blockade of Gaza was legal, and that there were "serious questions about the conduct, true nature and objectives of the flotilla organizers, particularly IHH".[12] The report also found that Israel's army used excessive force while the flotilla was still in international waters, and concluded that the degree of force used against the Mavi Marmara was "excessive and unreasonable",[13] and that the way Israel treated detained crew members violated international human rights law.[13]
which seems like both sides have displayed some questionable behaviour in this incident. I just think it's tiring to throw each other selective information in the face. You can't have a serious discussion about this if every time someone brings an argument up the one side responds with "they blocked this ship!" or "they attacked them with a suicide bomber!"
|
On July 26 2014 06:40 Nyxisto wrote:I didn't know about this specific thing, but Wikipedia page says: Show nested quote +On 2 August 2010, United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon announced that the U.N. would conduct an investigation of the incident. The report was published on 2 September 2011 after being delayed, reportedly to allow Israel and Turkey to continue reconciliation talks. The report found that the Israeli naval blockade of Gaza was legal, and that there were "serious questions about the conduct, true nature and objectives of the flotilla organizers, particularly IHH".[12] The report also found that Israel's army used excessive force while the flotilla was still in international waters, and concluded that the degree of force used against the Mavi Marmara was "excessive and unreasonable",[13] and that the way Israel treated detained crew members violated international human rights law.[13] which seems like both sides have displayed some questionable behaviour in this incident. I just think it's tiring to throw each other selective information in the face.
See my edit.
It's one incedent. Not to mention, the naval blockade is "lawful", the restrictions on goods is not. But nothing comes of it thanks to an abo to US vetoes.
You can't have a serious discussion about this if every time someone brings an argument up the one side responds with "they blocked this ship!" or "they attacked them with a suicide bomber!"
Well, it's you saying "it's only the settlements that are illegal", what am i supposed to do other than show you that you're wrong?
edit: not to mention that it's not selective, i quoted a paragraph saying that the blockade is lawful, but everything else isn't. If i wanted to be selective, i would cut the first part of that.
|
On July 26 2014 05:44 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2014 05:29 Nyxisto wrote:On July 26 2014 05:27 m4ini wrote:On July 26 2014 05:25 Chocolate wrote:On July 26 2014 05:09 Adreme wrote:On July 26 2014 04:16 radscorpion9 wrote:
I think the core problem is that Israel believes East Jerusalem is now definitively part of Israel, so much so that they've made it part of their new capital (in spite of protests from the UN). I think that, past a certain point in time even the UN will need to be realistic about calling East Jerusalem occupied territory, because there could be such a deeply established society that to uproot it in the name of historical ownership would do more harm than good, just like returning the majority of US land to native Americans would do more harm than good. The question is how much time will that take, or will the UN ever change its position?
Well I suppose they still have time to do something about it, but at this point I would rather support a peace plan that involves something like joint ownership over East Jerusalem rather than going back to pre-1967 borders. I really hope that the UN gets some "teeth" at some point in the near future. Would be cool to have the seeds of a world government So using the logic that if you just occupy a territory long enough you don't really have to give it back because its yours now and the people who lived there don't get to complain? Yeah that's how life works. Texas doesn't belong to Mexico, Virginia doesn't belong to the Powhatan, Russia doesn't belong to the Finns, etc. because none of those have occupied that territory in living memory. After enough time, your case for controlling that territory is that "my ancestors a long time ago used to live there" which is a shitty reason in general. This also is a factor in how much bullshit it was for Israel to be granted Palestine, how much bullshit their wars of conquest are, and how unlikely it is for what is now Israel to be given back to Palestine. Guess crimea doesn't belong to ukraine then, by that logic. Yet, quite alot of posters in here were outraged by what russia pulled. There is quite some difference between how things worked 70 years ago and how they do now. At the time of Israel's foundation the UN barely existed.Right now Russia is breaking international law that have been existing for quite some time. I can understand how Kings were fighting each other in the middle ages and accept it as a fact of that time. That doesn't mean I'm advocating it happening now and I can't judge territorial disputes from the past by today's standards. While i agree that 70 years ago things worked differently - Israel is still forcing illegal settlements. As i said (rather, edited, so i guess i was too late with that), nobody is disputing what they were granted. It was a ridiculously retarded decision to grant it (not because those people don't deserve land, but because it was SO obvious what's gonna happen, and innocent people from today on both sides have to suck it up), but nevertheless, granted. In fact, in all the peacetalks, there is the demands for israel going back to pre-67 borders as condition, not to disappear completely. Even that has never been agreed to by Israel. Show nested quote +It depends on who lives there, Crimeans should get self-determination and all that good stuff. It's all about who lives in a territory (or very recently lived there), not who used to.
Also the outcry over Crimea is that Russia is known for fixing elections and thus any poll given to Crimeans that would just so happen to advance Russia's agenda is highly suspect. As for Germany, I don't understand the point. Russians generally weren't brought in to live there; east Germany stayed German, there was simply a political division. Ukrainians live there. There's no "crimeans". It is not and never was a "country" in any sense. It's not crimeans, but ukrainians. Not to mention, do you actually believe that the "elections" (obviously they were fixed) would've been accepted, regardless of how they were conducted? About germany/russia - my point exactly. Because germany wasn't annexed, but occupied. In Israel the thing looks different, they're not occupying one house after another, they're annexing land. That's what i was saying (or tried to).
You are completely and utterly wrong in this statement (first bolded statement): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimea
Scroll down to the demographics and you will see there are actually three times as many Russians as Ukranians in Crimea and in fact 77% of the population named Russian as their main language.
The second bolded statement is not actually based on facts and there was not very strong local protest or military protest to Crimea being annexed. In addition, the Ukranian government is not actually democratically elected and the former government was ousted by force, so it's definetly not a question of black and white in Ukraine.
I think Ukraine is in an awful situation because they're in a tug of war between Russia & EU+America and the ethnic population is very much divided on the subject as well. Also when huge countries like the Ukraine split up there will always be separatists and people fighting for power.
|
On July 26 2014 06:42 m4ini wrote:
Well, it's you saying "it's only the settlements that are illegal", what am i supposed to do other than show you that you're wrong?
edit: not to mention that it's not selective, i quoted a paragraph saying that the blockade is lawful, but everything else isn't. If i wanted to be selective, i would cut the first part of that.
No, I don't think "only the settlements are illegal".Illegal is whatever the UN says is illegal. But I can understand why Israel is blockading Gaza. They simply could not guarantee their citizens safety if they would open the border, illegal or not.
|
On July 26 2014 06:50 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2014 06:42 m4ini wrote:
Well, it's you saying "it's only the settlements that are illegal", what am i supposed to do other than show you that you're wrong?
edit: not to mention that it's not selective, i quoted a paragraph saying that the blockade is lawful, but everything else isn't. If i wanted to be selective, i would cut the first part of that. No, I don't think "only the settlements are illegal".Illegal is whatever the UN says is illegal. But I can understand why Israel is blockading Gaza. They simply could not guarantee their citizens safety if they would open the border, illegal or not.
Mate, do you understand that blockade is not the same as restricting goods? That's why i quoted all the stuff, the naval blockade is fine according to the law, and closed borders to israel are fine as well - but israel restricts wares going into Gaza. And that's against international law. Even UN Observers agree that israel is responsible for the catastrophic humanitarian situation.
I asked you, would you agree that sanctions etc are needed for breaking international law, you said:
For the settlements, yes. I think it's the really 'unnecessary' thing Israel has done over the years and it certainly isn't helpful.
Hence my "you're saying only the settlements are illegal". There's a shitton going on where israel brakes international law, and either you agree that bullshit has to stop and needs to be sanctioned, or you disagree and openly admit that you think israel somehow is the exception of the rule.
edit: about understanding, i do obviously understand that weapons and military stuff has to be restricted. But you know what is restricted? Everything that israel deems "dual purpose". That can be literally everything, from watches (for bombs), meds (for gas), anything. And no, i don't agree to that.
edit: here's the list, don't want to look like i'm making baseless assumptions
http://www.wassenaar.org/controllists/
|
Obviously it's bad for the people in Gaza that they can't freely trade. The problem is that every second time Israel lets stuff like concrete into Gaza the Hamas builds terror tunnels with it instead of building hospitals. The whole point about it is that people should be mad at the radical forces in Gaza and stop being mad at Israel.
Israel could be the nicest country on the planet, the Hamas would not stop. They have declared they will not accept a Jewish state on their soil. If you think you can appease those people you're delusional.
edit: Also it seems like the actually have agreed to a 12 hour ceasefire. (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-28497439)
|
On July 26 2014 07:10 Nyxisto wrote:
Obviously it's bad for the people in Gaza that they can't freely trade. The problem is that every second time Israel lets stuff like concrete into Gaza the Hamas builds terror tunnels with it instead of building hospitals. The whole point about it is that people should be mad at the radical forces in Gaza and stop being mad at Israel.
Israel could be the nicest country on the planet, the Hamas would not stop. They have declared they will not accept a Jewish state on their soil. If you think you can appease those people you're delusional.
That's not correct though. It doesn't matter what they're using concrete for, it's not for israel to decide if they should have it. Palestine literally has no infrastructure whatsoever. Those restrictions play a big part in it. For that to understand, you would need to differ between terrorists and palestines, which you don't, so i don't expect you to get it. Part of the whole misery in palestine is because of the catastrophic situation in there. And that's where you go "lalalala" with fingers in your ears.
The whole situation down there is maybe not started by israel, but once it was going, israel did every single bit they could to keep the fire running.
But it's nice how you tried to circumvent my initial question. Guess it's answer enough.
PS: not answering to stuff and dodging is "not the way to have a debate". If you think israel plays "nice", you're the delusional one.
edit: and obviously, it's braking international law. Not because i say it, but because the UN did.
|
On July 26 2014 07:10 Nyxisto wrote:
Obviously it's bad for the people in Gaza that they can't freely trade. The problem is that every second time Israel lets stuff like concrete into Gaza the Hamas builds terror tunnels with it instead of building hospitals. The whole point about it is that people should be mad at the radical forces in Gaza and stop being mad at Israel.
Israel could be the nicest country on the planet, the Hamas would not stop. They have declared they will not accept a Jewish state on their soil. If you think you can appease those people you're delusional.
Unstopple force meets inpenetrable shield? Netanyahu is as right wing as they come. Point is that people should be mad at the extreme right wing in Israel and stop being mad at Hamas.
Hamas could be the nicest people on the planet, Netanyahu would not stop. They have been unbendable in negotiation of peace. If you think you can appease those people you're delusional and so on...
You see where I am going? Eating the egg is not gonna make the hen disappear etc. Extremism thrives when opposition escalates to the same level.
|
Unstopple force meets inpenetrable shield? Netanyahu is as right wing as they come.
That's why i said that i criticise the knesset, not israel/jews in general. People seem to not gather what Netanyahu represents.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
