Arab-Israeli Conflict, v2: What the UN Jerusalem vote mean for Israel, the U.S, and Palestine

[Rod1]

Israel's occupation of territories, and then declaring those territories to be part of their capital city is in breach of all sorts of international laws, mostly the 4th Geneva convention, legislated by 196 different countries, including the US and Israel.

You antisemite.

 

[Arkain2K]

Because all of those countries are overrun with extremists and don't want to be attacked.

Nah, those 128 member may have casted the same vote, but there are wildy different reasons for them to do so.

For example: Japan and South Korea might have did it on principle, but France and Russia never bothered to hide their ambition to replace the U.S as the Middle East mediator, Turkey/Iran/Saudi view the Palestinians as a useful tool in their power play for regional supremacy, and Britain because, well, apparently they don't need the last ally they have left after Brexit.

 

[Rod1]

We wouldnt even need the help of Israel and the Saudi.

Of course not, the world would end if WW3 were to happen.

 

[jimbob27]

You antisemite.

Jeremy Corbyn made me do it.

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

Israel's occupation of territories, and then declaring those territories to be part of their capital city is in breach of all sorts of international laws, mostly the 4th Geneva convention, legislated by 196 different countries, including the US and Israel.

I disagree that it does. I agree with the opinion of Julius Stone on the matter: ""Irony would...be pushed to the absurdity of claiming that Article 49(6), designed to prevent repetition of Nazi-type genocidal policies of rendering Nazi metropolitan territories judenrein, has now come to mean that...the West Bank...must be made judenrein and must be so maintained, if necessary by the use of force by the government of Israel against its own inhabitants. Common sense as well as correct historical and functional context excludes so tyrannical a reading of Article 49."

 

[jimbob27]

I disagree that it does. I agree with the opinion of Julius Stone on the matter: ""Irony would...be pushed to the absurdity of claiming that Article 49(6), designed to prevent repetition of Nazi-type genocidal policies of rendering Nazi metropolitan territories judenrein, has now come to mean that...the West Bank...must be made judenrein and must be so maintained, if necessary by the use of force by the government of Israel against its own inhabitants. Common sense as well as correct historical and functional context excludes so tyrannical a reading of Article 49."

A Jew who's father was literally called Israel probably doesn't hold a lot of impartiality on the matter.

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

So the only non-antisemtic nations are Honduras, some Islands on the pacific and the US? If you dont want to have a serious discussion just say it.

Er, what? I was agreeing with this statement you made here:

there are a lot of muslim nations who hate Israel

This hate is a driver of the current push to shame the US for behaving normally and rationally as regards Israel.

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

A Jew who's father was literally called Israel probably doesn't hold a lot of impartiality on the matter.

So rather than refute his argument you looked to see who his parents are: He can't be taken seriously; after all, he's Jewish.

He was also a globally respected expert on international law.

 

[Rod1]

Er, what? I was agreeing with this statement you made here:

This hate is a driver of the current push to shame the US for behaving normally and rationally as regards Israel.

But it wasnt just muslims nation who voted against, it was virtually the entire world, except Israel, the US, Honduras and some island nations.

Well a lot of self-serving nations refused to vote in order not to piss either side of the room.

Why is Israel so obsessed with Jerusalem though.

 

[jimbob27]

Er, what? I was agreeing with this statement you made here:

This hate is a driver of the current push to shame the US for behaving normally and rationally as regards Israel.

They're not acting normally or rationally though. The 14-1 vote should tell you that. Jerusalem doesn't even have an international airport. Half of it is full of Palestinians and not part of Israel. All rational thinking points towards Tel Aviv being a more suitable capital. The only thing saying Israel is better are books of nonsense that are thousands of years out of date.

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

They were absolutely the aggressor from the beginning when they were appropriating as much land as possible, and bombing hotels. Then, they massacred Palestinians and drove them out of their villages. They stole vast amounts on land in 1948, and the partition was a joke. Then, they started the 1967 war which led to UNSCR 242, which has still yet to be implemented.

The offer at camp David was garbage, and created 5 Bantustans for Palestine, leaving Israel in complete control of their territory.

If Iran was right next to Israel, and treated the Israelis how they treat the Palestinians, we would have invaded and overthrown their government long ago.

It is an affront to human dignity, and international law that Israel gets away with what it does.

1. No, they weren't. It's an established historical fact that Israel was not the aggressor in either the 1948 or 1973 wars.

2. The offer at Camp David was excellent and undermined the credibility of the Palestinians when it was not accepted.



Based on your comments about the problems with partition, do you think Israel should even be a state or would it be better if it were disbanded?

 

[Rod1]

I disagree that it does. I agree with the opinion of Julius Stone on the matter: ""Irony would...be pushed to the absurdity of claiming that Article 49(6), designed to prevent repetition of Nazi-type genocidal policies of rendering Nazi metropolitan territories judenrein, has now come to mean that...the West Bank...must be made judenrein and must be so maintained, if necessary by the use of force by the government of Israel against its own inhabitants. Common sense as well as correct historical and functional context excludes so tyrannical a reading of Article 49."

As opposed to Palestinian rein?

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

But it wasnt just muslims nation who voted against, it was virtually the entire world, except Israel, the US, Honduras and some island nations.

Well a lot of self-serving nations refused to vote in order not to piss either side of the room.

Why is Israel so obsessed with Jerusalem though.

1. Are you seriously asking why Israel is obsessed with Jerusalem? We may as well ask why the Palestinians are equally obsessed with it. Both have strong cultural, historical, and religious reasons to consider it critical to their respective nations.

2. The fact that a lot of non-muslim nations voted to condemn the US action is irrelevant to the idea, which you first introduced, that Muslim hate for Israelis a driver of this action. Neither you nor I are arguing that it is the only driver.

 

[Rod1]

So rather than refute his argument you looked to see who his parents are: He can't be taken seriously; after all, he's Jewish.

He was also a globally respected expert on international law.

His point clearly illustrates that he feels jews are special.

The Article wasnt made for jews, it was made for everyone, jewish rights should be respected and no jew should be forced to move, but they would need to surrender their Israeli nationality or agree to land swaps.

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

As opposed to Palestinian rein?

There are no more Palestinians on the West Bank?

 

[Rod1]

1. Are you seriously asking why Israel is obsessed with Jerusalem? We may as well ask why the Palestinians are equally obsessed with it. Both have strong cultural, historical, and religious reasons to consider it critical to their respective nations.

I expect muslims to be obsessed with it due to religious fervor, also because there arent many cities of worth in the West Bank outside of Israel.

Unlike Israel whose most important city is Tel Aviv.

2. The fact that a lot of non-muslim nations voted to condemn the US action is irrelevant to the idea, which you first introduced, that Muslim hate for Israelis a driver of this action. Neither you nor I are arguing that it is the only driver.

Indeed, but you claimed Europe is antisemitic too for opposing it.

 

[HomerThompson]

1. No, they weren't. It's an established historical fact that Israel was not the aggressor in either the 1948 or 1973 wars.

2. The offer at Camp David was excellent and undermined the credibility of the Palestinians when it was not accepted.



Based on your comments about the problems with partition, do you think Israel should even be a state or would it be better if it were disbanded?

I think it's to late to talk about disbanding their sate, but Israel should be on roughly half the land of BMP, with Palestine on the other half. Right of return for refugees, etc.

Also, you're dead wrong on your facts. The 1973 war is the only thing you've got correct.

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

All rational thinking points towards Tel Aviv being a more suitable capital. The only thing saying Israel is better are books of nonsense that are thousands of years out of date.

Your hostility to Israel's Jewish cultural and religious heritage is noted.

 

[Rod1]

There are no more Palestinians on the West Bank?

In a lot of places yes, there are no more Palestinians.

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

I think it's to late to talk about disbanding their sate, but Israel should be on roughly half the land of BMP, with Palestine on the other half. Right of return for refugees, etc.

Also, you're dead wrong on your facts. The 1973 war is the only thing you've got correct.

You say I'm dead wrong, but then admit that I'm correct about Israel not being the aggressor in the 1973 War. So you are conceding that you were wrong when you said Israel has always been the aggressor.

I am also correct that Israel did not start the 1948 War which can only reasonably be described as a defensive war against an international military coalition.