Are Jews "Unrightly" Occupying Israel?

[WinePusher]

Former white house press corps member Helen Thomas made a statement that Jews are occupying Palestine and they should "go home." This statement was defended in far left precincts such as Rosie O' Donnell, the former actor.

First, I'd invite both these people to read history and maybe Rosie O' Donnell (if shes not to afraid) should read the bible.

1) Are the Jews unrightly occupying Israel.

2) Was the United Nations justified in creating this state.

[DeBunkem]

If we had to return every piece of land someone's ancestors "stole" from another we'd all be wandering this globe aimlessly and endlessly.

Long live Israel! Long live the Israelis!

Except that the old Imperial Conquest pattern was legally outlawed by the UN when nations became sick of such thievery after the World Wars. We are signatories and like it or not, international treaty is law. That goes for torture, too.

Long live Human Rights! Long live Justice!

Wikipedia

Right of conquest

The right of conquest is the right of a conqueror to territory taken by force of arms. It was traditionally a principle of international law which has in modern times gradually given way until its proscription after the second world war when the crime of war of aggression was first codified in the Nuremberg Principles and then finally as a United Nations resolution 3314.[1]

The completion of colonial conquest of much of the world (see the Scramble for Africa), the devastation of World War I and World War II, and the alignment of both the United States and the Soviet Union with the principle of self determination led to the abandonment of the right of conquest in formal international law. The 1928 Kellogg-Briand Pact, the post-1945 Nuremberg Trials, the UN Charter, and the UN role in decolonization saw the progressive dismantling of this principle. Simultaneously, the UN Charter's guarantee of the "territorial integrity" of member states effectively froze out claims against prior conquests from this process.

Conquest and military occupation
After the attempted conquests of Napoleon and up to the attempted conquests of Hitler, the disposition of territory acquired under the principle of conquest had to, according to international law, be conducted according to the existing laws of war. This meant that there had to be military occupation followed by a peace settlement. If there was a territorial cession, then there had to be a formal peace treaty.

The Second Treatise of Civil Government 1690 "That the aggressor, who puts himself into the state of war with another, and unjustly invades another man's right, can, by such an unjust war, never come to have a right over the conquered, will be easily agreed by all men, who will not think that robbers and pirates have a right of empire over whomsoever they have force enough to master, or that men are bound by promises which unlawful force extorts from them.

Should a robber break into my house, and, with a dagger at my throat, make me seal deeds to convey my estate to him, would this give him any title? Just such a title by his sword has an unjust conqueror who forces me into submission. The injury and the crime is equal, whether committed by the wearer of a crown or some petty villain.

The title of the offender and the number of his followers make no difference in the offence, unless it be to aggravate it. The only difference is,
great robbers punish little ones to keep them in their obedience; but the great ones are rewarded with laurels and triumphs, because they are too big for the
weak hands of justice in this world, and have the power in their own possession which should punish offenders." John Locke - 1632-1704

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 11:

Except that the old Imperial Conquest pattern was legally outlawed by the UN when nations became sick of such thievery after the World Wars. We are signatories and like it or not, international treaty is law. That goes for torture, too.

I 'preciate your endorsement of the UN Partition Plan:

My amateur understanding is that a defensible homeland is concerned with international law, defensible borders, contiguity of state and offers of peace for real and genuine regional and global stability.

Long live Human Rights! Long live Justice!

When it's for all.

The right of conquest is the right of a conqueror to territory taken by force of arms.

While the conqueror is exercising his rights, surely he won't care if I do a little of it myself.

It was traditionally...

Tradition is not the be all and end all of how we ought act.

The Second Treatise of Civil Government 1690

1690?

I remember there awhile back where I thought the site's calendar was off. I'm here to tell ya, I sure didn't know it was by that much.


Nazi imagery? Really? That's a selling point? I'll give 'em the Volkswagen Beetle, I mean I love that car, but I sure ain't cool with all the rest of that.

[DeBunkem]

"Right of conquest" is referring to that which no longer applies, as I believe you well know. The modern, pre-Zionist Palestine was a result of the collapse of the old Ottoman Empire. The region had still been named Palestine since Byzantine times at least. The French and British also designated this part of the Empire as Palestine. Since the Palestinian inhabitants relied upon the Turks and then the Brits for military protection, the colonial protectorate was responsible to defend them. Does this mean Palestine was not a valid country? The rest of the artificially drawn borders such as Lebanon and Syria are respected as legit. Actually, the League of Nations designated the whole region as Palestine.



As for the UN Partition, it has been steadily eroded by encroaching settlements and outright seizure...stealth conquest.



The remaining "Bantustans" of Palestinians are either the Apartheid Ghetto of Gaza or unviable sections of land cut off from contact with the rest.



Bottom Line:

Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon Calls Israeli Presence in Palestine "Occupation," Stunning Lawmakers; Now, the Foreign Ministry is Weighing Lifting a Ban on the Word
President Bush will be meeting with Sharon and Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas next week. A conversation between Rabbi Michael Lerner, and Ziad Asali on the U.S. "roadmap to peace."

http://www.democracynow.org/2003/5/27/i ... aron_calls

Since Ariel Sharon speaks the Likudnik line, I cannot imagine that "Israel Firsters" would care to dispute him, but nothing surprises me anymore from the AIPAC crowd.

Israel is invading Lebanon and has killed thirty times more Lebanese civilians than have died in Israel, so it’s you who should be justifying the evident bias which is written on every line on your face, and is in every nuance of your voice, and is loaded in every question that you ask.
Interview on Sky News, August 6, 2006

Asked to justify supporting Hezbollah.
One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter. You are totally wrong in saying that in most people’s eyes Hezbollah are terrorists. In most people’s eyes Israel is a terrorist state. It’s the fact that you cannot comprehend that fact that leads to bias that runs through all of your reporting and every question that you’ve asked me in this interview!

Interview on Sky News, August 6, 2006
What a silly question! What a silly person you are! Hezbollah is winning the war; you can see on the other half of the screen. Hezbollah is more popular today in Lebanon amongst Christians, amongst Sunnis, amongst Shiite, amongst all Arabs, amongst all Muslims that it has ever been. It’s Israel who’s lost the war, and Bush and Blair for politically organizing the war, who’ve lost politically. This is a defeat of Bush and Blair and Israel. Everybody but you can see it!

Labour activist James Galloway's interview on Murdoch's STAR News

[DeBunkem]

Zionists in Occupied Palestine are unmasking themselves as rank racists and opponents of peaceful co-existence. They continually try to shout down all world outrage against their depredations and outrages against Palestinians and their unarmed Human Rights supporters by referring to their "right to exist." Consider what one prominent Rabbi says about their abused Palestinian vassals' "right to exist":

Influential Israel Rabbi: Palestinians Should Perish with a Plague

An influential Israeli rabbi is coming under criticism after he gave a sermon Saturday in which he prayed for all Palestinians to perish in plague. Rabbi Ovadia Yosef is the founder of the Shas party, part of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s coalition government.

Rabbi Ovadia Yosef: "May our enemies and haters end. Abu Mazen and all these evil people should perish from this earth. God should strike them and these Palestinians—evil haters of Israel—with a plague."

Rabbi Ovadia Yosef’s comments come just days before Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas are scheduled to begin direct talks in Washington. Palestinian Authority spokesperson Ghassan Khatib condemned the Rabbi’s remarks.

Ghassan Khatib: "The statement that we heard from Ovadia Yosef is a racist incitement statement that is responsible for increasing the hatred and deepening the racist attitude among the Israeli society."

www.democracynow.org

One notices these inflammatory spews and increase of settler incursion whenever threats of peace talks arise. Seems they have wrapped themselves in arrogance and hypocrisy as a deliberate affront to world opinion.

[cnorman18]

Zionists in Occupied Palestine are unmasking themselves as rank racists and opponents of peaceful co-existence. They continually try to shout down all world outrage against their depredations and outrages against Palestinians and their unarmed Human Rights supporters by referring to their "right to exist." Consider what one prominent Rabbi says about their abused Palestinian vassals' "right to exist":

Influential Israel Rabbi: Palestinians Should Perish with a Plague

An influential Israeli rabbi is coming under criticism after he gave a sermon Saturday in which he prayed for all Palestinians to perish in plague. Rabbi Ovadia Yosef is the founder of the Shas party, part of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s coalition government.

Rabbi Ovadia Yosef: "May our enemies and haters end. Abu Mazen and all these evil people should perish from this earth. God should strike them and these Palestinians—evil haters of Israel—with a plague."

Rabbi Ovadia Yosef’s comments come just days before Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas are scheduled to begin direct talks in Washington. Palestinian Authority spokesperson Ghassan Khatib condemned the Rabbi’s remarks.

Ghassan Khatib: "The statement that we heard from Ovadia Yosef is a racist incitement statement that is responsible for increasing the hatred and deepening the racist attitude among the Israeli society."

www.democracynow.org

One notices these inflammatory spews and increase of settler incursion whenever threats of peace talks arise. Seems they have wrapped themselves in arrogance and hypocrisy as a deliberate affront to world opinion.

Yeah, there's a lot of that going around, and it's a lot easier to find going the other way:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/u ... 112543.ece

http://www.globalpolitician.com/25609-islam-pope-jews

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/u ... 787344.ece

And so on. It's not hard to find murderous extremists on either side. The question is whether it's either fair or accurate to attribute such extremism to everyone who disagrees with one's own position.

Are all Israelis and all supporters of Israel "rank racists and opponents of peaceful co-existence"? If so, can we assume that the Muslim clerics in the stories linked above are just as "responsible for increasing the hatred and deepening the racist attitude among the Palestinian society" and that all Muslims feel the same way? That's every bit as fair as the statements in this post.

The Israelis and the Palestinians have mutually exclusive historical narratives. Historical analysis will show that neither is wholly true, nor wholly false, but as long as neither side is willing to attribute the least humanity or good will to its opponent, there's no common ground for discussion there. Dwelling on the past, from either position, won't help anyone. Better to look at the present and the future.

But there, in the same way, both sides are so consumed and enraged by the wrongs commited against them that they cannot acknowledge the wrongs committed by their own side; those are either justified or denied, which of course inflames the hatred. What is more infuriating than losing one's loved ones? How about being told that their deaths were justifiable and even praiseworthy - or just didn't happen?

Neither side has clean hands here. I could post literally hundreds of instances of Muslim clerics and Arab leaders calling for the wholesale murder of Jews, and they would do nothing whatever but increase prejudice against and bigoted stereotypes of Muslims and Palestinians and inflame hatred and outrage. How would that serve efforts toward peace and understanding and cooperation?

How do posts like this serve the peace process? I can't think of a single peace treaty in human history based on "You guys are all brutal, inhuman animals dedicated to pure evil, and my guys are all sinless saints dedicated to peace, justice and compassion."

The choice here is between the impulse toward peace, i.e. recognizing the humanity and the legitimate interests of BOTH Palestinians and Israelis and trying to find common ground thereby - and the impulse toward hate, i.e. simply stomping a rhetorical mudhole in your enemies and then stomping it dry; claiming that your opponents represent pure, malevolent evil and HAVE no legitimate interests. That does no one any good whatever, and indeed only makes things worse.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 13:

"Right of conquest" is referring to that which no longer applies, as I believe you well know. The modern, pre-Zionist Palestine was a result of the collapse of the old Ottoman Empire. The region had still been named Palestine since Byzantine times at least. The French and British also designated this part of the Empire as Palestine. Since the Palestinian inhabitants relied upon the Turks and then the Brits for military protection, the colonial protectorate was responsible to defend them. Does this mean Palestine was not a valid country? The rest of the artificially drawn borders such as Lebanon and Syria are respected as legit. Actually, the League of Nations designated the whole region as Palestine.

The League of Nations is no more. Now international law goes through the UN.

As for the UN Partition, it has been steadily eroded by encroaching settlements and outright seizure...stealth conquest.

Even this ex-soldier recognizes the need for security, even if it means crossing borders to do it. Israel has taken land that was used in attacking Israel - a perfectly legitimate military measure, UN proclamations notwithstanding.

The remaining "Bantustans" of Palestinians are either the Apartheid Ghetto of Gaza or unviable sections of land cut off from contact with the rest.

Starving the enemy of his ability to fight.

Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon Calls Israeli Presence in Palestine "Occupation," Stunning Lawmakers; Now, the Foreign Ministry is Weighing Lifting a Ban on the Word
President Bush will be meeting with Sharon and Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas next week. A conversation between Rabbi Michael Lerner, and Ziad Asali on the U.S. "roadmap to peace."

"Occupation" and "holding this here spot so that feller can't launch rockets at me from it" sound a lot alike, Daddy. (with apologies to Little Enos Bur... Ber...)

Israel is invading Lebanon and has killed thirty times more Lebanese civilians than have died in Israel, so it’s you who should be justifying the evident bias which is written on every line on your face, and is in every nuance of your voice, and is loaded in every question that you ask.

Don't hide among civilians if you don't want the civilian population to be affected.

Asked to justify supporting Hezbollah.
One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter. You are totally wrong in saying that in most people’s eyes Hezbollah are terrorists. In most people’s eyes Israel is a terrorist state. It’s the fact that you cannot comprehend that fact that leads to bias that runs through all of your reporting and every question that you’ve asked me in this interview!

"Most people" is an argumentum ad populum. Call 'em what you will, folks lobbing rockets in my general direction are my enemies.

What a silly question! What a silly person you are! Hezbollah is winning the war; you can see on the other half of the screen. Hezbollah is more popular today in Lebanon amongst Christians, amongst Sunnis, amongst Shiite, amongst all Arabs, amongst all Muslims that it has ever been. It’s Israel who’s lost the war, and Bush and Blair for politically organizing the war, who’ve lost politically. This is a defeat of Bush and Blair and Israel. Everybody but you can see it!

"But you can't see it" seems a cry from who is blind himself. I never much cottoned to blaming the other guy for my failure to persuade.
--------------------

From Post 14:

Zionists in Occupied Palestine are unmasking themselves as rank racists and opponents of peaceful co-existence. They continually try to shout down all world outrage against their depredations and outrages against Palestinians and their unarmed Human Rights supporters by referring to their "right to exist." Consider what one prominent Rabbi says about their abused Palestinian vassals' "right to exist":

An influential Israeli rabbi is coming under criticism after he gave a sermon Saturday in which he prayed for all Palestinians to perish in plague...

Wanting my enemies to die in a fire / plague / etc. is not near the problem as my enemies trying to ensure I'm the one dying.

One notices these inflammatory spews and increase of settler incursion whenever threats of peace talks arise. Seems they have wrapped themselves in arrogance and hypocrisy as a deliberate affront to world opinion.

Who's that said something about casting the first stone?

Israel is on record through several accords offering land for peace, only to have such accords dismissed by the Palestinian authorities.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 15:

Much good stuff, but I really like...

The choice here is between the impulse toward peace, i.e. recognizing the humanity and the legitimate interests of BOTH Palestinians and Israelis and trying to find common ground thereby - and the impulse toward hate, i.e. simply stomping a rhetorical mudhole in your enemies and then stomping it dry; claiming that your opponents represent pure, malevolent evil and HAVE no legitimate interests. That does no one any good whatever, and indeed only makes things worse.

It is my understanding many Arab / Muslims schools recently did or still do teach that Jews are "murderous pigs" or some such similar language as well as pictures to drive the point/s home. When you teach your children to hate, do not feel all surprised and such when they grow up to do just that.

[Lux]

I don't think it was a wise idea to give it back to them by displacing the Palestinians when we had plenty of wide tracts of unused land in our own nation we could have set up a state for them in.

That's a very nice sentiment on your part, but it wouldn't have worked that way. The land that is now Israel was not randomly selected, it has been sacred for the Jewish since biblical times. They regard it as the land God promised to them.

For that reason, I can't really blame them for taking it. If a nation (namely Britain) was offering them the possibility to finally have the land they have considered they rightfully deserve for nearly 2 millenniums, they would have probably regarded it as justice, the fulfillment of prophecy, etc., not as a big kid taking candy from a small one and giving it to them. It is sacred and important to them, I understand that.

On the other hand, I can also understand why the Palestinians see it as usurpation.

What I cannot understand or condone is them bombing each other at the high cost of countless innocent lives. I do not pick a side in this conflict, I advocate for both nations to at least try to come to a peaceful conclusion, for the sake of their people - our fellow human beings. I find that their right to live comes way before either nations' claims over territory, however legitimate they might be.

[JoeyKnothead]

I find that their right to live comes way before either nations' claims over territory, however legitimate they might be.

What a post, but that there really hits it for me.

I, like so many others, seek a two state solution, but one that is grounded in acceptance of Israel's and its Jews' (and others) right to exist.

As Cnorman18 has pointed out elsewhere, and I paraphrase here, the Jews never really left.