Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk

Shafique when you agreed to the facts to end this thread then let me know to close the session. You know I'd like to be Holy.

As long as you cannot answer from which sovereign state Israel is occupying from, Israel isnot an occupyer technically according to the Geneva Conventions. You can try to laugh it off, but it only makes you look more foolish.

Interesting that you believe I look foolish for agreeing with the UN, ICC, EU, Amnesty International, B'tselem etc that Israel is an occupying power and is breaking the law when it tries to establish permanent colonies or annex land that does not belong to Israel - and that the land captured in 1967 does not belong to Israel.

It also raises the interesting question though - if you maintain that there is no Palestine or Palestinian people (whose land is being occupied) - who is Israel blaming for not negotiating? The Arabs have produced an Arab Peace Plan, but it is the Palestinians who are saying Israel should abide by international law and stop building illegal colonies.

Anyway, in the same way that some people do argue the world is flat, I guess we should be tolerant of those who want to believe Israel isn't an occupying power, or that Judea and Samria are part of Israel or that there is no Palestinian people. When we laugh, it is at you - not with you though.

The facts still remain though:

1. Israel has made no concessions in the peace negotiations - it has been all the Palestinians
2. Israel broke the truce and lied about why it was bombing Gaza and killing civilians (by saying Hamas broke the truce)
3. Israel have 78% of the land and Palestinians are settling for 22% - but Israel is reluctant to settle for this and seems to want more - specfically building more illegal colonies in the 22% that is not Israel.
4. Israel is unequivocably breaking international law in East Jerusalem by annexing it.
5. B'tselem say Israel in East Jerusalem is discriminating against the non-Israeli residents.

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:Interesting that you believe I look foolish for agreeing with the UN, ICC, EU, Amnesty International, B'tselem etc that Israel is an occupying power

In those case Israel is treated as an occupyer, while technically it isn't.

shafique wrote:It also raises the interesting question though - if you maintain that there is no Palestine or Palestinian people (whose land is being occupied)

I think the rise of Palestinian nationalism is very peculiar and it only become a real force after 1967. Before 1967 there was no real Pali nationalism and the PLO didn't claim the Westbank as being Palestinian before 1967. Only when Israel captured it after a defensive war it became Palestinian all of a sudden.
Palestinian nationalism was created as a battle against Israel, as confirmed by the PLO and several Arab leaders. I do recognize however that nowadays there is a large group of people that idetify themselves as being Palestinian. What is Palestinian land however is very hard to answer, as Palestinians themselves change their answer over time and also amongst Palestinians there is hardly consensus as to what consititutes Pali land.

shafique wrote:Anyway, in the same way that some people do argue the world is flat, I guess we should be tolerant of those who want to believe Israel isn't an occupying power, or that Judea and Samria are part of Israel or that there is no Palestinian people.

After many posts you are still not able to specify from which sovereign state Israel is occupying from. Technically, under international law, a state can only be an occupyer if it occupies land from a former sovereign state. And I wonder where I stated there is no Pali nation? Whether (parts of) Judea and Samaria are part of Israel depends on the final status, right now those territories are disputed.

FD - whilst I may not agree with some of your beliefs/interpretations I will certainly defend your right to express them. Fascinating stuff -really.

The argument that Israel is not technically an occupier is a good attempt - but I see it as nothing more than sophistry.

The wiki entry on the legal status of the West Bank says it better than I could:

This argument however is not accepted by the international community and international lawmaking bodies, virtually all of whom regard Israel's activities in the West Bank and Gaza Strip as an occupation that denies the fundamental principle of self-determination found in the Article One of the United Nations Charter, and in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Further, UN Security Council Resolution 242 notes the "inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war" regardless of whether the war in which the territory was acquired was offensive or defensive.

However, looking for areas we agree on..I do agree with the gist of your proposed peace plan - that there is a two state solution and that some land is exchanged by the Palestinians to allow some of the colonies to be absorbed into Israel and that either land and/or compensation is given in return. Similarly I agree that refugees will probably have to settle for compensation rather than be admitted into Israel.

That said, I do think the facts speak volumes - and no matter how much distracting spin is put out, the facts don't change:

1. Israel has made no concessions in the peace negotiations - it has been all the Palestinians
2. Israel broke the truce and lied about why it was bombing Gaza and killing civilians (by saying Hamas broke the truce)
3. Israel have 78% of the land and Palestinians are settling for 22% - but Israel is reluctant to settle for this and seems to want more - specfically building more illegal colonies in the 22% that is not Israel.
4. Israel is unequivocably breaking international law in East Jerusalem by annexing it.
5. B'tselem say Israel in East Jerusalem is discriminating against the non-Israeli residents.

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:The argument that Israel is not technically an occupier is a good attempt - but I see it as nothing more than sophistry.

After failing again and again with coming up with the answer as to from which sovereign state Israel is occupying from, I assume there is not one, therefore Israel is technically not an occupier.

And thw whole quote should be:

Since the area has never in modern times been an independent state, there is no "legitimate" claimant to the area other than the present occupier, which currently happens to be Israel. This argument however is not accepted by the international community and international lawmaking bodies, virtually all of whom regard Israel's activities in the West Bank and Gaza Strip as an occupation that denies the fundamental principle of self-determination found in the Article One of the United Nations Charter, and in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Further, UN Security Council Resolution 242 notes the "inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war" regardless of whether the war in which the territory was acquired was offensive or defensive.

This is about being a legitimate claimant and not being an legal occupier, anyways its wiki...

1. Israel has made no concessions in the peace negotiations - it has been all the Palestinians

Pali's at the moment have a take it or leave it attitude, which won't help. Hamas is not making any concessions, as they want the destruction of Israel. As you have agreed before 1967 there were armictice lines, no borders. Final need to be negotiated

2. Israel broke the truce and lied about why it was bombing Gaza and killing civilians (by saying Hamas broke the truce)

Hamas controlled Gaza broke the truce with shooting rockets at Israeli cities, this happened before the kidnap tunnel was blown up.

3. Israel have 78% of the land and Palestinians are settling for 22% - but Israel is reluctant to settle for this and seems to want more - specfically building more illegal colonies in the 22% that is not Israel.

shafique wrote:Transjordan represented 75% of the British Mandate of Palestine

As I said, the argument that Israel is not an occupying power of land captured in war in 1967 is both funny and an object lesson is sophistry.

As for the facts - these are verifiable.

Fact 1 - Israel has made no concessions, if it had, you would have pointed out one - pulling out of Gaza was not a concession. As fact 3 points out, Israel has gained 40% more land and still wants more.

For fact 2, there is a separate thread - i'll bump it for you. The evidence for Israel being the one who broke the truce and Israel lying about it is there for all to read/comment. The truce was broken by Israel on Nov 4 2008 - not before. Israel then made out that the Hamas rockets fired after the truce was broken were the incidents that broke the truce - this was a downright, verifable, hands-caught-in-the-cookie-jar lie. At the time, they didn't say that the few rockets fired at the start of the ceasefire (not by Hamas) were what broke the truce. Anyway - the facts are there in the other thread.

Israel does occupy 78% of the land, when the UN allocated 55% to Israel in the partition. It has therefore 40% more than originally allocated, and Palestine is 48% (yes, 48%!!) smaller. Yet, Israel wants more. No disputing this fact. Jordan is not Palestine, Palestine is not Jordan.

Facts 4 and 5 are statements of fact.

So, let's keep these facts uppermost in mind:

1. Israel has made no concessions in the peace negotiations - it has been all the Palestinians
2. Israel broke the truce and lied about why it was bombing Gaza and killing civilians (by saying Hamas broke the truce)
3. Israel have 78% of the land and Palestinians are settling for 22% - but Israel is reluctant to settle for this and seems to want more - specfically building more illegal colonies in the 22% that is not Israel.
4. Israel is unequivocably breaking international law in East Jerusalem by annexing it.
5. B'tselem say Israel in East Jerusalem is discriminating against the non-Israeli residents.

shafique wrote:For fact 2, there is a separate thread - i'll bump it for you.

You are currently spamming the forum with Israel threats. For comments regarding point 2 I refer to this thread.

shafique wrote:Jordan is not Palestine, Palestine is not Jordan.

That differs from several statements from the PLO and Jordan who claimed the complete opposite. Historically it makes sense to refer to Jordan as Palestine.

It is quite useless to continue to refer to the partition plan. It is non-binding and nullifies by Arab agression. It also shows who ridiculous the argument is. First you start a war a annihilation, you loose, and then you want the plan to be implemented after all. If you want to refer to previous agreements, you should refer to San Remo, the last binding decision made regarding the area. Israel is generous I think to offer Pali's their own state, something Arabs refused to do throughout history. But currently Palestinians think they can get their state with doing nothing and refusing everything.

This thread was about Palestinian diplomatic initiatives (peaceful ones) to get the Peace Process moving.

I can't see how my statements of fact are 'spamming' or listing Israeli threats.

Jordan is a separate country, Israel does now have 40% more land than the UN initially allocated and the Palestinians have made all the concessions - not least settling for 48% less land. Israel did lie about Hamas breaking the truce and B'tselem does list the discrimination against Palestinians in East Jerusalem.

We'll have to agree to disagree about whether these statements of fact are 'spam' or just facts which expose Israeli spin/greed on these issues.

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:This thread was about Palestinian diplomatic initiatives (peaceful ones) to get the Peace Process moving.

The best to get the peace proces moving is not refusing to negotiate and not taking unilateral actions.

shafique wrote:Jordan is a separate country

Jordan is an artificially created country ruled by a foreign royal house. Historically it is part of the Palestine Mandate.

shafique wrote:Israel does now have 40% more land than the UN initially allocated and the Palestinians have made all the concessions - not least settling for 48% less land.

Reason being that Arabs started an agressive war and lost. Also by that they made the partition plan completely irellevant. I wouldn't call losing a war of agression a concession.

As I said, the facts are the facts - and we can disagree over the interpretation of the facts, but they remain:

1. Israel has made no concessions in the peace negotiations - it has been all the Palestinians
2. Israel broke the truce and lied about why it was bombing Gaza and killing civilians (by saying Hamas broke the truce)
3. Israel have 78% of the land and Palestinians are settling for 22% - but Israel is reluctant to settle for this and seems to want more - specfically building more illegal colonies in the 22% that is not Israel.
4. Israel is unequivocably breaking international law in East Jerusalem by annexing it.
5. B'tselem say Israel in East Jerusalem is discriminating against the non-Israeli residents.

As for Jordan being artificially created - this applies to Israel as well as much of the rest of the Middle East, Asia, Africa and even Americas. Lebanon is a prime example of a truly artificial country, as is Kuwait.

The same can actually be said of the division of the Ottoman Middle East between Britain and France - the Sykes-Picot line was drawn along the map without reference to Topography, residents etc.

Your explanation of why Israel has 78% of the land is correct - it won the 40% extra territory in war. Palestinians are willing to let them keep this and want peace negotiations to be based on UN resolutions (notably 242). But the stark fact remains - 78% of the land is already owned by Israel, and they seem to want more.

I can't see how these facts are 'spam' though.

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:As for Jordan being artificially created - this applies to Israel as well

Jordan is invented by external powers, Israel isn't.

shafique wrote:I can't see how these facts are 'spam' though.

Opening thread after thread about Israel feels like spamming and a clear sign of unhealthy obsessive behaviour.

Interesting distinction between Israel and Jordan, but I take it you agree that Kuwait and Lebanon are just as artificial. Did you agree with Iraq's invasion of Kuwait - seems they have more legitimate claim over Kuwait than Israel has over Palestine, don't you think?

Anyway, whether you think I have an obsession or not (just wait until I serialise a paper I read over the weekend: http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/john-mears ... rael-lobby ) doesn't change the facts I've enumerated



Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote: Did you agree with Iraq's invasion of Kuwait - seems they have more legitimate claim over Kuwait than Israel has over Palestine, don't you think?

Iraq's invasion of Kuwait was a war of agression, so no I donot agree whether Kuwait is artificial or not.

You argued that Jordan was an artificial state - but it is clearly as artificial as Kuwait, you'd agree.

Also, Kuwait was stealing Iraqi oil and the US gave Iraq permission to attack - pretty much like the US gave Israel the nod to invade Lebanon and bomb Gaza.

Come to think of it, there are a number of similarities between Israel and Iraq.

1. Iraq had WMDs (the 'west' had the receipts for the chemical weapons) - Israel has WMD (nuclear bombs)
2. Iraq refused to abide by UN resolutions - Israel refuses to abide by UN resolutions
3. Iraq invaded neighbouring countries killing loads of people - Israel invaded neighbouring countries killing loads of people
4. Iraq disputed UN borders for 'artificial states' - Israel disputes UN borders for Palestine

So, it appears a strong argument can be made for Israel to be considered a rogue state - it is a threat to its neighbours, flagrantly violates international law (eg annexation of East Jerusalem, Golan), has nuclear weapons, refuses to sign up to nuclear accords, doesn't abide by UN resolutions!

But, be that as it may - the serious points are the facts about the peace process:

1. Israel has made no concessions in the peace negotiations - it has been all the Palestinians
2. Israel broke the truce and lied about why it was bombing Gaza and killing civilians (by saying Hamas broke the truce)
3. Israel have 78% of the land and Palestinians are settling for 22% - but Israel is reluctant to settle for this and seems to want more - specfically building more illegal colonies in the 22% that is not Israel.
4. Israel is unequivocably breaking international law in East Jerusalem by annexing it.
5. B'tselem say Israel in East Jerusalem is discriminating against the non-Israeli residents.

Cheers,
Shafique

Yes, it is a known argument that Israel is not allowed to defend itself. Israel is an example for the region when it comes to human rights, democracy and FoS. It is no utopia, but compared to the vile nature of neighboring dictatorships, Israel should be an example. Still people like to be obsessed with Israel and try to delegitimize it wherever and still wonder why there is no peace yet.

I thought we agreed that Israel shouldn't be above the law.

Excuses for Israel acting like a rogue state, doesn't change the fact it is acting like a rogue state. Iran has signed up to international conventions on non-proliferation (NPT), for example - but Israel isn't and has WMD and has invaded its neighbours. Isn't there a logical argument to be made that Israel is a rogue state and a threat to its neighbours?

We agree that Israel is breaking international law by seeking to annex East Jerusalem and Golan, don't we?

That said, I applaud the diplomats who are seeking a negotiated end to the Palestinian conflict and as we are on a new page, here's my list of facts again:

1. Israel has made no concessions in the peace negotiations - it has been all the Palestinians
2. Israel broke the truce and lied about why it was bombing Gaza and killing civilians (by saying Hamas broke the truce)
3. Israel have 78% of the land and Palestinians are settling for 22% - but Israel is reluctant to settle for this and seems to want more - specfically building more illegal colonies in the 22% that is not Israel.
4. Israel is unequivocably breaking international law in East Jerusalem by annexing it.
5. B'tselem say Israel in East Jerusalem is discriminating against the non-Israeli residents.

Cheers,
Shafique

Why would Israel be a threat to its neighbours? If its neigbours don't attack, they have nothing to fear. Its the world upside down saying that Israel is not allowed to defend itself and when it does to call it acts of agression.

I am not saying Israel should be above the law. But only focusing on Israel in this matter is sheer hypocricy. Syria and Lebanon are breaking binding resolutions or boldly denounce them. Hezbollah and Hamas break international humantarian law by the day. Syria has a true apartheid regime with a policy of Arabization with Kurds as the victims. Torture in Arab prisons is dayly practice, as is executions of political opponents. Of course you can critizise Israel, but only focusing on Israel while ignoring the rest is hypocricy. Those obsessed with Israel, donot critizise Israel for the right reasons.

Why would Israel be a threat?

It shouldn't . It should abide by international laws and be treated as any other country.

However, it has WMD and has refused to sign NPT. It flaunts international law by annexing land that doesn't belong to it. It has invaded it's neighbours. It currently occupies land belonging to its neighbours (Lebanon and Syria). It is in violation of numerous UN resolutions.

I also note that you are still using the argument that the Arabs are just as bad or worse. I'm not sure there's any court of law or moral opinion that gives this argument any weight.

Israel has its fair share of terrorists - even relgiously motivated terrorists. Just look at those who still venerate Baruch Goldstein's massacre of worshippers at a Holy site. Israel also tells blatant lies when it launches attacks against Palestinians (fact 2).

Therefore, Israel shares all the characteristics of other so-called rogue states, and is in greater violation of international laws than most of them. Iran, for example, hasn't invaded any country in the past few centuries and has signed up to NPT - and is (I guess) violating fewer UN resolutions than Israel.

But as I said, let's not get too side-tracked by Israels crimes. The peace process will be resolved politically (eventually) and we should keep in mind the facts regarding the peace process and not get too distracted by Israeli spin about how they are the victims and the occupied are the aggressors.

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:It has invaded it's neighbours.

After it has been attacked. I have no problem with a country defending itself against agressors.

shafique wrote:I also note that you are still using the argument that the Arabs are just as bad or worse. I'm not sure there's any court of law or moral opinion that gives this argument any weight.

It is just to show your hypocricy. And in general those who are obesssed with Israel donot care about human rights or international law.

shafique wrote:Israel has its fair share of terrorists - even relgiously motivated terrorists. Just look at those who still venerate Baruch Goldstein's massacre of worshippers at a Holy site.

Those who venerate Goldstein are on the fringe of Israeli society, an extremely small minorty. Palestinians, including its leaders however do consider terrorists, child slayers etc. as hero's. Recently Abbas honoured Dalal. Recently a poll showed the majority of Palestinians think massacring jewish religious students is a good thing....

Excuses, excuses.

You don't disagree that you're trying the argument that Israel's neighbours are also breaking the law etc.

I totally agree that religious terrorists like Baruch Goldstein are a minority in Israel, the point was that Israel has all the characteristics of rogue states it points fingers at, and is actually a worse threat. You are silent on the big issue of WMD - Iraq was invaded over non-existent WMDs, yet Israel actually has them and unjustly imprisons people who bring to the worlds attention the crimes of Israel (I'm thinking of Vanunu).

What must be extremely frustrating for you FD is that the decades of people blindly believing the Israeli spin is over - most now realise that Israel has been lying. Some recognise that Israel is breaking the law and try and excuse it, others take the moral high ground and call a spade a spade.

It is extremely instructive that the facts I keep repeating are causing you so much heart ache - and yet you can't bring yourself to actually provide evidence for some of your objections (notably fact number 2 below which has a separate thread with evidence to back up this claim).

1. Israel has made no concessions in the peace negotiations - it has been all the Palestinians
2. Israel broke the truce and lied about why it was bombing Gaza and killing civilians (by saying Hamas broke the truce)
3. Israel have 78% of the land and Palestinians are settling for 22% - but Israel is reluctant to settle for this and seems to want more - specfically building more illegal colonies in the 22% that is not Israel.
4. Israel is unequivocably breaking international law in East Jerusalem by annexing it.
5. B'tselem say Israel in East Jerusalem is discriminating against the non-Israeli residents.

Cheers,
Shafique

I posted this at the time, but in Jan 09, when analysing the Israeli bombing of Gaza, Avi Shlaim concluded:

This brief review of Israel's record over the past four decades makes it difficult to resist the conclusion that it has become a rogue state with "an utterly unscrupulous set of leaders". A rogue state habitually violates international law, possesses weapons of mass destruction and practises terrorism - the use of violence against civilians for political purposes. Israel fulfils all of these three criteria; the cap fits and it must wear it. Israel's real aim is not peaceful coexistence with its Palestinian neighbours but military domination. It keeps compounding the mistakes of the past with new and more disastrous ones. Politicians, like everyone else, are of course free to repeat the lies and mistakes of the past. But it is not mandatory to do so.

• Avi Shlaim is a professor of international relations at the University of Oxford

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/ja ... -palestine

The cap fits.

Cheers,
Shafique

I really fail to see how Israel can be threat, as all it does it defend itself against agressive neighbors seeking its destruction. I also didn't know not signing the NPT is breaking international law.

I have reacted already to your points (more than once), so you can keep on repeating them as many times as you want, my answers can be seen in previous posts. With most I disagree.

Flying Dutchman wrote:So, under the new Netanyahu government only one terrorist master mind was killed during a raid, during which Israeli's tried to capture him alive, but due to resistance it turned out in a gun fight. I fail to see how this contitutes a continuous policy targetted killings and is a obstacle to peace.

(From this thread, January 7th 2010)

If it is shown that Israel did murder the Hamas guy in Dubai - won't this, now, be an obstacle to peace?

When you wrote the above, you were arguing that Israel did not now have a policy of murdering people in other countries any more - and were questioning how this could be an obstacle to peace.

It seems that Avi Shlaim has more evidence now of Israel being a rogue state!

Cheers,
Shafique