|
Post by Amadan on Dec 31, 2016 18:35:09 GMT -5
1) if there are cogent and valid arguments that some or all of the settlements are actually NOT illegal, then abstaining was wrong, And I cited 3 sources of what appeared to be intelligent arguments citing international law that argued they are NOT illegal. And each of those I cited have MANY legal references, footnoted and everything! That does not follow. While I have not delved into international law, my understanding is that there is a lot of ambiguity about the status of the settlements, in large part because "international law" doesn't really exist except inasmuch as the countries it applies to agree to be bound by it. Hence UN resolutions rarely having much force. International law is basically agreeing to abide by treaties. So it would be hard to find an indisputable argument that any Israeli settlements are legal or illegal, let alone that all of them are. In a situation like this, "legal" is what a country can get away with. But you are saying that if a single Israeli settlement is legitimate under whatever laws the US considers authoritative, it is wrong for us to abstain from a resolution condemning Israel for all the other ones? If all parties cannot even agree on whether any settlements are legal or illegal, it's kind of ridiculous to expect a resolution that perfectly crafts condemnation of just the illegal ones. That also does not follow. Of course land, and everything else, is on the negotiating table. Whatever the UN declares now, it would surely support a peace treaty that both sides agree to, however the settlement issue is eventually resolved. You're basically saying "Anything that might possibly put pressure on Israel and limit their negotiating room hinders the peace process." So putting pressure on the Palestinians and limiting their negotiating room doesn't? If your default position is that Israel is right and Palestine is wrong and thus any possible agreement must be basically whatever Israel wants and nothing Israel doesn't want, there isn't much point in talking about a peace process. You have already been given articles showing that this was not a "sudden" decision Obama made. You and the Israelis are acting like Obama suddenly leaped out of the shadows and stabbed them in the back. On the part of the Israelis, at least, that is pure PR bullshit. This was a very strong diplomatic message, and it does signal a departure from our previous unqualified support, but it was not sudden, it followed what has been a generally negative relationship with Israel for quite a while, and it was still a far milder rebuke than we could have delivered. I also find it unlikely that it actually came as a shock to Netanyahu. These things don't get decided the day before they happen. Assuming that this resolution causes any such material damage to Israel (which I think is unlikely - if the UN and the entire world has engaged in a one-sided dogpile on Israel forever, as you claim, then how does this resolution change anything?), if it is the position of the US government that their continued settlement actions are wrong, then why are we obliged to protect them from condemnation? Obviously you feel we should be defending Israel unilaterally and unequivocally, but that's not a given.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 1, 2017 10:10:50 GMT -5
No. It does not and cannot work that way.
You think the arguments sound cogent and reasonable. That doesn't mean Obama (or the vast majority of legal experts for decades) agree.
I can tell you as a lawyer that both parties to a dispute tend to bring forward reasonable-sounding briefs with apparently cogent arguments. A judge doesn't say "oh well, they both pass a superficial smell test, so I just won't do anything." He examines the issue, decides which arguments are actually correct, and acts accordingly.
As a lawyer, I could write you a cogent-sounding brief on pretty much ANYTHING. Whether it would hold up to cogent counter-arguments to someone who delved into the topic is another matter. As a lawyer, I can also tell you that lots of cogent-sounding arguments do not hold up once you strip off the tinsel and wrapping paper.
Obama, as a damn fine lawyer who you can bet is quite well versed in the subject, apparently finds the arguments on the side of "the settlements are illegal under the Fourth Geneva Convention" are the right ones. As do I. As do the vast majority of legal experts -- at least those who don't have a powerful partisan motivation driving them.
ETA:
Again that brings me back to "shameful" and "spiteful " How is it shameful for Obama to find the arguments on the side of illegality more persuasive? How is it "spiteful" when (as my cites show) he has long held this conviction, and moreover it is a conviction in accordance with that of past administrations and the international community?
That is why I keep pressing you on those two words. You are not simply arguing that you think Obama should have vetoed. If you did that, I'd just agree to disagree. By saying Obama's action is "shameful" and "spiteful", you are arguing that it could only be made in bad faith, which I think is plainly rebutted by the evidence.
And I know you think you are being clear and consistent on the legality issue, but I do not think you are. First you said that you didn't think legality was the main issue -- Obama should have vetoed anyway for other reasons. Then you said if any cogent argument exists that even one settlement has any legal basis, he should have vetoed, even if all the rest are illegal. You waved at some articles and said they sounded like they sounded cogent to you (without pointing to any particular arguments in them you found persuasive so we could specifically discuss those points).
ETA:
That all still leaves me wondering:
if, instead of posting articles that countered yours, I were to specifically take on each and every one of the arguments in each of your articles to argue that ALL of the settlement violate the Fourth Geneva Convention, and you had no rebuttal, would you then agree that Obama did the right thing? Would you at least agree he did not act shamefully or spitefully?
Or would you say, "well, I can't argue. it's too complicated. I don't have enough facts/legal training to say whether one of the settlements still might be legal for some other reason; therefore, I think he was shameful and spiteful he didn't veto" or "well, legality aside he should have vetoed for x, y, and z reason, and was shameful and spiteful not to do so."
So that brings me to this:
If there is something (or some things) I could rationally argue that might, if I made cogent, supported arguments, possibly convince you Obama's action was justified -- or at least not "spiteful" or "shameful" -- specify it and I'll take my best shot.
If there is nothing that could so convince you, I'm done here.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 1, 2017 19:01:31 GMT -5
I don't mean that you have to agree the abstention was awesome.
You don't. Obviously.
I wanted to narrow the focus of disagreement to some solid points that could be debated rather than just swatting at every single argument put forth in a series of articles -- especially when I wasn't even sure doing so would progress the argument. And like I said, the "shameful" and "spiteful" seemed unjustified to me, going well beyond merely thinking Obama made the wrong decision, and I couldn't see where it was coming from.
But perhaps it is better to just agree to disagree.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Jan 2, 2017 11:20:00 GMT -5
I agree with Amadan, re the legality or illegality of the settlements: debating it is pointless and ultimately inconsequential from a realpolitik standpoint. Israel can take the actions it wants to take and there's not a damn thing anyone can do to stop them, especially anyone at the UN. And I agree with the idea that the UN disproportionately looks to condemn Israel for human rights-type violations, above all other nations. There's a simple reason for that: the UN is peopled by representatives of nations wherein anti-Semitism is a perfectly acceptable "ism." And this isn't limited to Arab or Muslim nations in the least, imo. Now, I could cite some numbers here, but that is going to open the door to a lot of squabbling over sources, so let's just look at Wikipedia and this basic fact: That's ridiculous. And imo, digging deeper would yield the same pattern, though again there would be nit-picking over the numbers. But the above is straight forward. Imo, there are two reasonable potential reasons to explain this: 1) Israel really is a hot bed of human rights violations with more occurring there than in the rest of the world combined on a year-in, year-out basis. 2) The UN HRC has it in for Israel. If someone has another explanation, I'm all ears. Barring that, let's get real. 1) is just not the case. That leaves 2). And that means... IMNSHO, Israel should have ended this nonsense decades ago by force of arms. There shouldn't be any Palestinian territories. Israel smoked Egypt, Syria, and Jordan in the Six-Day War. It erred in allowing the creation of a quasi-Palestinian state. It's a ridiculous drain on Israeli resources and has served to perpetuate this dubious and destructive idea of a split Jerusalem, not to mention created a breeding ground for anti-Semitism. If Israeli got a real hard-liner in there who said "look this shit is OVER, there is no Palestine, there is only Israel. Everyone in the territories can become an Israeli citizen or they can get the fuck out," I'd stand up and applaud. But that's not happening. Israel--despite all of the flak it catches--continues to NOT take that hard-line, continues to not go all out when it is attacked by rockets or terrorists from the territories. Instead, it engages in measured responses, in deference to the rest of the world, yet is still condemned by most of the same, over and over again. The ultimate no-win situation (which again, it largely brought on itself by backing down when it didn't have to). So Israel is largely responsible for the current state of affairs and has accepted that the territories have some measure of authority, if not actual sovereignty. In that light, the settlements are intentionally provocative. They're done with the intent of pushing buttons, daring for a response against civilian targets and are in the same class as Palestinians who launch rocket attacks from schools and hospitals. They're obnoxious and wrong. Nothing justifies them, imo. And I dare say that this is basically the same opinion held by the current admin (not wanting to get into personalities, I have to note that I think there are some exceptions, some people at State who are against Israel in general, though this does not include Obama or Kerry, again imo). Thus, abstaining from the vote was a perfectly reasonable way to make this point.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 2, 2017 11:43:54 GMT -5
I agree that the UN disproportionately smacks Israel for human right violations. I can absolutely agree that the Palestinians are also assholes and do terrible things, and that terrorism is not an appropriate response to anything. I agree that the UN and the international community should condemn that shit. Obviously, I agree that the abstention and this resolution were the correct thing to do. ETA: I also think, given the above, abstaining from a veto rather than voting for the resolution was the right thing to do. I cannot agree that Israel should wipe out the Palestinian state by force of arms. (Nor do I think that would bring peace -- on the contrary, I think it would step up anti-Israeli resentment that much more.) I'm more in line with the 1967 lines with swaps approach some Israeli generals advocated. And I can't concur that international law has no real validity, and that it's all about whatever each country can seize and get away with. That's no recipe for civilization. Israel, along with 195 other countries signed onto the Geneva conventions. That should mean something. ETA: I'll also add this: there might come some point at which I would advocate your approach or something like it. But not now. If the Israelis had been making a good faith effort to adhere to the Geneva convention and/or push for swaps it felt necessary for its security instead of plowing ahead with permanent settlements in blatant violation of the convention, and still the Palestinians were throwing bottle rockets etc. and violating the borders, I'd be much more inclined to say Israel had some justification for saying fuck it to a two-state solution.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Jan 2, 2017 12:04:17 GMT -5
I don't want Israel to wipe the Palestinian state (and therefore the people in it). But there's no basis for a Palestinian state to exist, imo. Israel was established, it defended its existence successfully, and that's the only real test for a state. The people under it's umbrella of authority should get to be citizens. Those who don't want it can leave. It is the 21st century, after all. Balkanization is not progress, imo. Exactly the opposite. Individual rights are what matter, not collective rights.
Imo, the Palestinian people are getting used, over and over again, by their own leadership and by the leadership of neighboring states, who don't give a shit about them now and never have. They don't actually want a real Palestinian state as a means of bringing peace. They just want to use the issue to beat up on Israel and would use the establishment of the same as the first step in destroying Israel. Enough of them have stated that this is their goal, shouldn't we take them at their word? And given that, why should they get what they want? Because here's the thing: Israel doesn't want to see Egypt or any other state destroyed (or the Egyptian people pushed into the sea). Only one side in this argument has people looking to commit actual genocide and willing to openly state this is the case.
And sure, Israel should abide by the Geneva conventions. So should all of the other nations in the region.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Jan 2, 2017 12:23:14 GMT -5
Imo, the Palestinian people are getting used, over and over again, by their own leadership and by the leadership of neighboring states, who don't give a shit about them now and never have. They don't actually want a real Palestinian state as a means of bringing peace. They just want to use the issue to beat up on Israel and would use the establishment of the same as the first step in destroying Israel. Enough of them have stated that this is their goal, shouldn't we take them at their word? And given that, why should they get what they want? Because here's the thing: Israel doesn't want to see Egypt or any other state destroyed (or the Egyptian people pushed into the sea). Only one side in this argument has people looking to commit actual genocide and willing to openly state this is the case. This is why Israel (and honestly, I) is squeamish about exercising that "Final Solution" for Palestine. On one level, I agree with you - it's always going to be a festering wound as long as "Palestine" exists. There is no compromise that will stop the Palestinians (and the rest of the Arab world) from wanting to destroy Israel. So there is a certain logic in saying "Fuck it, let's get this over with and deal with the repercussions for the next fifty years or so." But - that necessarily means slaughtering a hell of a lot of civilians. There is just no way to do what you suggest without essentially committing genocide. Even if you can make a case that most of those civilians would happily see the same thing happen to the Israelis (and I think you can), the Israelis are not the sort of people who can coldly watch children being blown to bits and say "They had it coming." Neither are we.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Jan 2, 2017 12:30:46 GMT -5
Well, that's true. It's why the Israelis have engaged in things like 100 for 1 prisoner swaps.
But for me--and I think others--it's frustrating as hell that so many people here (by "here," I mean the US and the "west," in general) in the pro-Palestinian camp are unable to recognize this and thus continue to defend and legitimize that point of view, which is based on a general hatred for Israel, if not actual anti-Semitism.
Because we know--I think--that if the Copts or other marginalized groups in other ME nations sought their own states, they'd get zero support from the states supporting Palestine. Zero. The Kurds are proof positive of this.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 2, 2017 15:20:25 GMT -5
Agree with Amadan that there's no way forcing a one-state solution doesn't mean slaughtering a ton of civilians. Even assuming the Israelis could stomach it (and I don't think they could), I think it would even more fury at Israel than already exists, that much more justification to those who criticize Israel and sympathize with Palestinans, including Western nations. That's taking quite aside whether such a conquest could be supported in international law, which I submit it could not.
Whereas if they stopped with the settlements and instead sat down to sincerely attempt to negotiate something like the '67 borders with swaps solution, at least Western nations (and probably most outside the middle east) would be more inclined to stop bashing Israel so much and focus on asshole things the Palestinians do. Israel would have more support.
Sure, there will always, in the foreseeable future, be some who want to push Israel into the sea. But I submit wiping out the Palestinian state would not change that -- indeed, it would exacerbate it.
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Jan 3, 2017 18:01:12 GMT -5
I keep getting asked about my use of "shameful" and "spiteful", so I will address that and a few other points. As far as the legality of the settlements, including East Jerusalem is the one that hit hardest and is one of the reasons I'm calling Obama's abstention shameful. My understanding of history is that the Jews have archaeological evidence of their presence in Jerusalem, their capital, as far back as 3000 years. Jordan captured East Jerusalem in 1948 and expelled the Jews and proceeded to destroy Jewish holy sites. Note, this was after a UN mandate in 1947 which said Palestine would be split into a Jewish state and an Arab state. I don't think these territories were called "occupied" by the UN when Jordan had them, and there were no resolutions condemning Jordan from then until the Six Day War. Then in 1967, when Egypt, Jordan and Syria threatened to destroy Israel, Israel won the Six Day War. At this point, Israel won back Jerusalem, and also the West Bank and Gaza. So why are they considered occupied? They were recaptured in a defensive war that Israel won. This resolution calls East Jerusalem and all the other settlements "occupied Palestinian territory". Before this resolution, they were open to negotiation. How the heck is this helpful? Why would Palestine give up land which the UN has now determined is "Palestinian territory"? And a "flagrant violation of international law"? All that does is help Palestine continue their diplomatic battle against Israel and continue to refuse negotiations. As long as they have the world against Israel, they don't need to make any concessions. So this doesn't help the peace process. It actually makes it more difficult. That's shameful.
The unfair resolution only asks concessions from Israel. It DOESN't EVEN MENTION PALESTINE BY NAME when vaguely mentioning terrorism in something like two lines of the resolution. That's shameful.The UN has been biased against Israel for decades. See Robo's point. Easy to verify with numbers, but here is Ban Ki Moon recently admitting to it: www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/ban-ki-moon-united-nations-disproportionate-israel-focus-resolutions-palestinians-human-rights-danny-a7481961.htmlThis bias has been obvious for decades. Obama knows it. Yet he STILL chose to abstain from this also obviously biased resolution. That's shameful. This resolution will increase the efforts to boycott Israel and possibly even help Palestinians take Israeli's to ICC as described below in the NYT. The U.S. allowed this to its friend and ally. That's shameful.www.nytimes.com/2016/12/26/world/middleeast/israel-settlements-un-security-council-benjamin-netanyahu-obama.html?_r=0The "spiteful" comes in because Obama did this in the waning days of his presidency, after years of escalating tension between him and Bibi. And after saying in 2011 he would not use the UN to force anything between Israel and Palestine because the two should negotiate between themselves. And the US has always been careful to refer to the settlements as illegitimate not illegal. To make this turn now, without warning, days before he leaves office, appears spiteful.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Jan 4, 2017 11:07:07 GMT -5
Why should anyone give a shit about 3000 year-old archeological evidence? Come on. If you're going to go by that, then when some Indian tribe comes by and tells you you need to vacate your land because they were there first, you should get moving, yes? Almost everybody on Earth is living somewhere where their ancestors or someone else's kicked off/genocided the original inhabitants thousands of years ago (if not much more recently).
That said - for the very same reason, I think the Arabs need to cope with the fact that Israel exists now and isn't going anywhere.
That verbiage is not different from previous UN resolutions condemning Israel. You can condemn it as unfair and inaccurate, but unprecedented it is not.
"Continue their diplomatic battle" and "refuse negotiations" are contradictory. If they are continuing a diplomatic battle, that implies negotiations. Your problem seems to be that the UN has taken the Palestinians' side - which they surely have, but that is only "shameful" in itself if your position is that Israel is right and the Palestians are wrong, period, and therefore Israel should get everything they want and the Palestinians should suck it up and take what they're offered. If that is your position, be honest about it. If it's not, then it's silly to complain that, oh no, someone gave rhetorical support (and that's really all it is) to the Palestinians.
If you think Obama just decided to spitefully flip the bird to Netanyahu in his final days in office, and this wasn't a carefully considered move after consulting with the State Department and his cabinet (and probably at least some backchannel discussion with the Israelis as well), then you have a very low opinion of Obama that is unwarranted, at least in terms of your judgment of his intelligence and political acumen.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Jan 4, 2017 11:19:35 GMT -5
Why should anyone give a shit about 3000 year-old archeological evidence? Come on. If you're going to go by that, then when some Indian tribe comes by and tells you you need to vacate your land because they were there first, you should get moving, yes? Almost everybody on Earth is living somewhere where their ancestors or someone else's kicked off/genocided the original inhabitants thousands of years ago (if not much more recently). Agree 1000%. Nothing winds me up more than than the argument that this group or that group has "firsties" to this chunk of land or that chunk of land. Again, balkanization is not progress, imo. Exactly the opposite. Yet so many people seem to think that there something still real about "self-determination." It's 2017. Every area of earth has been explored and/or settled (pretty much, looking just at land). The ancient person who first stood in some spot thousands of years ago (or even much more recently, in some cases) does not magically transmit ownership to some group who claims a connection with him/her across the millenia just because. It's ridiculous, imo. Jews, Muslims, or Christians want to worship at the altar of these ancient peoples, fair enough. But the rest of the world needn't stand aside and grant these groups dominion over territory just because they claim ownership handed down from the Almighty. And ditto for ethnic peoples (Jews are both) who imagine that their claimed "homeland" is some sacrosanct thing that all others must respect and grant. Grow. The. Fuck. Up. (pardon my salty language). Life is short. Get on with it.
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on Jan 4, 2017 13:28:35 GMT -5
I'm not all that educated on this entire issues, which is why I tend not to say too much. Having said that, as long as Palestine insists that Israel should not exist, I tend to side with Israel. How do you negotiate with that. "Okay, let's meet you half way, just slaughter 50% of our population."
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Jan 4, 2017 13:44:25 GMT -5
The Jewish people give a shit, because of their deep religious and cultural roots which have been there for much longer than any other people, and because of the religious importance of their former capital. They have maintained a continuous physical, cultural and religious presence there since the earliest days. The Palestinians have not. That does mean something (if not legally). You brought up the comparison with Indian tribes, but a more apt comparison would be the UN to tell Native American tribes that they have no right to live on American land because it is "occupied American land", and therefore they are outlaws.
This has nothing to do with immaturity or growing up. This has to do with a people who have been persecuted in their homeland for millenia, who have maintained a continuous presence there, who won it back in a defensive Six Day War, and who want nothing more than to live in peace in their homeland which includes their historical capital with religious places of indescribable significance. They are willing to negotiate. They are willing to live in peace. The Palestinians are not. When I say "diplomatic battle", Amadan, I mean the Palestinians are using the world's governments, in bodies such as the UN, to wage their battle for them. In that way, the Palestinians don't have to concede anything nor negotiate. And let's be real here -- they do not want to negotiate. They do not want to come to an agreement of sharing the land. All they want is for Israel to no longer exist. THAT is the main barrier to peace. Not the settlements. But Obama and his administration are willing to continue believing it is the settlements. That seems terribly naive. But then again, Obama's foreign policy has seemed naive throughout (Iran and the jayvee ISIS are two examples).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 4, 2017 14:41:28 GMT -5
Let's assume for a minute that this is relevant in modern international law. (It isn't, but let's assume it.) It's really quite a distortion. Did you see the link I posted on the second page? Prior to the UN's establishment of what would become the Israeli state in 1947, Jews were a minority presence in Palestine since at least 1500. And guess who has been there all that time? Muslims and Christians. Most of the modern Jews who came over in the 20th century descend from people who'd left Palestine centuries ago. Some descend from converts and never had ancestors there. Whereas many of the Palestinians descend from people who've been there continuously for centuries. And while, yes, Jews have deep cultural and religious roots there, hello, so do Muslims. The Dome of the Rock has been there for a thousand goddamn years (indeed, a Muslim shrine has stood there since 691 AD). en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dome_of_the_Rock No, the apt comparison would be if some Native Americans decided to commandeer chunks of land in Yellowstone Park and start building on it, claiming their ancestors lived there 300 years ago and therefore it was theirs.
|
|