US Freezes Aid After Palestinian Statehood Bid

[Avatar]

Good posts LM.

Agreed, the point is not whether they had a country before at all. Saying it's alright because they didn't have a country seems similar to saying the evictions and forced removals of Jews prior to Israel existing was alright too.

I'm not disputing that there are human rights violations, I'm not disputing that there are Palestinians committing acts of terrorism. But I don't see how that means that all other Palestinians should be denied the right to autonomy.

--A

[Cail]

The behaviour of the Israelis in Palestine is shameful. Perhaps there's be a higher liklihood of peace in the region if the US cut the aid to Israel or made it conditional on their behaviour.

Nonsense. It may not be the ideal, but to call Israel's behavior shameful and not address the stated purpose of Hamas, Iran, and the majority of the rest of the region is facile.

The US panders to Isreal, not the Arabs, for not the least reason that the Jewish lobby and electoral funding would disappear pretty quickly for anyone suggesting any toning down of that pandering.

No doubt, but again, you fail to address the level of pandering we do to the Saudis and the rest of the Arab world (minus Iran).

On the one hand here we have the US and Israel, on the other Palestine and every other nation on Earth....

Yes, it's a terrible moral position to be in; aiding a country that's trying not to be eradicated by its neighbors.

There's an old saying about 50 million Frenchman.

They smell terrible and are rude to everyone?

[I'm Murrin]

On the one hand here we have the US and Israel, on the other Palestine and every other nation on Earth....

Yes, it's a terrible moral position to be in; aiding a country that's trying not to be eradicated by its neighbors.

Israel has the military advantage, and is occupying Palestinian territory. Palestine is the country that's under threat, since Israel is pretty much trying to assimilate most of the West Bank through their occupation and settlement.

[Fist and Faith]

Good posts LM.

Yup

[Cail]

On the one hand here we have the US and Israel, on the other Palestine and every other nation on Earth....

Yes, it's a terrible moral position to be in; aiding a country that's trying not to be eradicated by its neighbors.

Israel has the military advantage, and is occupying Palestinian territory. Palestine is the country that's under threat, since Israel is pretty much trying to assimilate most of the West Bank through their occupation and settlement.

No they're not. There's no such thing as "Palestinian territory", and even if you grant that there is, Israel acquired that land when they were attacked. There is nothing illegitimate about conquered land.

[Lord Mhoram]

No they're not. There's no such thing as "Palestinian territory", and even if you grant that there is, Israel acquired that land when they were attacked. There is nothing illegitimate about conquered land.

Maybe on Planet Cail you are right. But in the real world, we have things like UN 242, the Geneva Conventions, and International Criminal of Justice rulings like this one. Israel's actions are only legitimate in light of crucial US military, financial, and political support. Without us, they would be subject to the harsh light of the law and the international consensus which is harshly and justly against their actions in the Occupied Territories. And it's as ludicrous to assert that Palestinians aren't under threat as it would be to assert Israel hasn't been under threat. Tell the thousands of Palestinians killed by Israelis in the Occupied Territories since 1967 that (1) they aren't under threat, and (2) that there is no such thing as Palestinian land.

[finn]

The behaviour of the Israelis in Palestine is shameful. Perhaps there's be a higher liklihood of peace in the region if the US cut the aid to Israel or made it conditional on their behaviour.

Nonsense. It may not be the ideal, but to call Israel's behavior shameful and not address the stated purpose of Hamas, Iran, and the majority of the rest of the region is facile.

The US panders to Isreal, not the Arabs, for not the least reason that the Jewish lobby and electoral funding would disappear pretty quickly for anyone suggesting any toning down of that pandering.

No doubt, but again, you fail to address the level of pandering we do to the Saudis and the rest of the Arab world (minus Iran).

On the one hand here we have the US and Israel, on the other Palestine and every other nation on Earth....

Yes, it's a terrible moral position to be in; aiding a country that's trying not to be eradicated by its neighbors.

There's an old saying about 50 million Frenchman.

They smell terrible and are rude to everyone?

You've quite fairly called your own country on its behaviour in the recent past but don't seem to see the level of cruelty being piled on the Palestinians by Israel, is it not shown in the US? Its being shown everywhere else which is why its being internationally decried by everyone but the US.

Fair point on the French tho'....

[Cail]

No they're not. There's no such thing as "Palestinian territory", and even if you grant that there is, Israel acquired that land when they were attacked. There is nothing illegitimate about conquered land.

Maybe on Planet Cail you are right. But in the real world, we have things like UN 242, the Geneva Conventions, and International Criminal of Justice rulings like this one. Israel's actions are only legitimate in light of crucial US military, financial, and political support. Without us, they would be subject to the harsh light of the law and the international consensus which is harshly and justly against their actions in the Occupied Territories. And it's as ludicrous to assert that Palestinians aren't under threat as it would be to assert Israel hasn't been under threat. Tell the thousands of Palestinians killed by Israelis in the Occupied Territories since 1967 that (1) they aren't under threat, and (2) that there is no such thing as Palestinian land.

Planet Cail, cute. When you have no argument, get personal.

The UN is only legitimate in the sense that we agree that it is. It's a made-up group that has consistently been inconsistent in the application of international law. Using a UN resolution to support the argument that Israel is in violation of international law is circular reasoning (at best).

As I said, name the country that was taken away from the Palestinians by the British Mandate. Then you can explain to me why it makes any sense to support nations that, as a matter of course, advocate and work towards wiping another nation off the face of the Earth.

Mind you, I don't believe in foreign aid at all, so I'd be perfectly happy ending all payments to everyone.

[Cybrweez]

Yea, if you have to rely on the UN, you're done. I asked it before, but might makes right, correct? You attack, you lose, too bad. But don't worry, our Leader advises patience, sooner or later we'll, w/divine assistance, remove Israel from the world. Then you can rejoice fellas. No more human rights violations.

BTW, how did the Jews gain control of the world? I mean, Arabs outnumber them by far, and have oil behind them. What do the Jews have behind them? Yet they rule the world. This would be an interesting research project.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

This is why my opinion about the Israel/Palestine problem has long been "every else in the world needs to back off and let the two groups fight it out, once and for all". Any other options results only in long-term bickering and low-level fighting for decades, resulting in generational suffering. My option, although more painful in the short term, creates a long-term solution.

It is curious, though, that no other Arab/Muslim nation offers land inside their borders for the Palestinians to settle. Why don't nations like Syria want them?

[Cail]

You've quite fairly called your own country on its behaviour in the recent past but don't seem to see the level of cruelty being piled on the Palestinians by Israel, is it not shown in the US? Its being shown everywhere else which is why its being internationally decried by everyone but the US.

What I'm saying is that the level of cruelty shown to the Palestinians by the Israelis pales in comparison to the mountain of shit that the Israelis have put up with from the rest of the ME.

Fair point on the French tho'....

Mais bien sûr....

[Prebe]

What I'm saying is that the level of cruelty shown to the Palestinians by the Israelis pales in comparison to the mountain of shit that the Israelis have put up with from the rest of the ME.

[Since the 2005 intifada] 3,225 Palestinians killed by Israelis (3,135 by military in the territories, 54 by military inside Israel, 34 by settlers in the territories)
950 Israelis killed by Palestinians (431 inside Israel, 218 settlers, 218 soldiers on duty)
Source: B'tselem, BBC [1]

According to the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affair 1058 people were killed by Palestinian violence. The list include Israelis who were killed by Palestinian militants abroad as well as foreigners that were killed by Palestinian militants in Israel and the territories. It does not include Palestinians killed by Palestinian militants.

There you are should keep you happy.now you can get on with making a point for which you have been waiting for and good luck.

Why, thank you, oh anonymous yahoo answer mind reader

[Cail]

What I'm saying is that the level of cruelty shown to the Palestinians by the Israelis pales in comparison to the mountain of shit that the Israelis have put up with from the rest of the ME.

[Since the 2005 intifada] 3,225 Palestinians killed by Israelis (3,135 by military in the territories, 54 by military inside Israel, 34 by settlers in the territories)
950 Israelis killed by Palestinians (431 inside Israel, 218 settlers, 218 soldiers on duty)
Source: B'tselem, BBC [1]

According to the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affair 1058 people were killed by Palestinian violence. The list include Israelis who were killed by Palestinian militants abroad as well as foreigners that were killed by Palestinian militants in Israel and the territories. It does not include Palestinians killed by Palestinian militants.

There you are should keep you happy.now you can get on with making a point for which you have been waiting for and good luck.

Why, thank you, oh anonymous yahoo answer mind reader

And?

Are you going to assert that those 3225 Palestinians were peaceably minding their own business when the evil Israelis (probably with big hooked noses) senselessly killed them?

[Prebe]

Are you going to assert that those 3225 Palestinians were peaceably minding their own business when the evil Israelis (probably with big hooked noses) senselessly killed them?

I never said big hooked noses. That was you.

I'm indeed going to assert that a fair amount of the palestinians (or diaper heads if you prefer) were indeed minding their own business while the israeli soldiers (probably with big hooked noses) incidentally hit them in "surgical" strikes, yes.

[Cail]

Are you going to assert that those 3225 Palestinians were peaceably minding their own business when the evil Israelis (probably with big hooked noses) senselessly killed them?

I never said big hooked noses. That was you.

I'm indeed going to assert that a fair amount of the palestinians (or diaper heads if you prefer) were indeed minding their own business while the israeli soldiers (probably with big hooked noses) incidentally hit them in "surgical" strikes, yes.

Sorry, I'm not going to feel the least bit of sympathy for people who elected a government that states as one of their purposes the eradication of Israel.

You want to condemn the actions of the Israelis, that's fine. But it's empty condemnation when you're not doing the same for every other nation in the region.

[Vraith]

This is why my opinion about the Israel/Palestine problem has long been "every else in the world needs to back off and let the two groups fight it out, once and for all". Any other options results only in long-term bickering and low-level fighting for decades, resulting in generational suffering. My option, although more painful in the short term, creates a long-term solution.

It is curious, though, that no other Arab/Muslim nation offers land inside their borders for the Palestinians to settle. Why don't nations like Syria want them?

Related: If I recall my history and maps correctly, to truly "give the Palestinians back their homeland" they would have to be given [in addition to Israel, and larger than current Israel]
Part of Saudi Arabia
Part of Iraq
Part of Syria
And almost the entire nations of Jordan and Lebanon.
[I believe that's correct for pre-1947].
Between then and the 6-day war, Egypt occupied Gaza, Jordan the West bank.
It is interesting to note that the Egyptians treated the Palestinians as badly or worse than Israel ever treated its Palestinians. [again...IIRC, it's been a long time].

[Lord Mhoram]

Sorry, I'm not going to feel the least bit of sympathy for people who elected a government that states as one of their purposes the eradication of Israel.

1. The Second Intifada took place before the election of Hamas. (In fact, it was a direct cause of it.)
2. The Second Intifada took place in the West Bank (which never elected Hamas) and Gaza (which did, after the Intifada).

And I can go over the facts if you'd like, but yes, indeed, many of the Palestinians killed (in great disproportion to the number of Israelis killed as Prebe points out) were civilians.

In any event, if electing a government makes you fair game for targeted strikes, should the Iraqis have been firing missiles at us after the 2004 election for reelecting a government who expressed the desire to attack their country, even though 49% of us didn't vote for that government? Is that just? I thought we were supporters of democracy and the Geneva Conventions?

For the hell of it, here's the casualty breakdown of the Second Intifada. Almost 3000 Palestinian civilians were killed. Less than 500 Israeli civilians were killed. Is that an existential threat to Israel???

[Cail]

Sorry, I'm not going to feel the least bit of sympathy for people who elected a government that states as one of their purposes the eradication of Israel.

1. The Second Intifada took place before the election of Hamas. (In fact, it was a direct cause of it.)
2. The Second Intifada took place in the West Bank (which never elected Hamas) and Gaza (which did, after the Intifada).

That's great. Care to discuss all the other times prior that Israel was attacked?

And I can go over the facts if you'd like, but yes, indeed, many of the Palestinians killed (in great disproportion to the number of Israelis killed as Prebe points out) were civilians.

Didn't say they weren't civilians.

In any event, if electing a government makes you fair game for targeted strikes, should the Iraqis have been firing missiles at us after the 2004 election for reelecting a government who expressed the desire to attack their country, even though 49% of us didn't vote for that government? Is that just? I thought we were supporters of democracy and the Geneva Conventions?

Never said that either.

For the hell of it, here's the casualty breakdown of the Second Intifada. Almost 3000 Palestinian civilians were killed. Less than 500 Israeli civilians were killed. Is that an existential threat to Israel???

You can deny the existential threat all you like. You can demonize Israel all you like. The point I've made since the beginning is that Israel is not perfect, but they're exponentially less wrong than the other players in the region.

[Lord Mhoram]

Cail,

Care to discuss all the other times prior that Israel was attacked?

I'd be happy to. (You were the one who mentioned Hamas in an historically inaccurate way, so I brought up the Second Intifada.) Which instances?

Didn't say they weren't civilians...Never said that either.

So if the fact that they were civilians is irrelevant, and if the fact that they elected Hamas is also apparently irrelevant (in contrast to what you had just said), was it okay for Israel to have killed 3000 civilians? Why or why not?

You can deny the existential threat all you like.

You didn't answer my question. In a conflict in which 3000 of your enemy's civilians are killed, and less than a sixth of that of yours are killed, where's the existential threat? Israel is undoubtedly under the threat of violence. But the threat to Israel from the Palestinians whose land they illegally and brutally occupy is far less than what Palestinians face on a daily basis from the mightiest military in the region.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

Related: If I recall my history and maps correctly, to truly "give the Palestinians back their homeland" they would have to be given [in addition to Israel, and larger than current Israel]
Part of Saudi Arabia
Part of Iraq
Part of Syria
And almost the entire nations of Jordan and Lebanon.
[I believe that's correct for pre-1947].
Between then and the 6-day war, Egypt occupied Gaza, Jordan the West bank.
It is interesting to note that the Egyptians treated the Palestinians as badly or worse than Israel ever treated its Palestinians. [again...IIRC, it's been a long time].

Yes; the historic maps are easily found online. As with many countries in that region, some of the national boundaries were redrawn after WWII...but it appears that, in some of those caess, the lines were arbitrarily chosen.