Switzerland says Israel breaking international law

[MontyB]

Too right we do.

I went back to UK a few years ago for a visit, I arrived at passport control and was asked by a non indigenous person what was the purpose of my visit. I said, “I don't need a reason to visit. I was born here, were you?”

I thought I was going to get deported from my own country of birth.

Hehe it is funny the English seem to have moved to South Africa and the South Africans have moved here, we then go to Australia and the Australians seem to all end up in Britain, it is just one giant cyclic event.

 

[senojekips]

Ahhhh,... last someone who is willing to sensibly debate the matter rather than hide behind denial of the facts.

senojekips...
A) There was no Palestinian state here before. They dident call them selves palestinians, and the whole concept of independent arab states dident exist until the 1920s...

That doesn't mean that anyone else just has the right to move in and take theiir land. Just because they were nomadic and didn't have documented evidence of their ownership (as a group) of the land does not mean that it is not theirs. As you say there was no governmental framework as we understand it so no paperwork was necessary or available. That was the way their law worked. It is not the same as ours, but it is the way they did things.

B)You can fight for independence with out killing women and children as a main tactic. Also you can avoid hiding behind civilians so they dont get killed(than again, the palis wouldent be able to use it for PR needs later).

They are not merely fighting for independance, they are fighting for what is theirs by right, their land, I would do the same if it were my land.

C)If the palis want their own country why dident they take the 1947 partition and go to war instead?

Because as a subjugated people (by the Brits at this time and the Turks previously) they were not organised and were they were not really aware of what was being done to their country. It was essentially being given away to a third party by the Brits who never had the right to give it away, (it was not theirs to give)

Why did Arafat not take te 2000 deal that gave him 98% of the occupied land and the rest in land exchange?

Why should he settle for only 98% of what is his anyway, he quite rightly wanted 100%

Ill ansawer that for you- their national movement is against any co-existance. Until they decide they really want peace there will be no peace...
D) have you considred what an ARAB regieme would treat a huge rebellious population like?! I wqould say we treat them with silk gloves compared with what they get from even their own leadership.

What they would have done in their own country is their own business, that is their right, just as we do not interfere in the way that the Indians, Chileans, Cambodians or a hundred other countries treat their own people.

I'm sure that if the Brits would have said that the Jewish state was going to be set up in the outback of Australia or USA you would have had the same conflict on your hands. A people or group cannot just take over a piece of someone else's country (even if no one hold title to it) and not expect trouble.

Getting back to the beginning, I could never see why after the second world war the Allies saw a need for a Jewish state anyway. The diaspora had seen these people settle all over Europe by their own choice for nearly a thousand years, and they had made no attempt to return to the land of their origin. Having won the war, if there was a real need for a Jewish state, wht did the allies not set it up in Germany, the land that had fostered the holocaust? There was plenty of land owned by the Nazi government and war dead that could have been put to good use.

 

[MontyB]

I'm sure that if the Brits would have said that the Jewish state was going to be set up in the outback of Australia or USA you would have had the same conflict on your hands. A people or group cannot just take over a piece of someone else's country (even if no one hold title to it) and not expect trouble.

Getting back to the beginning, I could never see why after the second world war the Allies saw a need for a Jewish state anyway. The diaspora had seen these people settle all over Europe by their own choice for nearly a thousand years, and they had made no attempt to return to the land of their origin. Having won the war, if there was a real need for a Jewish state, wht did the allies not set it up in Germany, the land that had fostered the holocaust? There was plenty of land owned by the Nazi government and war dead that could have been put to good use.

To be honest I think this is the heart of the matter, had those claiming the state of Israel actually been native to the area and not a bunch of European refugees that just moved in and took over there probably would be a lot less trouble in the region.

I also agree with the last part although had they put Israel in Germany they would be fighting Germans and not Palestinians now and the Germans are much better at it, on the whole I think you are right it would have been better had the state no been allowed to form at all but given that it is now there I am not sure how the problem's of the area can be fixed.

 

[SHERMAN]

I reopened this.

 

[senojekips]

I thank you for your open mindedness Sherman, my previous comments were in no way aimed at you or meant to cause you personal grief.

I am genuinely interested in your opinions on this matter just as I am with those of others. Nothing is ever as simple as it seems.

I am at times blunt, but that is my nature, as I feel that nothing can be gained if one is not willing to state their case clearly. I do appreciate your position as an Israeli and as a person who has fought for his country, and for that I salute you.

This whole matter is fait accompli, but there are still things we can all learn from our mistakes of the past.

Thank you.

 

[A Can of Man]

Well there were Jews in Palestine even before Israel was formed although obviously nowhere near as many. The issue really was that the Arabs suddenly felt threatened because the Jewish population received a massive boost.

Here's what I think. A lot of people tend to get "was it justified to let this happen" to "what should we do about it now?" The circumstances at the very beginning of the Jewish resettlement could be very different from the current situation. Back then you could argue that you didn't want immigrants swarming in from all over Europe and even the world, but now you have Israelis down to the third generation who were born and raised there with Hebrew as their first language. The argument for kicking them out as invaders just doesn't stick anymore.
Could it have been better had the Jews been given a patch of Canada or Argentina where there was far more sparsely populated land of little controversy? Probably. But at this point, this is what people have and they're going to have to make peace with it.
Also it is another sobering lesson for everyone: if you have anything you consider valuable, you better be good enough to defend it.

 

[MontyB]

Well there were Jews in Palestine even before Israel was formed although obviously nowhere near as many. The issue really was that the Arabs suddenly felt threatened because the Jewish population received a massive boost.

Here's what I think. A lot of people tend to get "was it justified to let this happen" to "what should we do about it now?" The circumstances at the very beginning of the Jewish resettlement could be very different from the current situation. Back then you could argue that you didn't want immigrants swarming in from all over Europe and even the world, but now you have Israelis down to the third generation who were born and raised there with Hebrew as their first language. The argument for kicking them out as invaders just doesn't stick anymore.
Could it have been better had the Jews been given a patch of Canada or Argentina where there was far more sparsely populated land of little controversy? Probably. But at this point, this is what people have and they're going to have to make peace with it.
Also it is another sobering lesson for everyone: if you have anything you consider valuable, you better be good enough to defend it.

While I agree partially with this I think you are wrong in saying "The argument for kicking them out as invaders just doesn't stick anymore." it does stick it is just not practical, time rarely makes an illegal action legal, it just becomes impractical to fix the problem hence there has to be another solution.

In terms of sobering lessons and defending what you see as valuable doesn't this argument justify the case for the likes of Hamas and Hezbollah and disprove the theory that the Palestinians were "just inhabiting dirt they didn't really care about" because they are still fighting and dying for it 60 years later and more than likely will be 60 years from now.

 

[A Can of Man]

I don't think it's practical and I don't think the argument sticks anymore either.

As for defending it I see what you're getting at, but what I meant was they should have been able to defend their country entirely in the beginning so they wouldn't have to resort to the stuff they're resorting to now (and the past fifty years for that matter).

It's what I tell other Koreans about the subject of the Japanese colonization or the disputed islets of Dokdo - next time don't get your ass kicked.

 

[MontyB]

I don't think it's practical and I don't think the argument sticks anymore either.

As for defending it I see what you're getting at, but what I meant was they should have been able to defend their country entirely in the beginning so they wouldn't have to resort to the stuff they're resorting to now (and the past fifty years for that matter).

It's what I tell other Koreans about the subject of the Japanese colonization or the disputed islets of Dokdo - next time don't get your ass kicked.

But they did have reasonable protection in place, Palestine was a British Protectorate and as such they theoretically had Britain defending them, surely few countries could have had a better defence in the mid to late 1940s.

Interestingly enough the "Stuff" they are resorting to now is precisely what was used to drive the British out of Palestine in the first place, it is one of those ironic examples of "what goes around comes around".

 

[senojekips]

If you wish to read about terror attacks, read about the bombing of the King David Hotel where the Irgun targeted the British authorities killing 91 people including 17 Israelis, 41 Arabs and injured many more. Most of the dead and injured being hotel staff. Only 28 Brits were killed, so this surely counts as an act of terrorism.

It never ceases to amaze me how soon these things are forgotten once the worm turns and the boot is on the other foot.

 

[A Can of Man]

Actually I know but the Israelis picked their targets carefully though they didn't do a great job of keeping collateral damage to a minimum. My argument doesn't justify what the Israelis did nor does it support the formation of the state of Israel in its present spot at the time it was created. It states that the Israelis who live in Israel now are in many cases born and bred Israelis who don't know life outside of Israel and could actually have grandparents who were born in an independent Israel (though these people would still be babies). The whole "justified to kick the Jews out of Palestine" timing has pretty much passed. They're natives there as much as the current generation of Palestinians are.
Spike, you can go swim with the sharks so the Aborigines can reclaim Australia (though they never had the concept of nationhood, this is as stated, irrelevant), MontyB can also join in so the Maoris can take New Zealand. And from what I gather, both those people suffered a heck of a lot worse under the immigrants/colonists than Arabs in Israel have.
I can likewise go burn myself to death (for some reason a favorite in these neck of the woods) because apparently I am not from a "pure" Korean heritage. Sure I'm like the 30th odd generation to have lived here but since there were some "purer" Koreans who were here before my kind, I too can pack it up and end it all so these true owners of the land can live here without disruption.
Sure the Aborigines, the Maoris and the slightly purer Koreans aren't blowing up buses demanding us out but what if they did? What if the American Indians started doing so? Do the Americans there have to trace their ancestries and then go back to wherever it is "they" apparently came from? It's ridiculous.
Actually I've heard an Arab friend from college say the same thing about Israel. Actually he is Palestinian. Obviously he didn't like the conclusion but that's what he thought. It's simply too late and they're just going to have to learn to live with one another.

 

[MontyB]

Ah but there is a problem with your Maori comparison, there are now very few 2nd, 3rd, 4th or 5th Generation New Zealanders that can not trace their own Maori ancestry so any land claims would be somewhat ridiculous, how can you take land from a 1/8th Maori to give it to another 1/8th, my family receives dividends from Maori land holdings already so I wont be swimming anywhere, we have also adopted Maori and English as the countries official languages.

But here is a question for you, if I take your life savings, personal property, car etc. and 20 years down the track give it to my kids does that make the the initial action of taking the objects right?
In part you are right it is probably too late for the Palestinians to expect anything short of a compromise but I have to be honest if that was my land and country I wouldn't be enthusiastic about peace and I would sure as hell be doing what they are doing to get rid of what they perceive as an invader (and I doubt there is anyone on this board that would do differently if it was their country).
It is unfortunate the Palestinians have to use the methods they do but it is understandable given that they have few other options to achieve their goals.

 

[A Can of Man]

You go into minor details over the Maori issue. Again, arguing for the sake of arguing. Maybe the Israelis should fix this problem by raping Palestinian women.
If you took my car and possessions and 20 years down the road you gave it to your kids it's my own damned fault I lost them in the first place. It would be an ultimate "it sucks" scenario but I'm not going to go blowing up your children in order to get it back. 20 years down the road, what is justifiably mine and what was originally yours is pretty blurry and the best we could ever do is reach some sort of compromise. Remember, Palestine was not completely devoid of Jews to begin with.

 

[senojekips]

Remember, Palestine was not completely devoid of Jews to begin with.

You are quite correct, and in almost all cases they had lived together harmoniously with the Arab population for a thousand years.

Then came the European Jews from all over Europe who had this expectation of a "homeland" for the Jewish people, and this is where the troubles of today started.

My own personal opinion is that after the horrors of the Holocaust, the Allies felt sorry for the Jewish people of Europe, and quite rightly so. However this in no way gave them the right to give someone else's country away to the "dispossessed" Jews of Europe.

After all, Hitler had been beaten and the Jewish people should have gone back to their countries of origin and reclaimed their lands. With the feeling of the time against the Germans, they would have had no difficulty in regaining that which had previously been theirs. I'm sure that they would have also got a sympathetic ear regarding punitive damages against the Nazi regime.

Perhaps I'm a dreamer, but that seems to me to be a much better solution than going to a strange country where your forefathers have not lived for 500 years of more, and punishing the legitimate occupants by stealing their land.

 

[SHERMAN]

you wish to read about terror attacks, read about the bombing of the King David Hotel where the Irgun targeted the British authorities killing 91 people including 17 Israelis, 41 Arabs and injured many more. Most of the dead and injured being hotel staff. Only 28 Brits were killed, so this surely counts as an act of terrorism.

It never ceases to amaze me how soon these things are forgotten once the worm turns and the boot is on the other foot.

Like I already said here, It was indeed terrorisem...Only diffrence is, and I'm repeating my self here, most Jews were horrified by this. The Hagana turned over Irgun members to the Brits after this. Irgun and Stern Ganag both had a little more than 1000 members as far as I know. Most Jews supported Hagana, which did not conduct terror, and even tried to stop the others from it...So compare that to the Palis...

 

[MontyB]

You go into minor details over the Maori issue. Again, arguing for the sake of arguing. Maybe the Israelis should fix this problem by raping Palestinian women.
If you took my car and possessions and 20 years down the road you gave it to your kids it's my own damned fault I lost them in the first place. It would be an ultimate "it sucks" scenario but I'm not going to go blowing up your children in order to get it back. 20 years down the road, what is justifiably mine and what was originally yours is pretty blurry and the best we could ever do is reach some sort of compromise. Remember, Palestine was not completely devoid of Jews to begin with.

I would suggest that your understanding of New Zealands colonisation is sadly lacking if you believe that the integration was through rape.

As for the rest I will back Spikes argument as it expresses my views fairly closely.

 

[Del Boy]

.

Don't bother telling me I'm an anti semite, as I am of Jewish extraction.

The Jews have no more right to go back and occupy "their" homeland than I do to go back to Northern England and occupy the land of my forefathers.

OK - Just to start tidily and know where we stand.

Claiming Jewish extraction does not necessarily signify that one is not an anti-semite.

I would suggest that the Israeli right to live in Israel trumps that of European descent in both Australia and New Zealand; an unquestionable traditional homeland claim trumps no claim at all.

(And why should we have you here in England? You are of Jewish extraction, unless, of course, you can prove yourself free of that for 3 generations. )

Now I am ready to take it from there, nicely and politely, amongst friends.

 

[senojekips]

Like I already said here, It was indeed terrorisem...Only diffrence is, and I'm repeating my self here, most Jews were horrified by this. The Hagana turned over Irgun members to the Brits after this. Irgun and Stern Ganag both had a little more than 1000 members as far as I know. Most Jews supported Hagana, which did not conduct terror, and even tried to stop the others from it...So compare that to the Palis...

Quite true Sherman, just the same as most "Palestinians" probably despised the methods used by their extremists at that time, who shot Jews stealing their land

This example was given to show the terrorism is not confined to one side or the other, and that it started very early.

I was going to list a heap of movie clips from You tube showing the treatment of Arabs being forcibly evicted from their land, and the Israelis even attacking those who were attempting to film the issue, in one case one of the Israelis (over 6 foot tall) punching a tiny woman photographer in the face when she tried to get her camera back.

Another showing armed Jewish "settlers" throwing rocks, threatening and abusing a farmer, because he was working too close to the settlement they had recently built on his land. The settlement only being there in an attempt to expand the area claimed as part of Israel.

Then of course there was the case of the bulldozer driver who deliberately drove over and killed a US photographer/activist trying to object to the forced clearing of Arab olive groves

Israeli children stoning a photographer trying to document abuses, while members of the Israeli army stood by and refused to intervene.

The list is endless, I could go on for a week but it would be pointless. This is NOT a one sided issue.

I think that we'll just have to agree that much of the rest of the world sees problem and it's causes very differently to the way that it is viewed in Israel.

 

[A Can of Man]

I would suggest that your understanding of New Zealands colonisation is sadly lacking if you believe that the integration was through rape.

No it wasn't through rape but if the mixed blood detail is what you'll go into, maybe the Israelis can mix themselves with the Palestinians to make it even more confusing. Obviously I don't see this happening in a peaceful way which leaves one alternative. Again you're missing my point and sometimes I feel you miss it deliberately when you're not getting the upper hand in the argument you want. You pick out a detail, blow it up to obscure the bigger and more important point and attempt to make the other person's argument irrelevant.
Rape is not the point.
Seriously, getting tired of your debating strategy. And it's not because you're smart (you are but so are many other people) but the way in which you argue.



Spike, I understand what you're saying, but my point is that they're 3 generations down the line. Whatever the European Jews did, the actual Israelis today and the Palestinians today are the people who count. They have to learn to live together. Blowing up buses and using towns to conduct raids into Israel which is now the Israelis native born home is not going to send the Israelis away.
And I wouldn't be too sure of Palestinians condemning acts of blowing up buses. I just wished people were actually sensible. That counts for us too actually. I remember hearing that people in Korea cheered about the 9/11 attacks. Exactly how many I don't know. But people are like that... it seems that valuing human life and freedom is very much a Western concept.

 

[MontyB]

No it wasn't through rape but if the mixed blood detail is what you'll go into, maybe the Israelis can mix themselves with the Palestinians to make it even more confusing. Obviously I don't see this happening in a peaceful way which leaves one alternative. Again you're missing my point and sometimes I feel you miss it deliberately when you're not getting the upper hand in the argument you want. You pick out a detail, blow it up to obscure the bigger and more important point and attempt to make the other person's argument irrelevant.
Rape is not the point.
Seriously, getting tired of your debating strategy. And it's not because you're smart (you are but so are many other people) but the way in which you argue.

I was once told about an old cliche, "Mr Pot meet Mr Kettle, he's black" you took it off on the "Maori/Aboriginal" tangent not me so don't get upset if that doesn't go your way.

As I see it your argument is basically possession is 9/10th of the law and mine is that an illegal act remains illegal no matter how long after the event.

European migration to Palestine during and after WW2 was illegal it was nothing short of an invasion, as such I can understand Palestinian actions.

Now if you have trouble with that stance I am sorry but please do not try and obscure your lack of an argument with a moral victory, it clear neither Spike nor myself are falling for the "2000 year biblical claim" line so do you have anything that can justify the influx of European Jews to Palestine after WW2?