Debate:Israel and Palestine

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Debate.png This is a Debate page.
Feel free to add your own spin on the story. Please keep it civil!
Information icon.svg This debate was created by The Evil Osaka Sun.


Ok, everyone, obviously from what we've seen in the Saloon Bar it's going to be difficult to keep this in any way respectful. So, I have only one rule:

NO GODWIN'S LAW.

Here's the current situation summarized here. The UN is meeting up this week to discuss this, and whatever happens next will seem to have serious repercussions in the future.

The question is this: Do you support the creation of a Palestinian state alongside Israel? Why or why not? Osaka Sun (talk) 03:29, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I support this move; on a practical level, the "peace process" is dead, the settlements are expanding, and the Palestinians need to do something to change the situation they are stuck in. As a state, they would have recourse to the ICC and other international bodies as a way to force the process to move forward and to advance their own agenda. On a more philosophical level, I support this move because the Palestinians see themselves as a nation, therefore they are, de facto, a nation, and Israel--and everybody else, for that matter--has no business telling them otherwise. No body of law in the world recognizes the territory over which the Palestinians are claiming sovereignty as Israeli territory (unlike, say, the Quebecois, who have to deal with the fact that they are camped on land that is sovereign Canadian turf), so, in theory, the Israelis really have no say in the matter. They can bitch and whine that the Palestinians need to go through them, but at the end of the day, the Palestinians aren't children; they don't need anyone's permission to do this. B♭maj7 "Voted in two different votes, but there was never a vote." 03:35, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
I think the Palestinians should have their own state and that Israel should withdraw to its rightful territory, within the 1967 borders; but with Hamas gone into dictatorial mode, cutting them loose the wrong way has the potential to make the situation worse for all involved. I do not know enough about this current bid to tell whether that could be a problem. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 03:41, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Goodwin's Law[edit]

You cannot discuss the Jews without discussing antisemitism. You can't discuss antisemitism without discussing Hitler. Zionism was not a result of Hitler, but its final push was absolutely a result of WWII - including the UN Resolution that established Israel as a legitimate state. Goodwin's Law doesn't apply to actually discussing Jews.

The Palestinians have had numerous opportunities to have a state. Israel has wanted the Palestinians to have a state but every state that the Palestinians have tried to present refuse to recognize Israel as a state. Further withdrawals by Israel will only solidify Hamas' control over the area. I think Israel was stupid to give back the territory it took in the Six Day war back when the Arab states were playing Hitler thinking the Jews were their personal game to terrorize for political power - they still think this to an extent but after Israel kicked four countries' asses in, well, six days, they're a little more careful. I think they were stupid to give back Gaza, I think they would be stupid to give back Jerusalem and I think they should have blown up the Dome of Islamic Jew Hate on the Temple Mount immediately after the six day war to make it absolutely clear to the parasitic, hateful, violent religion of Islam that "daddy's home and he's come with a big stick." Islam understands submission - it does not understand peace. It does not understand human rights. It refuses to accept, even now, full equality for any religious minority within its borders. JRCHReason (talk) 05:40, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

While I completely agree with you that the Holocaust was one of the primary drivers for the creation of a Zionist Jewish state west of the Jordan river, I disagree with your absolute conflation of Palestinian resistance with radical Islam. While each one certainly leads to a good case for the other (in the minds of Arabs), they are not the same thing. It is perfectly fine, even rational and right, to oppose Islam. However, you take that a step further by saying that any Palestinian terrorism or resistance is because of radical Islam and therefore is wrong and unjustified. That's not true. I hate radical Islam, but I support the creation of a Palestinian state of some form, whether it is on the 1967 borders or today's borders. The settlements in the West Bank really present the most pressing problem, as there is a good chance the Palestinian Authority would demand all 350,000 Israeli settlers evacuate their homes and return to Israel proper. It is very unlikely that Israel would accept that and it is probably the single reason why Israel has not allowed for the creation of a Palestinian state in the West Bank. The Palestinian Authority has supported all measures for such a deal, but America has consistently vetoed it because of the Israeli lobby in Washington. Meanwhile, the Palestinians there are being squeezed more and more each year, and are afraid they will eventually be forced to cross the river into Jordan, which is already strained by over 600,000 refugees from Syria.
To address another point you raised. You called Islam a 'parasitic, hateful, violent religion'. By using the words 'parasitic' and 'violent', you imply that there is a core doctrine that the religion should grow until it conquers the world. This is also present in all major religions, especially Judaism. In the Bible, Yahweh (God) commands the Jews to slaughter all the Canaanites in a mass genocide, for the purpose of taking back the holy land. Jews have used that as a justification of the current violence against the Palestinians, saying that they should take back the holy land from the people who stole it. This ideology is not useful, it can only be used to hurt people, and results in massive amounts of pain, suffering, and death on both sides. Until both sides accept the right of the other to exist in peace, then neither side will. 50.155.88.106 (talk) 23:05, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Umm, do you see any mainstream Jewish traditions that demand the conquest/conversion of the entire world in the name of Judaism? Because I see that from Christianity and Islam, but not Judaism. CorruptUser (talk) 23:17, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi CorruptUser
What I was trying to say was the Jews, if you want to refer to Israelis by that name, generally do use violence in the name of religion in order to further their political goals. Granted, Muslims do this too, and on a broader scale (because there are far more of them), but that doesn't mean that Jews don't. Again, I refer you to the slaughter of the Canaanites. If that isn't a mainstream Jewish tradition, I don't know what is.
The reason why I'm talking to you about all this is that I want people to feel better and I want violence, hatred, and death to stop. If I didn't believe that, I wouldn't be advocating for Palestine to be independent. 50.155.88.106 (talk) 00:04, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
This is a monolith. It is not a religion. Yes, I am talking to all three of you. PacWalker 01:30, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
That's part of the mythology/history, but you are being disingenuous and you know it. Do you see any mainstream group using the religion to demand that the entire world convert or die? Because I see that from Christians and Muslims. CorruptUser (talk) 03:12, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
OK, I admit to being disingenuous, but that doesn't change the fact that most Muslim people don't want to conquer the world. You act as if they do. Sure, the text says to, but the texts of Judaism also command regional conquest of Israel. I'd also contend that most Christians don't demand the entire world convert or die. Nor do most Jews.
The point here still remains: the leaders of Israel don't want a Palestinian state, Netanyahu said it himself. The only Palestinian leaders calling for Israel's destruction are from Hamas in Gaza. None in Fatah, none in the Palestinian Authority. Regardless of whether it is the right thing to do or not, Israel can easily stop almost all of the violence by pulling out of the West Bank and evacuating the settlers there. We don't need to have decades of conflict and strife. I'm sad to see that you may not agree with that, but that's OK. 50.155.88.106 (talk) 21:38, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
So you admit that the text of Islam says to conquer everything, while the text of Judaism says to only conquer Israel. Do you see the difference? As for "most" Muslims vs Jews, who is generally the face of the "real" religion? It's the fundamentalists. The fundamentalist Muslims are advocating for world conquest (though most are asking for "peaceful" means), while the fundamentalist Jews actually oppose the state of Israel (since god hasn't said to yet). Do you see the difference?
As for pulling out of the West Bank, personally I think everything that hasn't been annexed, pull out of. The stuff that HAS been annexed, everyone that was there gets citizenship; want the land, gotta keep the people. Because that's the right thing to do. But will it stop the violence? Of course it fucking won't. Israel pulled out of Lebanon and the violence continued because of some dubious claim over the Shebaa farms. Israel pulled out of the Sinai and the violence continued just because. Israel pulled out of Gaza and ended up with daily rocket attacks (really think without a blockade, Hamas isn't going to import heavier weaponry?). CorruptUser (talk) 21:57, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
If there is no peaceful resolution possible, then Israel only has one option left to it. Invade Palestine entire, exterminate the Palestinian population so there will be no resistance or future revolt, and then defend against all criticism. It's really that simple. --Castaigne (talk) 22:19, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Except the problem for the most part isn't the Palestinians, it's the other Islamic countries that use the Palestinians as a proxy. So your reprehensible solution isn't going to do anything except murder a bunch of people. And I can't even tell if you are a Poe or not. CorruptUser (talk) 22:43, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Maybe he's just being very cynical. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 22:58, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, it would be accurate to refer to me as that. I, as a human, am worth approximately $160, rendered down to the chemicals. And my current outlook on life could be best described as Cosmicism, especially as regards the utter insignificance of humanity. --Castaigne (talk) 23:07, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Eh, if you insist on breaking up all the compounds into elements, that's gonna add some extra costs to the ordeal, no matter how efficiently you go about it. Though that'd be a pretty nonsensical thing to do, because some of those compounds are highly valued. Of course, if you think humanity is utterly insignificant, none of that matters since we're just talking about how much things are worth to humans. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 01:18, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
I would think that eliminating the proxy eliminates the problem, since the other Islamic countries seem to be reluctant to issue another causus belli in public against Israel, fearing its military strength. They're already frightened of Israel's atomic arsenal. If, say, Iran is the originating problem, then either a) nuke-n'-pave the Iranians and the proxy loses their support and will or b) eliminate the proxy and then nuke-n'-pave the Iranians, resulting in c) problem solved. No proxy, no instigator, no violence. People cannot cause violence against you when they are dead.
As for reprehensible, I disagree. Israel is a sovereign nation; they are only bounded by their national needs. Whatever action they take to maintain that sovereignty is in the national interest, therefore "good". Probably reprehensible to the Palestinians, but they're just like every other human being on the planet - expendable and replaceable through reproduction. It's really just a math problem. --Castaigne (talk) 23:07, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Assuming you aren't being a Poe and you are just being severely misguided, the other Islamic countries are slowly coming around. Might be faster if the Palestinians ostensibly were independent. Iran wasn't always hostile to Israel, really once a counter revolution occurs the biggest problem is gone. Jordan tried to make peace with Israel early on but a few terrorists assassinated their King for it, but then some more terrorists attempted an assassination of the next King; the Hashemites knows exactly what will happen to them if the whole region goes to Palestine. Want to know why rockets were coming in from Gaza and not the West Bank? Because the Hashemites have made damn sure not to let a bunch of terrorists import rockets into the West Bank, so the Jordanians are fine. Egypt used to be a problem but they exactly what the Muslim Brotherhood intends to do to them, and have turned on Hamas. Notice that the most rocket attacks occurred while Morsi was in power but they've stopped now that Sisi is in power, and have been quietly working with Israel. Really it's just a matter of surviving until the time is right for peace, rather than ethnic cleansings. So what remains is for the most part Saudi Arabia, Syria and Lebanon, the last two would likely end if Iran ended it, but SA, eh. And if you are talking actual genocide, I get the impression that'd give the rest of the Islamic world an actual Causi Belli and just be counterproductive as well as reprehensible. CorruptUser (talk) 23:31, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

CorruptUser, I think you and I pretty much agree on the West Bank. I personally don't think the settlers should be evacuated. In fact, I think the leaders of Israel decided to build the settlement walls in case of Palestinian statehood: they could make that the new border. So I think we agree.
On the subject of Gaza, ideally Fatah and the Palestinian Authority could rule Gaza with little to no Hamas influence. I think that Israel and maybe Egypt could board and search all ships entering Gaza to ensure there are no weapons onboard. No weapons would be allowed in, but everything else (food, supplies, materials) would. This way no artillery, mortars, guns could get in but people would not go hungry either. I think that the reason Hamas got elected in 2006 was not because everyone in Gaza are religious crazies, but rather that they all hate and fear Israel, and think it shouldn't exist. I think that once Israel starts letting people there go to Egypt, leave through ships, letting supplies in, and stop bombing them every 2 years, then people will stop hating Israel so much, and might vote Fatah in. I know this is wishful thinking, but I'm trying to show that a lot of people in Gaza who support Fatah, and once Hamas is out of power, Gaza wouldn't be a threat to Israel anymore, especially with Iron Dome to down rockets.
I would like to add that I supported the Afghanistan War (you cant get much worse thanthe Taliban , I would have rather had the Soviets running the country), I opposed the Iraq War (waste of time, money, lives, Saddam was bad but ISIS is worse), and support the war on ISIS, if not a full ground invasion to stop any permanent damage. I think that with friendly Iraqi, Jordanian, Turkish, and Egyptian governments and a bloody civil war in Syria, Israel is pretty safe, and a Palestinian state is more feasable now than it was 40 or even 15 years ago.
P.S. I didn't know that fundamentalist Jews oppose Israel. That's interesting. I'll have to research that more. 50.155.88.106 (talk) 23:21, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

International law[edit]

Basically, the primary obstacle to the Israel - Palestine conflict is Israel's refusal to accord with international law and this is no more apparent than as reflected in the annual UN General Assembly Resolutions. The UNGA holds a resolution titled Peaceful Settlement of the Palestine Question, which stipulates that

  • Israel has to fully withdraw from the Palestinian territory and the Golan Heights
  • That all the settlements have no legal validity
  • That there should be two states living side by side in peace
  • That Israel's change in the composition of the West Bank including East Jerusalem (illegally annexed mind you) has no legal validity
  • That it is inadmissible to acquire territory by war, which means the West Bank barrier being built THROUGHOUT the West Bank to annex the main settlement blocs is illegal because it does not follow the internationally recognized border
  • That there should be a just resolution to the Palestinian refugee question

What is the vote on this? Approximately 165 countries voted in favor for the 2013 resolution, while only 7 countries (Israel, US, Palau, Nauru, Micronesia, Marshall Islands, Canada) voted against. And this annual resolution has held constantly since 1989 when only the US, Israel, and the island state of Dominica were the dissenting voters of the resolution. It would seem that there has been a curious inversion of reality where the Palestinians are stereotypically referred to as having missed an opportunity for peace, yet Israel's reluctance to follow the majority opinion of the entire world paints a very different picture. Is the entire world opposed to peace? Are only 7 countries truly seeking peace? Who are the rejectionists?

Some might argue that Israel should be allowed to maintain its occupation and annex some territory However, with this being the 21st century and colonialism long recognized as an immoral act, giving exception to Israel sets a precedent and a double standard at that. If Israel is allowed to hold onto foreign territory not legally entitled to it, then you should logically have no problem with Russia illegally annexing Crimea, Iraq illegally annexing Kuwait, and yes, Nazi Germany illegally annexing Poland. If Israel can be allowed to annex territory that would seriously hamper the establishment of a Palestinian state, then Hamas' call for liberating all of Palestine/annexing the whole of Palestine by destroying Israel would then also have to be justified on the basis of this double standard. Either you abide by the law, or your arguments against the law are turned against you. ~ ChrisAmiss

If the main obstacle to peace was Israel's occupation, then why is there more peace after 1967 than before 1967? CorruptUser (talk) 02:41, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Because Israel proved its military superiority in the Six-Day War of 1967, forcing the Arab nations to accept the fact that Israel wasn't going away anytime soon? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 03:20, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm not really sure militarily occupying someone's land for a near half-century (48 years which makes it longer than all current occupations), violating principles of international law, killing 536 children in the last war (and lot more than that since 2000), demolishing homes, torturing them, exploiting their resources to your advantage (crucial water and arable resources not coincidentally located near the settlements), restricting their movement which affects their livelihood, conducting raids into their homes, using attack dogs on them and building settlements on their territory counts as peace. If by peace, you mean violence has subsided or is managed to a reasonable degree, that would mean every dictator that brutally arrests dissidents or alleged terrorists like Saudi Arabia or Bahrain for "stability" is committed to peace.
As far as whether Israel has achieved peace through its occupation, you only need to see the 1982 Lebanon War of aggression, Israel's occupation of Southern Lebanon, Israel's brutal response to the First Intifada (HRW attests that about 20,000 to 30,000 people were tortured during this time period) and Second Intifada (killing more Palestinians than Palestinians kill Israelis), Israel's periodic massacres of Gaza over the past decade to attest to its benign intentions. Yeah I know, not every country in the Middle East is flourishing with democracy (strengthened by the US and UK through arm exports ironically), but that doesn't mean Israel gets off the hook for their own undemocratic actions. ~ ChrisAmiss
That is filled with so many half truths and distortions, I don't even know where to begin. CorruptUser (talk) 03:34, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Do elaborate. The wealth of human rights reports on Israel's occupation by Amnesty, HRW, B'tselem, Physicians for Human Rights Israel, PCATI, ACRI, Gisha, Al-Haq, etc is all there. ~ ChrisAmiss
Most of it seems pretty accurate, though it'd be nice if the numbers were sourced. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 03:44, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
1) Hamas kidnaps and tortures more Gazans than Israel does
2) 536 children includes 16-17 year old boys that were part of Hamas. Take a look at the casualties of the last war; 80% of them were male, even though "women and children" made up the majority of the casualties.
3) Israel pulled out of Lebanon in 2000. Syria was still occupying Lebanon for a few more years, yet no one other than Lebanon gave a shit.
4) Claiming that because more Palestinians have died than Israelis, clearly Israel is the aggressor, is about as stupid as claiming that because more Russians died in the Winter War clearly Finland was the aggressor.
Bunch more, but IDK where to even begin with you. I'm under the impression that you really don't give a shit about the Palestinians; in the other article you kept denying the scale of the atrocities of the Palestinian ethnic cleansing committed by Kuwait, and even tried to say "no no, Kuwait was justified because Arafat was chummy with Saddam". I mean, by that logic, Israel was justified in all its atrocities against the Palestinians because the Palestinians were chummy with the other Arabs. Few people actually care about the Palestinians, they just use them as tools to further their own goals. Not one, not ONE UN resolution was passed regarding the Kuwait atrocity. CorruptUser (talk) 03:57, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
1) No, they don't. Hamas should be held accountable for its human rights violations, but that is not true in the slightest. This is from HRW's report on Israel's interrogation of Palestinians during the First Intifada: "Well over 100,000 Palestinians have been detained since the start of the intifada in December 1987. Of those arrested, reliable sources indicate that some 4,000 to 6,000 are subjected to interrogation each year. The figures appear to have declined only slightly during the first quarter of 1994". Multiply that by 5-6 years and you get 20,000 to 36,000 as a conservative estimate. Source: https://www.hrw.org/reports/pdfs/i/israel/israel946.pdf
2) Just because some casualties were male doesn't mean they weren't civilians. And the independent agencies like UN, OCHA have all attested that 70% of the casualties were civilians. Do you want to go down the road of Bosnian Genocide deniers who argue that the Srebrenica Massacre didn't happen because a good portion of the victims were males? Should I point out that the Nazi Holocaust couldn't possibly have been an atrocity because most of the victims were male? Physicians for Human Rights - Israel just did a report with 8 independent doctors, and they concluded that Israel committed war crimes (including Palestinians raising white flags), used Palestinians as human shields, and showed a gross disregard for international humanitarian law. Source: https://gazahealthattack.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/gazareport_eng.pdf
3) Israel still occupies the Shebaa Farms as part of its annexation of the Golan Heights. Nice try.
4) Israel is the one occupying another's land and taking a people's foreign territory by settlement. How the fuck is that not aggression? Are you that fucking dense? Are Germans not aggressors because they tried to colonize Eastern Europe? If Palestinians started building settlements in Israel proper and occupying them and more Jews happened to die by retaliating, are you going to tell me with a straight face that Jews are the aggressors?
4) Now you're just being disingenuous by misrepresenting me for your own political agenda. If you actually paid attention to what I wrote, I made the mistake of taking the figures from Wikipedia which said 200,000. I never minimized the ethnic cleansing or tried to deny it. I made a mistake by surveying the Wikipedia page and I admitted to it by letting the edit go unchanged. The Wikipedia page directly states: "Total refugees in 1991: 200,000" and I acted upon that figure. I put up a better source which said 400,000 from an academic article. As far as whether I said "no no, Kuwait was justified because Arafat was chummy with Saddam", you know I didn't say such a thing. You invented it to make it seem like you won a battle when only you just beat an imaginary opponent (cough - strawman - cough). I provided a historical context to Kuwait's ethnically cleansed Palestinians similar to the historical context as to why Israel cleansed Palestinians (Zionist plan for transfer). If providing additional information entails justification, then I'm afraid you ought to better your reading comprehension because there's a clear distinction between the two.
4) The only dirtbag who doesn't care about Palestinians would seem to be you because based on my interactions with you, it would seem to be you're an apologist for state terrorism and Israel's crimes against the Palestinians. You ignore a whole wealth of human rights reports to make a case for Israel (they have ensured "peace").
4) You forget that UNSC Rsolution 674 expressed concern over the "Well-being of nationals and third state nationals in Iraq AND KUWAIT" (emphasis added). ~ ChrisAmiss
Guys, let's not get too heated. No need to accuse eachother of not giving a shit or being a dirtbag. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 04:48, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Atrocities committed by Hamas are certainly relevant to the debate, but dismissing ChrisAmiss's list of bad stuff Israel did as "half truths and distortions" because other forces also abused the Palestinians or occupied Lebanon territory and people didn't really care about it seems like the two wrongs make a right fallacy. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 04:44, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
United Nations Security Council Resolution 674Wikipedia's W.svg. Has nothing to do with Kuwait expelling the Palestinians.
Shebaa farmsWikipedia's W.svg. It's a source of dispute, but the overwhelming evidence is that it was Syrian.
Yeah I'll agree that I stepped over a line at some point. Mostly I think what would be best would be most of the West Bank being turned into Palestine and Israel withdrawing the settlers from there. The problem I see with Israel and the Palestinians is not the Palestinians themselves, but everyone else constantly stirring up trouble. CorruptUser (talk) 04:55, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
There was no explicit mention of condemning expulsion. However, this is not unique to Kuwait. The UN did not explicitly castigate Israel for the expulsion of Palestinians in 1948 and 1967. The UN also believed that Israel had a right to defense in those wars (although I could get into a debate on why this isn't the case). True, it said they have a right to return, but this is no different from saying that refugees from East Timor, Syria, Iraq, Bosnia should return to their respective places. If anything, the UN is soft on Israel compared to other countries because it has never sanctioned Israel for annexing territory (it did sanction Iraq for annexing Kuwait) nor has it put Israeli officials on trials at the ICC (it has for African dictators).
Also true, but that does not dispute what I said earlier about Israel's war in Lebanon in 1982 and its 18 year occupation and the war in 2006 that would follow (which Olmert planned for even before Hezbollah's raid). You concede yourself it's a source of dispute.
I agree with CorruptUser on this. I would support an arms embargo on Israel and Hamas, support putting both Hamas and Israeli officials on trials for war crimes or do a Truth and Reconciliation commission where both sides admit their wrongs. My difference with CorruptUser would appear to be that I think there is a false equivalency with regard to perceiving this conflict and I believe, in my opinion, that Israel shares primary responsibility. I would support a full Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank and withdrawal of all the settlers in accordance with international law. And that's a pretty moderate conclusion in light of those who want a one-state solution to the conflict that would mean destruction of Israel. ~ChrisAmiss