Tim Cook Expected to Arrive in Israel Next Week for Inauguration of Herzliya-Based Offices

[snberk103]

Do you really doubt the UN security council's ability to defend some territory they are tasked with defending? Its not peacekeeping, its defence.

Of course I doubt it. I haven't actually seen it happen yet. They just step aside when things get tough. I can't even see the UNSC agreeing to task themselves to this. During the 1973 war the Russians instituted the largest sea and air-lift in their history to arm the Arab Nations intent on destroying Israel. At the same time the US did the same thing to re-arm the Israelis. I don't see them agreeing on this.

So what exactly is the issue for the Israelis with the Arab Peace Initiative?

The non-negotiable demand that displaced Palestinians have the right of return to their homes in Israel while denying the same right (also non-negotiable) to Jews who want to go home in the West Bank and other Arab Nations. In general the Right of Return for refugees is not enforced globally. There are all sorts of people in Europe who were displaced by WW II and later civil wars who were and still are denied their "Right of Return". For Europeans to demand that Israel accept it while denying it to their own territory is hypocritical beyond belief. The Right of Return has been denied the Muslims and Hindus in Pakistan/India. The Right of Return is denied to huge numbers of displaced Africans due to the ongoing civil wars there. The Right of Return is denied the Aboriginal peoples of Australia, Canada, USA, several South American nations. But in Israel and Palestine it has somehow become a sacred right. But only in one direction. The "Right of Return" is misleading and the Palestinians constantly refer to the Israeli Right of Return. But in Israel's case the Right of Return is an optional government policy that can be revoked by the government of Israel at any time. It would be stupid and electoral suicide of course, but they could. It is exactly the same thing - for just one of many examples - that the Republic of Ireland has. If you are born outside Ireland but one of your parents is Irish then you can become an Irish Citizen. This is Ireland's Right of Return. It has nothing to do with the UN or refugees. It is simply a government policy.

And then there is the non-negotiable demand that Old City of Jerusalem (otherwise known as East Jerusalem) become the Palestinian capital. This is why Israel won't consider returning Jerusalem.

In 1948 during the Arab-Israeli War ... Colonel Abdullah el Tell, local commander of the Jordanian Arab Legion ...described the destruction of the Jewish Quarter, in his Memoirs (Cairo, 1959):
"... The operations of calculated destruction were set in motion.... I knew that the Jewish Quarter was densely populated with Jews who caused their fighters a good deal of interference and difficulty.... I embarked, therefore, on the shelling of the Quarter with mortars, creating harassment and destruction.... Only four days after our entry into Jerusalem the Jewish Quarter had become their graveyard. Death and destruction reigned over it.... As the dawn of Friday, May 28, 1948, was about to break, the Jewish Quarter emerged convulsed in a black cloud - a cloud of death and agony."

—Yosef Tekoah (Permanent Representative of Israel to the United Nations) quoting Abdullah el-Tal.
The Jordanian commander is reported to have told his superiors: "For the first time in 1,000 years not a single Jew remains in the Jewish Quarter. Not a single building remains intact. This makes the Jews' return here impossible." The Hurva Synagogue, originally built in 1701, was blown up by the Jordanian Arab Legion. During the nineteen years of Jordanian rule, a third of the Jewish Quarter's buildings were demolished. According to a complaint Israel made to the United Nations, all but one of the thirty-five Jewish houses of worship in the Old City were destroyed. The synagogues were razed or pillaged and stripped and their interiors used as hen-houses or stables.

Link
Keep in mind that at the time Jerusalem was supposed to be an UN International City, protected by the UN Security Council.

Also... Jerusalem has no history of ever being the capital of any other nation besides the Jewish Kingdoms. If you disagree with my assessment, I'd be happy to see your links and sources. I can always learn something new.
...

Lets agree to disagree on that.

Israel was winning that war so badly, they came close to using their doomsday scenario.

"During the 1973 Yom Kippur war, Israel came close to making a nuclear preemptive strike when it seemed to be facing defeat at the hands of Syrian armor, according to a half dozen former U.S. diplomats and intelligence officials familiar with the still-classified incident.
On Oct. 5, Yom Kippur, -- the Day of Atonement and the holiest day of the year for Jewish people -- the armies of Egypt and Syria attacked Israel from two directions and made rapid gains.

According to a former senior U.S. diplomat, by Oct. 8, Israel's northern front commander, Maj. Gen. Yitzak Hoffi, had informed Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Dayan that he couldn't hold out much longer against the 14,000 Syrian tanks rolling through Israeli defenses on the Golan Heights.

The source, speaking on condition of anonymity, said that Dayan was "attacked by acute panic" and declared to advisers: "This is the end of the Third Temple."

But if Israel was to perish, it would take Damascus and Cairo with it."

Link

Welcome to the world of the international media.

 

[Eraserhead]

Of course I doubt it. I haven't actually seen it happen yet. They just step aside when things get tough. I can't even see the UNSC agreeing to task themselves to this.

a) Islamic terror is an issue for all the members of the security council, and while fixing Israel Palestine wouldn't solve that, it would make a big difference.
b) If they didn't agree to all defend it the Americans would undoubtably offer, which would be worse for everyone but Israel.
c) You don't need to defend it that heavily, just heavily enough that anyone attacking realises that they are going to piss off all the world's biggest powers.

The non-negotiable demand that displaced Palestinians have the right of return to their homes in Israel

Not really. What it says is the following:

a "just settlement" of the Palestinian refugee crisis based on UN Resolution 194 (which calls for a diplomatic resolution to the conflict and resolves that any refugees "wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbors" should be able to do so or, if they otherwise wish, should be provided with compensation)

You'd obviously emphasise the compensation side, and you'd obviously require them to win any claim for actual specific property through the courts, and basically the Palestinians would lose in almost all cases under squatters rights. For individual property I can't see how the Palestinians would possibly win in court. The only way I can see them winning is if they could prove that the current owner of the property had forced them out, which would be nigh on impossible.

I don't think requiring immigrants to support themselves in a country is unreasonable in the slightest. Sure the Israeli's might have to do that for Jews too, but that's not a big deal.

Israel was winning that war so badly, they came close to using their doomsday scenario.

If Israel was really considering using nuclear weapons then Israel isn't responsible enough to have them.

 

[Macky-Mac]

The Arabs don't have normalised relations with Israel and I doubt they trade much with Israel. So Israel still has a lot to gain from normalised relations.

Plus the only concession the Israel would really have to make is the Golan Heights, and I'm not sure getting the UN Security Council to defend it would be much of a concession - in fact I think it would improve Israel's security.

Additionally Israel-Palestine isn't the only cause of Islamic terror, but its certainly a cause, and actually all the members of the UN Security council suffer because of Islamic terror to a greater or lesser degree.

Israel and Egypt had signed a peace treaty back in 1979 and Jordan in 1994 so by 2002 Israel had a pretty realistic view of what benefits normalization would or wouldn't bring ......I'd say you're vastly overrating the realistic benefits given the decades of hate.....in reality the arab 2002 arab plan offered little beyond the status quo

The arab league couldn't, and still can't, acceptance of the proposed arab treaty deliver the non-state groups. They can't even get these same groups to not involve themselves in attacks against the arab states (just look at egypt expanding its buffer zone trying to isolate Gaza so as to protect is elf against Hamas's involvement in attacks against egypt)......the idea that the arab states could deliver any peace that didn't already exist in 2002 is just a fiction.

As I said, it's a shame the arab countries didn't give such a plan a try 30 years earlier when it might have been a big step forward

a) Islamic terror is an issue for all the members of the security council, and while fixing Israel Palestine wouldn't solve that, it would make a big difference.
.

probably not true.......most "islamic terror" involves muslim on muslim violence that's unrelated to the israel/palestine problem

 

[Eraserhead]

The arab league couldn't, and still can't, acceptance of the proposed arab treaty deliver the non-state groups.

I agree that you've got to get Hamas on board with a peace treaty as well.

probably not true.......most "islamic terror" involves muslim on muslim violence that's unrelated to the israel/palestine problem

In terms of overall deaths that is correct, but there is a lot of islamic terror in Europe, Russia, China and India which doesn't just affect Muslims. The cost to defend the Golan Heights would be really very small compared to the cost of the security services to defeat Islamic terror.

 

[snberk103]

a) Islamic terror is an issue for all the members of the security council, and while fixing Israel Palestine wouldn't solve that, it would make a big difference.
b) If they didn't agree to all defend it the Americans would undoubtably offer, which would be worse for everyone but Israel.
c) You don't need to defend it that heavily, just heavily enough that anyone attacking realises that they are going to piss off all the world's biggest powers.

I don't entirely disagree with the issues you've identified. However, the numbers of Israelis injured and murdered and then the resulting retaliation of Palestinians, simply pales in comparison to carnage from the internecine conflicts currently happening. The fighting in Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Somalia - which has nothing to do with the Palestinian/Israel conflict - dwarfs anything that happens west of the Jordan River. The Security Council has not shown itself to be that interested in stopping that carnage. If you exclude the Gaza war, I'll bet Hamas allied groups have killed more Egyptians than Israeli & Palestinian casualties combined. I haven't done the math, but I'd bet some money that I'm right.

I don't see the US public being at all interested in placing 10s of thousands of troops on the Golan and setting up an operation similar to the Korean operation. Currently the US has less than 100 troops on UN duty. They just aren't that interested. And besides... the Golan is not the problem. Israel has already shown it is interested in returning it in exchange for peace (see my link above). As Macky points out, there isn't anyone to return it to. More importantly - there isn't anyone who can sign and then enforce a peace treaty on the Syrian side. In the meantime Israeli Army field hospitals will continue to operate on the border, treating sick and injured Syrian soldiers and civilians.

Not really. What it says is the following:

a "just settlement" of the Palestinian refugee crisis based on UN Resolution 194 (which calls for a diplomatic resolution to the conflict and resolves that any refugees "wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbors" should be able to do so or, if they otherwise wish, should be provided with compensation)

You'd obviously emphasise the compensation side, ...

...

The UN may be thinking that, but the Palestinians and Arab Nations have made it very clear that they want the full Right of Return package. There is some confusion about the PA’s stance on the Right of Return because Abbas misspoke in an interview. In November 2012 he was being interviewed in English and initially said something that sounded conciliatory - Abbas was quoted as saying that the Palestinian Right of Return was a personal decision. The world’s press (and Palestinians) assumed he meant that he was softening on the demand of full Palestinian right of return. Those initial quotes are the ones used to show that full Right of Return is negotiable. However in the days following Abbas clarified his statements. He made it very clear that while he - personally - was going to choose to stay in Ramallah instead of returning to his home in Safed, the official PA government and Arab policy was that all Palestinians everywhere in the world would have the right to return to their homes if they so chose to do so. And it seems that this demand is non-negotiable. A pre-condition that Israel must agree to before the PA will start to actually negotiate.

“ "I have never and will never give up the right of return," Mr Abbas told Egypt's Al-Hayatt Egyptian satellite channel late on Saturday, according to a transcript released on Sunday.” Nov 2012
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...-given-up-on-Palestinian-right-of-return.html

“Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas said Saturday that he had not given up on his demand for the Palestinian right of return, clarifying remarks he made in an interview with Israel's Channel 2 two days earlier.”
…
"What I said about Safed is my personal stance. It means nothing about giving up the right of return," he said. "No one would give up their right of return. But all those international formulas, especially that of 194, speak of a just and agreed-upon solution to the refugee issue, and 'agreed-upon' means on the part of Israel."
Nov 2012
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diploma...mand-for-palestinian-right-of-return-1.474214

From that same Haaretz article above. “Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu quickly responded to Abbas' clarifications, …
"I watched President Abbas' interview, and have heard that since then he's already managed to go back on his words," said Netanyahu. "This only underscores the importance of direct negotiations without preconditions."

Netanyahu also told ministers at the weekly cabinet meeting in Jerusalem that he was ready to sit down for negotiations with Abbas as soon as the latter wanted. "Ramallah is seven minutes away, and I am ready to begin negotiations today." ”

In this YouTube clip from March 2014 Abbas makes it very clear that each and every Palestinian refugee, including those living outside the West Bank and Gaza, will have the “personal choice” to choose to stay there (or another 3rd country) or to return to Israel and claim Israeli citizenship. He also makes it very clear that no Jews will be allowed to return to the homes they abandoned in the West Bank and Gaza, or will the Jews in the settlements be allowed to stay or to get Palestinian citizenship. The PA’s Right of Return is strictly a one-way affair.

And in the interests of fairness … and just to clarify (in his favour) something he says near the end. Abbas says quite clearly that the PA does not and will not recognize the Jewish State of Israel. While many in the pro-Israel camp see this as reversing the PA stance on Israel’s right to exist, what he is really saying is that the PA does not recognize the “Jewish nature” of Israel. Israel can exist - just not as a Jewish Homeland.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q_xsUtS20Bo

“In a significant hardening of the stated Palestinian negotiating position on the right of return, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas said that he could not negotiate away the absolute right of Palestinian refugees and their descendants to return to sovereign Israel.
Speaking to a crowd of Palestinians from East Jerusalem on Saturday, in an address largely overlooked because it coincided with the death of former Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon, Abbas also voiced a hard-line regarding a number of other matters on the negotiating table. …capital. He also refused to recognize Israel’s self-definition as the state of the Jewish people, …
The traditional Palestinian position on the “right of return” follows the language of the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative, which stipulates a “just and agreed upon solution based on UN resolution 194.” This formula was used by Abbas in his speech at the UN last September, as well as at his speech at the World Economic Forum in Jordan last June. But in his speech Saturday, Abbas made no reference to the international decisions pertaining to the matter.
“Let me put it simply: the right of return is a personal decision. What does this mean? That neither the PA, nor the state, nor the PLO, nor Abu-Mazen [Abbas], nor any Palestinian or Arab leader has the right to deprive someone from his right to return,” he said.” Jan 2014
http://estudies.alarabiya.net/content/abbas-hardens-his-stance-palestinian-‘right-return’

If Israel was really considering using nuclear weapons then Israel isn't responsible enough to have them.

The UN Charter absolutely guarantees a nation's right to defend itself from invasion. It also absolutely forbids the genocidal invasion that the Syrians and Egyptians had launched. I'd say the Syrians and Egyptians proved that they weren't responsible enough to play with their tanks and planes. Welcome to international geopolitical brinkmanship.

 

[Eraserhead]

Actually over the past three years only 1300 people have been killed in Sinai - which is less than in the war in Gaza - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinai_insurgency.

And I don't believe there is much evidence that the Arabs would have committed genocide against the Israelis. Even if by some miracle they'd actually won.

I do certainly agree that discussion should take place without preconditions other than ceasefire and settlement construction ceasing.

 

[snberk103]

Actually over the past three years only 1300 people have been killed in Sinai - which is less than in the war in Gaza - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinai_insurgency.

Thank you. That is what I said. Except I might not have said "only". There has been more terrorist deaths in the Sinai alone, which has nothing to do with the Israeli/Palestinian issue, than there have been in West Bank & Gaza & Israel outside of the war. I don't count the casualties during the war as 'terrorist' deaths... they are war casualties. Deplorable and tragic nonetheless. But I think this negates your claim that Islamic Terrorist activities are somehow generally linked to the Palestinian/Israeli conflict.

And I don't believe there is much evidence that the Arabs would have committed genocide against the Israelis. Even if by some miracle they'd actually won.

Are you sure? The following were taken from Quora.com
...

"This will be a war of extermination and momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Tartar massacre or the Crusader wars.”
- Azzam Pasha, Secretary-General of the Arab League
(Akhbar al-Yom, Egypt, October 11, 1947; quoted in David Barnett and Efraim Karsh, “Azzam’s Genocidal Threat,” Middle East Quarterly, Fall 2011)

“If the Jewish state becomes a fact, and this is realized by the Arab peoples, they will drive the Jews who live in their midst into the sea… Even if we are beaten now in Palestine, we will never submit. We will never accept the Jewish state... But for politics, the Egyptian army alone, or volunteers of the Muslim Brotherhood, could have destroyed the Jews.”
- Hassan al-Banna, Muslim Brotherhood founder
(New York Times, August 2, 1948)

“Israel, to the Arab world, is like a cancer to the human body, and the only way of remedy is to uproot it just like a cancer… Had we united then [in 1948] Israel would not have come into existence. Israel is a serious wound in the Arab world body, and we cannot endure the pain of this wound forever. We don’t have the patience to see Israel remain occupying part of Palestine for long… We Arabs total about 50,000,000. Why don’t we sacrifice 10,000,000 of our number to live in pride and self-respect?”
- King Saud of Saudi Arabia
(New York Times, January 10, 1954)

We will make it a decisive battle and get rid of Israel once and for all… This is the dream of every Arab.”
- Gamal Abdel Nasser, President of Egypt
(Washington Post, July 27, 1959)

“... collective Arab military preparations, when they are completed, will constitute the ultimate practical means for the final liquidation of Israel.”
- Arab League
(Summit Declaration, January 1964; quoted in Avi Shlaim, The Iron Wall: Israel and the Arab World [Penguin, 2001], p. 230)

“Our path to Palestine will not be covered with a red carpet or with yellow sand. Our path to Palestine will be covered with blood… In order that we may liberate Palestine, the Arab nation must unite, the Arab armies must unite, and a unified plan of action must be established.”
- Gamal Abdel Nasser
(Pre-election speech, 1965; quoted in Efraim Karsh, Islamic Imperialism: A History [Yale University Press, 2007], p. 162)

“The day on which the Arab hope for the return of the refugees to Palestine is realized will be the day of Israel’s extermination.”
- Abdallah al-Yafi, Lebanese Prime Minister
(Al-Hayat, April 29, 1966; quoted in Harris O. Schoenberg, A Mandate for Terror: The United Nations and the PLO [Shapolsky Books, 1989], p. 239)

“We have decided to drench this land with our blood, to oust you, aggressors, and throw you into the sea for good.”
- Syrian government broadcast
(Radio Damascus, May 24, 1966; quoted in Walter Laqueur, The Road to War [Pelican Books, 1969], p. 59)

“We will carry on operations until Israel has been eliminated.”
- Syrian government broadcast
(Radio Damascus, January 16, 1967; quoted in Michael B. Oren, Six Days of War [Oxford University Press, 2002], p. 42)

“We challenge you, Eshkol, to try all your weapons. Put them to the test; they will spell Israel’s death and annihilation.”
- Egyptian government broadcast
(Voice of the Arabs, May 16, 1967; quoted in Walter Laqueur, The Road to War [Pelican Books, 1969], p. 82)

“The Zionist barrack in Palestine is about to collapse and be destroyed… Every one of the hundred million Arabs has been living for the past nineteen years on one hope - to live to see the day Israel is liquidated… There is no life, no peace nor hope for the gangs of Zionism to remain in the occupied land.”
- Egyptian government broadcast
(Voice of the Arabs, May 18, 1967; quoted in Walter Laqueur, The Road to War [Pelican Books, 1969], p. 105)

“The partition of Palestine in 1947 and the establishment of the State of Israel are entirely illegal, regardless of the passage of time…” (Article 19); “The Balfour Declaration, the Mandate for Palestine and everything that has been based upon them, are deemed null and void.” (Article 20); “… the liberation of Palestine will destroy the Zionist and imperialist presence…” (Article 22).
- PLO Covenant
(Palestine National Council, July 1-17, 1968; reprinted Y. Harkabi, The Palestinian Covenant and its Meaning [Vallentine Mitchell, 1979])

“There are only two specific Arab goals at present: elimination of the consequences of the 1967 aggression through Israel’s withdrawal from all the lands it occupied that year, and elimination of the consequences of the 1948 aggression through the eradication of Israel. The second goal is not, in fact, specific but abstract, and some of us make the mistake of starting with the second step instead of the first… we should learn from the enemy how to move step by step.”
- Mohammed Heikal, Sadat’s adviser and spokesman
(Al-Ahram, February 25, 1971; quoted in Theodore Draper, “The Road to Geneva,” Commentary, February 1974

These statements were at most 25 years old in 1973 and were repeated reaffirmed right up until, well - now.

“The PLO... has not changed its platform even one iota... the Israeli ideology will collapse in its entirety, and we will begin to progress with our own ideology, Allah willing, and drive them out of all of Palestine.”
- Abbas Zaki, Palestinian Authority representative in Lebanon
(NBN TV, April 9, 2008)

I do certainly agree that discussion should take place without preconditions other than ceasefire and settlement construction ceasing.

Amen. And I do agree that there should be yet another freeze on new settlements in the West Bank. This time it should be made permanent until there is a peace deal.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced on Wednesday evening that Israel would impose a 10-month freeze on construction in West Bank settlements, saying the move was a bid to restart stalled peace talks with the Palestinians.

"I hope that this decision will help launch meaningful negotiations to reach a historic peace agreement that would finally end the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians," Netanyahu said at a special press conference he held shortly after the security cabinet approved the moratorium.

He added: "We have been told by many of our friends that once Israel takes the first meaningful steps toward peace, the Palestinians and Arab states would respond."

Haaretz Nov 2009

The government has unofficially and quietly frozen settlement construction outside the major blocs for the past few months in an apparent acquiescence to American pressure.

Feb 2014

 

[Eraserhead]

Thank you. That is what I said. Except I might not have said "only". There has been more terrorist deaths in the Sinai alone, which has nothing to do with the Israeli/Palestinian issue, than there have been in West Bank & Gaza & Israel outside of the war. I don't count the casualties during the war as 'terrorist' deaths... they are war casualties. Deplorable and tragic nonetheless. But I think this negates your claim that Islamic Terrorist activities are somehow generally linked to the Palestinian/Israeli conflict.

I think you're clutching at straws a little, because most of the deaths in Sinai are of Islamist fighters. I agree that there are more Egyptian deaths than Israeli deaths though.

Are you sure? The following were taken from Quora.com
...


These statements were at most 25 years old in 1973 and were repeated reaffirmed right up until, well - now.

Fair enough, some of those a pretty damning, however many are only talking about removing Israel not killing all the Jews living there. I agree from a 1973 perspective that they would look bad - especially less than a generation after the Holocaust, however 1973 is a long time ago now.

Amen. And I do agree that there should be yet another freeze on new settlements in the West Bank. This time it should be made permanent until there is a peace deal.

I think if Hamas or Fatah refuse to turn up to talks then building settlements is reasonable enough.

 

[snberk103]

I think you're clutching at straws a little, because most of the deaths in Sinai are of Islamist fighters. I agree that there are more Egyptian deaths than Israeli deaths though.

I think we've gotten sidetracked from the original point in any case.

Fair enough, some of those a pretty damning, however many are only talking about removing Israel not killing all the Jews living there. I agree from a 1973 perspective that they would look bad - especially less than a generation after the Holocaust, however 1973 is a long time ago now.

Not for two peoples who believe the Ottoman Empire period is a "current event".

I think if Hamas or Fatah refuse to turn up to talks then building settlements is reasonable enough.

Now this is funny. We are on opposite sides of this particular question, but not in the way one would have thought!

I think new settlements at this point are unnecessarily provocative, and Israel no longer needs them. The militarily strategic high points were absorbed long ago, and the ancient Jewish communities that were obliterated during the 1949-67 occupation by Jordan have - for the most part - been re-established. There really is no reason to take more land except as a pressure tactic on the PA. And since the PA has recently shown a willingness to negotiate, even this tactics is unnecessary. Now I fear that the new settlements are simply due to internal domestic Israeli politics. Which is shortsighted. To be fair, Netanyahu has risked his entire government 2 or 3 times in the past few years when, as PM, he over-rode his Minister in charge of this and unilaterally froze new settlements. The last time was last summer. His efforts were overwhelmed by the tragic murder of the 3 Israeli teens by Hamas and then the tragic revenge murder of the Palestinian teen by an extremist Israeli group. Of course after that things spiralled out of control leading to the Gaza War last summer.

Personally, I'm (mostly) convinced by the theory that an extremist cell of Hamas orchestrated the abduction and murder of the 3 Israeli teens because Abbas and Netanyahu were close to announcing a breakthrough. Probably not done on the orders of the top leaders of Hamas, but when it happened the Hamas leadership congratulated the operatives instead of condemning their actions. If you read the comments by Abbas and Netanyahu after the Israeli teen deaths and before the Palestinian teen death, they were trying very hard to put a lid on things and keep events from getting out of control. Anyway, that is opportunity is now long gone.

Israel would gain a huge international PR bump is they simply unilaterally announced a permanent freeze on any new settlements. It would actually make put an enormous amount of pressure on Abbas since he says that is one of the main obstacles. Israel could remove that obstacle very easily.

Just my 2cents.

 

[Macky-Mac]

....In terms of overall deaths that is correct, but there is a lot of islamic terror in Europe, Russia, China and India which doesn't just affect Muslims.

yes, and you left out Africa. I wasn't suggesting that there isn't "islamic terror" that effects non-muslims by any means, rather that a lot of "islamic terror" around the world is generated from strictly local situations and problems unrelated to israel/palestine......things that fixing the israel/palestine situation wouldn't effect much, if at all

 

[stylinexpat]

That's pathetic calling for people to be banned. What about free speech? Does free speech only go one way -- from you to us but not the other way around?

Your communist experiment is failing.

Some people like to silence facts from ruining their image.

 

[snberk103]

From http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...etailing-torture-of-Palestinian-children.html
....

The Telegraph got things confused. They wrote about a report from the "Committee on the Rights of the Children" a group which has no ties with the UN and exists solely to spread propaganda. The Telegraph (and it appears folks in this thread) are confusing it with the UN "Committee on the Rights of the Child". Obviously, this is an easy mistake - and one that the faux UN committee takes advantage of.

In the same Telegraph article it was noted that UNICEF, while uncovering several instances of abuse by Israel, found that no torture was occurring - directly contradicting the faux UN committee's report. In its 2012 report the real CRC cited both Israel and the Palestinian Authority for violations of the Convention.

The Convention on the Rights of the Child was signed by Israel in 1991, and by the Palestinian Authority in 2014. The USA, Somalia, and South Sudan have not ratified the Convention.

http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/CRC/Pages/CRCIndex.aspx

Some people like to silence facts from ruining their image.

In this case I think the facts speak for themselves.

I wonder what the CRC is going to think of Hamas' creation of child soldiers though, as this is specifically banned by the Convention?

A thousand students ranging in age from 12 to 17 gather in the afternoons for three hours, seven days a week, wearing fatigues, black shirts and green berets. They are trained in the basics of military action and security in the camps organized by the Hamas movement in the Gaza Strip during their summer vacation.

Link

Hamas leader Mahmoud Zahar declared that some of the boys would be recruited to fire mortars and rockets at Israel. And of course, he reiterated Hamas's true goal, namely the destruction of Israel.

Link
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pic...inian-youth-military-summer-camp-in-Gaza.html

 

[stylinexpat]

The Telegraph got things confused. They wrote about a report from the "Committee on the Rights of the Children" a group which has no ties with the UN and exists solely to spread propaganda. The Telegraph (and it appears folks in this thread) are confusing it with the UN "Committee on the Rights of the Child". Obviously, this is an easy mistake - and one that the faux UN committee takes advantage of.

In the same Telegraph article it was noted that UNICEF, while uncovering several instances of abuse by Israel, found that no torture was occurring - directly contradicting the faux UN committee's report. In its 2012 report the real CRC cited both Israel and the Palestinian Authority for violations of the Convention.

The Convention on the Rights of the Child was signed by Israel in 1991, and by the Palestinian Authority in 2014. The USA, Somalia, and South Sudan have not ratified the Convention.

http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/CRC/Pages/CRCIndex.aspx



In this case I think the facts speak for themselves.

I wonder what the CRC is going to think of Hamas' creation of child soldiers though, as this is specifically banned by the Convention?
Link
Link
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pic...inian-youth-military-summer-camp-in-Gaza.html

I have no problem with both parties being tried for war crimes in an international court, do you? I also have no problem with an international team to investigate crimes of both parties in both Israel and Palestine, do you?

Th fact that Israel refused to allow an investigation into alleged war crimes speaks for it's self.

 

[snberk103]

I have no problem with both parties being tried for war crimes in an international court, do you? I also have no problem with an international team to investigate crimes of both parties in both Israel and Palestine, do you?

I don't have any problems with this. In fact I was surprised that Israel itself didn't take the PA to the ICC. They are both now the subject of a preliminary investigation by the ICC regarding last year's Gaza war. My prediction is that Israel will - once again - be exonerated. This is not the first time Israel has been accused of a war crime. Many nations are 'accused', though few are convicted. I'm in the 'innocent until proven guilty' camp. In the past the ICC's preliminary investigations into Israel finds that there isn't enough evidence to even go to court. This is of course the first time a Palestinian Government has been investigated.

Th fact that Israel refused to allow an investigation into alleged war crimes speaks for it's self.

Source please? This is what I have found. It's from Human Rights Watch. We all know what Israel is accused of, so I won't repeat that here. But the Palestinian Government in Gaza (Hamas) may also have committed War Crimes.

The prosecutor’s decision followed overdue but positive moves by Palestinian authorities to join the ICC treaty and to accept the court’s jurisdiction over crimes committed on or from Palestinian territory since June 13, 2014.....

Palestinian armed groups fired thousands of indiscriminate rockets toward Israeli population centers; stored rockets in empty school buildings; summarily executed alleged Palestinian “collaborators” with Israel; and deployed their forces without apparently taking all feasible precautions to prevent harm to civilians, in violation of international law. Sixty-seven Israeli soldiers and five civilians in Israel, one a child, were killed.

 

[stylinexpat]

I don't have any problems with this. In fact I was surprised that Israel itself didn't take the PA to the ICC. They are both now the subject of a preliminary investigation by the ICC regarding last year's Gaza war. My prediction is that Israel will - once again - be exonerated. This is not the first time Israel has been accused of a war crime. Many nations are 'accused', though few are convicted. I'm in the 'innocent until proven guilty' camp. In the past the ICC's preliminary investigations into Israel finds that there isn't enough evidence to even go to court. This is of course the first time a Palestinian Government has been investigated.
Source please? This is what I have found. It's from Human Rights Watch. We all know what Israel is accused of, so I won't repeat that here. But the Palestinian Government in Gaza (Hamas) may also have committed War Crimes.

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/israel-den...s-idfs-operation-protective-edge-gaza-1474577

Thumbs up for refusing entry ...??

 

[snberk103]

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/israel-den...s-idfs-operation-protective-edge-gaza-1474577

Thumbs up for refusing entry ...??

Image

The article linked above is about the UN Human Rights Commission, a partisan political entity of the UN. We were talking about the International Criminal Court, a professional legal entity that is held at arm's length from the politics of the UN.

From the IBT article "Schabas has been criticised ... as anti-Israel after previously stating that he wished to see Netanyahu "within the dock of the International Criminal Court"..." But... at the same time "In an interview with the Israeli Channel 2, Schabas declined to categorize Hamas as a terrorist organization, saying "it would not be fair for me to answer that question. We need to start with a blank page and investigate the issue in the most neutral and objective way possible." "Link

So - the fellow in charge of investigating whether or not a crime has taken place has already decided the guilt of Netanyahu and the innocence of Hamas. Is that fair? The IBT article also fails to mention that 1) Schabas can get to Gaza via Egypt, and 2) Schabas has worked for the PLO, which means he was investigating an employer and placing him in a huge conflict of interest. "Schabas said his work for the PLO had prompted the Human Rights Council’s executive to seek legal advice about his position from UN headquarters on Monday." Schabas resigned his post in February of this year, but not until the report was basically complete. Link

Israel is not refusing to work with the Committee entirely. "Israel denied the inquiry panel’s members entry in November, when they asked to travel through Israel to the Gaza Strip. But despite the decision not to cooperate officially with the committee, Israel will maintain indirect contact with it, Haaretz has learned.

Israel is expected to pass on to the committee documents outlining its position regarding the war in Gaza and testimonies indicating that Hamas had committed war crimes, such as using civilians as human shields and terror organizations’ firing near UN facilities." Link

 

[Eraserhead]

The article linked above is about the UN Human Rights Commission, a partisan political entity of the UN. We were talking about the International Criminal Court, a professional legal entity that is held at arm's length from the politics of the UN.

From the IBT article "Schabas has been criticised ... as anti-Israel after previously stating that he wished to see Netanyahu "within the dock of the International Criminal Court"..." But... at the same time "In an interview with the Israeli Channel 2, Schabas declined to categorize Hamas as a terrorist organization, saying "it would not be fair for me to answer that question. We need to start with a blank page and investigate the issue in the most neutral and objective way possible." "Link

So - the fellow in charge of investigating whether or not a crime has taken place has already decided the guilt of Netanyahu and the innocence of Hamas. Is that fair? The IBT article also fails to mention that 1) Schabas can get to Gaza via Egypt, and 2) Schabas has worked for the PLO, which means he was investigating an employer and placing him in a huge conflict of interest. "Schabas said his work for the PLO had prompted the Human Rights Council’s executive to seek legal advice about his position from UN headquarters on Monday." Schabas resigned his post in February of this year, but not until the report was basically complete. Link

Israel is not refusing to work with the Committee entirely. "Israel denied the inquiry panel’s members entry in November, when they asked to travel through Israel to the Gaza Strip. But despite the decision not to cooperate officially with the committee, Israel will maintain indirect contact with it, Haaretz has learned.

Israel is expected to pass on to the committee documents outlining its position regarding the war in Gaza and testimonies indicating that Hamas had committed war crimes, such as using civilians as human shields and terror organizations’ firing near UN facilities." Link

Do you think the international criminal court has behaved badly in other places? Because I think their record has generally been reasonable.

 

[snberk103]

Do you think the international criminal court has behaved badly in other places? Because I think their record has generally been reasonable.

The International Criminal Court, though very new (relatively speaking) seems to be maintaining its objectivity and professionalism. I did say that above. Though it is having problems extending its jurisdiction at times with nations that it is investigating.

However, Schabas was not connected to the ICC - he was appointed by the UNHRC (Human Rights Council) whose membership is created by a vote of the General Assembly of the UN. Some of the worst human rights offenders in the world are part of the 47 members of the UNHRC, including Saudi Arabia, China, Qatar, and Viet Nam.

Here is the membership List.

As just one example, Freedom House assigns a rating to Political Rights (PR) and Civil Liberties (CL) to each nation. On their scale '1' is best, and '7' is worst. I'll take the first 10 names off the UNHRC membership, alphabetically.

Country - PR & CL
Bangladesh - 3 & 4
Bolivia - 3 & 3
Botswania - 3 & 2
Brazil - 2 & 2
China - 7 & 6
Congo - 6 & 6
Côte d’Ivoire - 5 & 4
Cuba - 7 & 6
El Salvador - 2 & 3
Estonia - 1 & 1
(Higher numbers denote worse human rights protection)

Nearly half of the members in this more or less random sample have less than average Human Rights scores, and should - in my opinion - be the targets of the UNHRC and not running the shop. For the record a couple more ratings.

Israel- 1 & 2
Gaza - 7 & 6
West Bank 6 & 5
Where I got the ratings

While Israel had tried to block the PA's membership in the ICC in the past, it has cooperated with the court. I, personally, welcomed the news that it was going to be looking at the events in Gaza.

I am just speculating wildly here... but wouldn't it be ironic if Israel had blocked the PA's membership in the ICC because Israel didn't want to deal with the chaos that would ensue in the West Bank and Gaza if senior members of the PA ended up in jail, leaving a power vacuum for the extremists to fill. This may not be a far fetched a scenario considering this week's judgement against the PA and PLO in NYC which linked the PA & PLO to acts of terror conducted in Israel - a verdict they are of course appealing. The more damning revelation was that the PA & PLO had twice paid out-of-court settlements to make similar accusations go away.

 

[Eraserhead]

The International Criminal Court, though very new (relatively speaking) seems to be maintaining its objectivity and professionalism. I did say that above. Though it is having problems extending its jurisdiction at times with nations that it is investigating.

However, Schabas was not connected to the ICC - he was appointed by the UNHRC (Human Rights Council) whose membership is created by a vote of the General Assembly of the UN. Some of the worst human rights offenders in the world are part of the 47 members of the UNHRC, including Saudi Arabia, China, Qatar, and Viet Nam.

Here is the membership List.

As just one example, Freedom House assigns a rating to Political Rights (PR) and Civil Liberties (CL) to each nation. On their scale '1' is best, and '7' is worst. I'll take the first 10 names off the UNHRC membership, alphabetically.

Country - PR & CL
Bangladesh - 3 & 4
Bolivia - 3 & 3
Botswania - 3 & 2
Brazil - 2 & 2
China - 7 & 6
Congo - 6 & 6
Côte d’Ivoire - 5 & 4
Cuba - 7 & 6
El Salvador - 2 & 3
Estonia - 1 & 1
(Higher numbers denote worse human rights protection)

Nearly half of the members in this more or less random sample have less than average Human Rights scores, and should - in my opinion - be the targets of the UNHRC and not running the shop.

But there aren't any European countries in the list so...

For the record a couple more ratings.

Israel- 1 & 2
Gaza - 7 & 6
West Bank 6 & 5
Where I got the ratings

While Israel had tried to block the PA's membership in the ICC in the past, it has cooperated with the court. I, personally, welcomed the news that it was going to be looking at the events in Gaza.

I am just speculating wildly here... but wouldn't it be ironic if Israel had blocked the PA's membership in the ICC because Israel didn't want to deal with the chaos that would ensue in the West Bank and Gaza if senior members of the PA ended up in jail, leaving a power vacuum for the extremists to fill. This may not be a far fetched a scenario considering this week's judgement against the PA and PLO in NYC which linked the PA & PLO to acts of terror conducted in Israel - a verdict they are of course appealing. The more damning revelation was that the PA & PLO had twice paid out-of-court settlements to make similar accusations go away.

I don't think senior PA people are likely to land up in jail as they wouldn't have joined if they thought that was a risk.

Hamas for sure is taking more of a risk. But then Israel spends its time assassinating Hamas leaders so it obviously isn't worried about Hamas stability.

 

[Macky-Mac]

Do you think the international criminal court has behaved badly in other places? Because I think their record has generally been reasonable.

some people say the ICC is a pretty impotent organization, others say it's just a tool of the west;

aljazeera in 2009

The first sitting head of state to be indicted by the ICC, al-Bashir has rejected the court's legitimacy and defied the arrest warrant, saying that The Hague-based court is merely a tool of Western powers after Sudan's oil.

Arab League leaders meeting Qatar earlier this year also dismissed the ICC arrest warrant and emphasised their "solidarity" with al-Bashir, saying that any efforts to address the situation in Darfur would need an agreement between all Sudanese factions, rather than the trial of the president.


Turkey, which has long sought to join the EU, has pointed out it is not a signatory to the treaty which set up the ICC, and that al-Bashir was invited to the meeting by the OIC and not Ankara.

Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the Turkish prime minister, questioned the charges against al-Bashir and said that "no Muslim could perpetrate a genocide", according to Turkey's Anatolia news agency.

The ICC ultimately abandoned its war crimes probe tho

BBC in 2014

...Announcing the suspension on Friday, ICC chief prosecutor Fatou Bensouda blamed it on lack of action by the UN.

She called for a "dramatic shift" in the UN Security Council's approach, saying inaction was emboldening the perpetrators of war crimes in Darfur to continue their brutality, particularly against women and girls.

Other Sudanese officials have also been charged by the ICC - but none have been arrested....

Certainly some people feel it's doing its job properly, but there does seem to be some legitimate controversy about the way it operates and why it investigates certain parties

 

[snberk103]

But there aren't any European countries in the list so...

Admittedly, Estonia is not one of the better known European nations. The list above is just the first 10 of 47.

Germany (1 & 1) has been elected as President of the UNHRC, and it would like to push through a bunch of reforms. That's the good news. On the other hand, Albania (3 & 3), Kazakhstan (6 & 5), Paraguay (3 & 3), and Botswana (3 & 2) have been elected vice-presidents. All the vice-presidents should be, in my personal opinion, the subject of human rights investigations and not running them. [Higher numbers represent more abuses of rights and liberties on a scale of 1-7.]

I don't think senior PA people are likely to land up in jail as they wouldn't have joined if they thought that was a risk.

This weekend's court verdict in Manhattan, with the revelation they've settled out-of-court before, seems to indicate that the threat of being convicted by the ICC was not really a factor in their minds. Plus, the ICC is not that old and would not have been a factor in events that go back to 1948.

Hamas for sure is taking more of a risk. But then Israel spends its time assassinating Hamas leaders so it obviously isn't worried about Hamas stability.

Yes.

Israel has been careful, though, to preserve the moderate members of Fatah (Yasser Arafat, Abbas, etc) because in fact they can negotiate with them. Keep in mind the entire developed world (including Egypt) has declared Hamas a terrorist organization.

A couple of times the PLO and PA (dominated by Fatah) have come close to settling with Israel. Each time the agreement has been scuttled by Hamas' actions. Israel, perhaps unfairly in the case of the West Bank (in my personal opinion), holds the PA responsible for the actions of Hamas - which is unfortunately forms part of the PNA - the Palestinian Government. This is the exactly the same principle that holds that the government of Israel must take responsibility, and be judged, for the official acts of each member of its Cabinet.

 

[okboy]

The Telegraph got things confused. They wrote about a report from the "Committee on the Rights of the Children" a group which has no ties with the UN and exists solely to spread propaganda. The Telegraph (and it appears folks in this thread) are confusing it with the UN "Committee on the Rights of the Child". Obviously, this is an easy mistake - and one that the faux UN committee takes advantage of.

In the same Telegraph article it was noted that UNICEF, while uncovering several instances of abuse by Israel, found that no torture was occurring - directly contradicting the faux UN committee's report. In its 2012 report the real CRC cited both Israel and the Palestinian Authority for violations of the Convention.

The Convention on the Rights of the Child was signed by Israel in 1991, and by the Palestinian Authority in 2014. The USA, Somalia, and South Sudan have not ratified the Convention.

You are completely wrong. The article is about the CRC and the report with the exact quotes is available here:

http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/crc/docs/co/CRC-C-ISR-CO-2-4.pdf

Also the UNICEF report does not seem to contradict the CRC one, the quote in the Guardian article is also accurate and found here:

http://www.unicef.org/oPt/UNICEF_oP...ations_and_Recommendations_-_6_March_2013.pdf

The full quote: "This paper is a result of this review and analysis of practices. It concludes that the ill-treatment of children who come in contact with the military detention system appears to be widespread, systematic and institutionalized throughout the process, from the moment of arrest until the child’s prosecution and eventual conviction and sentencing."

You're 100% wrong here.

 

[stylinexpat]

You are completely wrong. The article is about the CRC and the report with the exact quotes is available here:

http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/crc/docs/co/CRC-C-ISR-CO-2-4.pdf

Also the UNICEF report does not seem to contradict the CRC one, the quote in the Guardian article is also accurate and found here:

http://www.unicef.org/oPt/UNICEF_oP...ations_and_Recommendations_-_6_March_2013.pdf

The full quote: "This paper is a result of this review and analysis of practices. It concludes that the ill-treatment of children who come in contact with the military detention system appears to be widespread, systematic and institutionalized throughout the process, from the moment of arrest until the child’s prosecution and eventual conviction and sentencing."

You're 100% wrong here.

They pretty much break every law in the book. No one can verify or see what process takes place when these children are taken away. It is not just children though but adults and elderly as well and the same process allies to them as well. Then they try to tell you that it is a Democratic State

 

[snberk103]

They pretty much break every law in the book. No one can verify or see what process takes place when these children are taken away. It is not just children though but adults and elderly as well and the same process allies to them as well. Then they try to tell you that it is a Democratic State

Sources please? Or is this just your personal opinion?

Keeping in mind that Hamas is now training child soldiers - a huge moral and ethical problem, as well as hugely illegal under international law.

Hamas is currently recruiting thousands of Palestinians aged 15 to 21 into its new “Liberation Army” in Gaza, journalist Khaled Abu Toameh reported today. So on top of the fact that it’s spending its money on a military buildup even as thousands of residents of Hamas-controlled Gaza remain homeless with no help in sight, half the age cohort Hamas seeks to recruit consists of people under 18, whom the United Nations and international human-rights groups define as children. Recruiting child soldiers is generally considered a gross violation of human rights. Yet far from condemning this behavior, the “international community” is actively encouraging it.

After all, you don’t hear much about Hamas’s recruitment efforts from the UN, the EU, the media or major human-rights organizations. But if those child soldiers are someday killed fighting Israel, all of these bodies will vie over who can condemn Israel for “killing children” most vociferously. And it’s precisely that reaction that makes recruiting child soldiers a win-win for Hamas: By so doing, not only can it significantly expand its fighting forces, but it can also ensure that Israel suffers international vilification whenever a war breaks out–all without suffering any negative consequences to itself.

Link

“More than 3,000 Palestinian teenagers on Thursday graduated from the ruling Hamas terror group’s first high school military training program in the Gaza Strip, displaying mock weapons, crawling commando-style on the ground and taking up fighting positions for thousands of cheering supporters.
Hamas officials said the Futuwwa, or ‘Youth,’ program is aimed at fostering a new generation of leaders in the struggle against Israel.”
A fifteen year old graduate of this program quoted in the AP report was enthusiastic:
“My officer taught me the values of courage, sacrifice and love of jihad, as well as some battle tactics […] I feel that I can free my energy in a good way. I can do for real what I do in video games.”

Link

According to Amnesty International, "Palestinian armed groups have repeatedly shown total disregard for the most fundamental human rights, notably the right to life, by deliberately targeting Israeli civilians and by using Palestinian children in armed attacks. Children are susceptible to recruitment by manipulation or may be driven to join armed groups for a variety of reasons, including a desire to avenge relatives or friends killed by the Israeli army."

Wikipedia

And of course elections in the Palestinian Territories have been suspended indefinitely - by the PA itself. They are well past due for their scheduled elections, with no elections even being contemplated.

---

You are completely wrong. The article is about the CRC and the report with the exact quotes is available here:
...

You're 100% wrong here.

No, I'm mostly right. The Telegraph article did not get the name right. Check the article and the UN's page to compare. There is a faux committee that using the variant name. The Telegraph article did quote UNICEF as saying no torture took place, though the UNICEF report did say some abuses were occurring. The only thing the Telegraph got really correct was that the quote condemning Israel actually came from the UN CRC and not the faux committee. I was more right than wrong.

 

[stylinexpat]

You are completely wrong. The article is about the CRC and the report with the exact quotes is available here:

http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/crc/docs/co/CRC-C-ISR-CO-2-4.pdf

Also the UNICEF report does not seem to contradict the CRC one, the quote in the Guardian article is also accurate and found here:

http://www.unicef.org/oPt/UNICEF_oP...ations_and_Recommendations_-_6_March_2013.pdf

The full quote: "This paper is a result of this review and analysis of practices. It concludes that the ill-treatment of children who come in contact with the military detention system appears to be widespread, systematic and institutionalized throughout the process, from the moment of arrest until the child’s prosecution and eventual conviction and sentencing."

You're 100% wrong here.

Sources please? Or is this just your personal opinion?

Keeping in mind that Hamas is now training child soldiers - a huge moral and ethical problem, as well as hugely illegal under international law. Link

Link
Wikipedia

And of course elections in the Palestinian Territories have been suspended indefinitely - by the PA itself. They are well past due for their scheduled elections, with no elections even being contemplated.

---



No, I'm mostly right. The Telegraph article did not get the name right. Check the article and the UN's page to compare. There is a faux committee that using the variant name. The Telegraph article did quote UNICEF as saying no torture took place, though the UNICEF report did say some abuses were occurring. The only thing the Telegraph got really correct was that the quote condemning Israel actually came from the UN CRC and not the faux committee. I was more right than wrong.

Did you the articles in the links? Quite clear in there.