"Evil. Pure evil. Sadistic evil. Evil for its own sake."

Just so folks know where the author is coming from.

an Occupying Power.

Israel/Occupied Palestinian Territories
Source: Amnesty International, Jul 8, 2016 (?)
Human Rights Concerns

There are no settlements and there is literally not a single Israeli anywhere in the territory, nor does any Israeli entity have governing authority over the day to day affairs of the people living in Gaza.

I'm not really sure what your argument is...

There is a universally accepted definition of military occupation used for all countries.

Israel does not match that definition in either Gaza or areas A and B of the W.Bank. No matter what the UN says.

Now there are neither of those things.

Is there no distinction that can be made between the circumstances then and now?

Would you agree that there is at least a greater degree of Palestinian autonomy over Gaza today than there was in 2004?

Certainly there is a difference between settlements vs. no settlements and Israeli military presence vs. no Israeli military presence, is there not?

Israel has the same legal responsibility for the well-being of all Palestinians regardless of whether they live in Gaza, the West Bank or East Jerusalem. They're all under Israeli occupation and there's no difference whatsoever where international law and the UN is concerned.

The presence of settlements don't make them more or less occupied, it only indicates whether the occupation is illegal or not.

The GC states:

Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army.
The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.

Furthermore, a certain area may be deemed occupied even if the army does not have a fixed presence throughout the whole area. Leading experts in humanitarian law maintain that effective control may also exist when the army controls key points in a particular area, reflecting its power over the entire area and preventing an alternative central government from formulating and carrying out its powers. The broad scope of Israeli control in the Gaza Strip, which exists despite the lack of a physical presence of IDF soldiers in the territory, creates a reasonable basis for the assumption that this control amounts to "effective control," such that the laws of occupation continue to apply.

Even if Israel 's control in the Gaza Strip does not amount to "effective control" and the territory is not considered occupied, Israel still bears certain responsibilities under international humanitarian law.

directly or indirectly, and of all goods and people going in our out Gaza. If you have any problem with the fact that it means that Israel still occupies Gaza, perhaps you should write a complaint to the UN.

I would also like to remind you that Israel is bound by the Geneva convention Article 59 to permit unhindered access of basic supplies to the civilian population in the blockaded area - something which Israel currently isn't doing.

3

Israel has full control of all border crossings, directly or indirectly, and of all goods and people going in our out Gaza.

If you have any problem with the fact that it means that Israel still occupies Gaza, perhaps you should write a complaint to the UN.

I would also like to remind you that Israel is bound by the Geneva convention Article 59 to permit unhindered access of basic supplies to the civilian population in the blockaded area - something which Israel currently isn't doing.

and the Palestinian Authority.

Agreement on Movement and Access
Source: Wikipedia
Content of the Agreement
(Snip)

It's the one where Israel agreed to have the PA and EU administer the Rafah crossing, leaving Israel out of the equation for the first time since '67. This actually supports my argument. Incidentally, this agreement was invalidated years ago when Hamas took over Gaza. They were not a party to it, which is why Egypt is now responsible for the crossing.

Regardless of Israel's level of control over Gaza's borders, I don't really see how this translates into direct control over the rest of Gaza.

The facts on the ground mean that Israel has de facto control over the administrative tools, resources and people that an independent political entity normally has.

I envisage that this will someday lead to the full absorption of Gaza into Israel.

You really have no idea what you're opining about on I/P, do you?

Israel's rule over Palestinians is only aimed at diminishing their well-being, not to help them in any way. Isn't that an evil thing to do?

Israel is an evil state that rules over Palestinians for the sole purpose of some kind of sadistic pleasure derived from diminishing someone else's well being? Is that an accurate description of what you believe to be true?

Palestinians, so it's completely correct to say that Israel's rule over the Palestinians is aimed at diminishing their well-being. There's nothing sadistic about it. A state can be evil by just being uncaring about the well-being of the people it rules over.

Perhaps you should read Gideon Levy's article about Israel being an evil state again - you seem to have misunderstood what it was about...

Tell me, if Israel ends the occupation today what happens tomorrow in your opinion? Try to be very clear.

Apart from the Golan Heights, Israel's got to keep what it occupies - Gaza, West Bank, East Jerusalem...

And 5 million Palestinians too...

I'm just asking what happens the day after (month after, etc) Israel ends its occupation. How do you think that situation will play out?

and only Israel can create the necessary conditions for two states on the ground.

The Palestinians want their own state, but what's the point of fighting for it if it's not going to happen? The settlements are here to stay. Netanyahu killed the two-state solution, and it's time to acknowledge that and look towards the future...

So tell me, when BDS'ers call for an end to occupation, what the hell are they calling for if that's impossible?

Israeli control?

It's actually those who support the settlements by promoting anti-BDS legislation who are the real one-staters and promoters of Israeli Apartheid. How can the occupation be ended, even theoretically, if the settlements aren't removed, and how can Israel be motivated to treat the Palestinians better without outside pressure?

The bi-national state is the current reality, and it's not going to change. The only thing that can change IMHO, is how Israel treats its 6.3 million Palestinian subjects.

No land swap can alleviate the problem the presence of the settlements cause to the neighboring Palestinian communities. Every single settlement is built in the wrong place in order to hog resources and prevent Palestinian contiguity and growth.

I've been looking at the map of the West Bank, and it's pretty clear to me that keeping any settlement will cause logistical problems for local Palestinian communities that will make them non-viable. This together with a GDP/Capita of US$ 2810 and negative economic growth (http://data.un.org/CountryProfile.aspx?crName=State%20of%20Palestine) makes me seriously doubt the viability of a Palestinian state in it's current state.

Simply put, I just can't see how a Palestinian state is remotely possible the way things are now. The settlements are in the way.

Israel can keep offering a non-viable Palestinian state, but it won't change the outcome one bit.

You also made up the claim that BDS wants 2 states. That's never been their intent as Omar Barghouti, Ali Abunimah, Phil Weiss, etc... have made perfectly clear.

Israel can basically do nothing to avoid being "an evil state" in your opinion other than commit national suicide by making Jews into a minority within a 23rd Arab Islamic majority Palestine.

We all know how non-Muslims (not to mention Muslims themselves) fare in such a state. No civil rights, police state, genocidal for religious minorities (see Syria, Iraq, Jordan, Egypt...) who are endangered species with their dwindling numbers.

You have no solution to the conflict that is any better than what 1-state Kahanists aim for. At least in their version, Israel remains a liberal democracy (like within the green line today) but grants equal rights to Palestinians after E.Jerusalem & the W.Bank are annexed. That beats your solution by miles. Kahanists want Jewish sovereignty in 1-state while BDS'ers aim for 1-state Palestinian sovereignty within a brutally oppressive Islamist entity. How is the BDS Palestine version better than a Jewish "greater" Israel?

We draw different conclusions from that premise, but neither of us can see a possible scenario where they're removed.

Interesting...

.....cannot possibly end? You wrote it's for 2 states when it's not. Its leadership supports terror against innocents, which you either deny or ignore. They're pathological liars, inciting hatred and more violence. You know this very well.

Why do you support BDS?

solution.

All actual forms of BDS so far has been directed at businesses and entities that promote the occupation and Apartheid in the occupied territories. There's no specific goal beyond that. If an end to occupation and Apartheid can be achieved within a two-state solution, fine - but I personally think it's not physically possible due to the settlements. Israel has never offered to give back enough of Palestine that could form a viable Palestinian state, and it will never happen.

And for the rest of your circular assertions - just because I don't engage them doesn't mean that I agree with them.

And everyone knows the 3 tier plan (ending occupation, granting full Right of Return, equal rights) means there is no Israel. Omar Barghouti said (and he's the main spokesperson & cofounder of BDS) that this would lead to 1 Palestinian state next to another Palestinian state.

So what gives? Why all the bullshit? Just come on out and admit BDS lies & wants no more Israel.

Most people who support BDS, including me, want a two-state solution. But in reality, the settlements are in the way.

On the other hand, I see you as a one-stater, simply because you support the settlements and also promote the eviction of Palestinians to give place for them.

Last edited Tue Aug 30, 2016, 01:23 PM - Edit history (1)

He's the cofounder and main spokesperson for BDS, so what he says is taken seriously by BDS holes. What you say is irrelevant.

You have have no evidence that "Most people who support BDS...want a two-state solution". That's just another BS claim you made up.

As for Apartheid, you obviously don't know what that means when it's happening all throughout the mideast. It's not like you have a problem with it. I'm certain you deny it exists, which equates to tacit support IMO.

?width=369&height=480

You can't possibly believe BDS supports 2 states and cares about Palestinian rights.

It's good to understand where you are coming from.

Just out of curiosity, have you ever been to the region or actually met and spoken to an Israeli or Palestinian in real life?

It's just the racism part I don't like.

And to describe one as such is dangerous and ill-informed.

There are many countries around the world whose governments pursue policies that harm other people, but the word "evil" is not one that should be ascribed to any of them, in my opinion.

whether it's a means or an end. If a state doesn't promote the well-being of the people it controls and causes suffering to people by pursuing policies that causes them harm, then it's an evil state for me. A good example is the Soviet Union - it hurt a lot of people, not out of any malice - it had other goals and just didn't care about people.

I think that any state that denies people the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is an evil state.

What will Israel and the OPT look like the day after, or month or year after?

Quote : Just out of curiosity, have you ever been to the region or actually met and spoken to an Israeli or Palestinian in real life?

Have you oberliner ?

Have any of you ?????????

Apart from the proverbial " birthright tours " or the once in a lifetime tourist trip ?

Where do you come off asking him as if you are some kind of expert ??????

The oslo accords focused heavily on improving palestinian quality of life and increasing their autonomy.

- not according to laws, administration or any other circumstances - and this applies to all Israeli government (including as an occupying power) interactions with Palestinians as a group or as individuals.

If you know of any examples of equal treatment - even if it was by mistake - please let me know...

How about in how Israel administers access to religious sites? They handed control of Al Aqsa over to an Islamic Waqf and all but completely ban Jewish prayer there, even though the holiest Jewish site also exists there.

But that's not what you asked. You said that "Israel's rule over Palestinians is only aimed at diminishing their well-being, not to help them in any way." There are countless examples that disprove your statement. When Israel left the Gaza strip in 2005, it left the network of greenhouses behind to give the newly autonomous strip some basic economic opportunities. Palestinian Israelis enjoy universal health care like all other Israelis, yet are not required to serve in the Army as everyone else is. They can if they want to, of course, which is somewhat better than equal treatment in that case.

Otherwise, Palestinian Israelis enjoy equal rights under the law, and Israel's Supreme court has affirmed Palestinian-Israeli's right to live free of discrimination over and over again. As compared to how surrounding Arab states, like Lebanon, treat their own Palestinian population, Israel is arguably one of the very best states in treating this minority well.

Nice try.

So your complaint was actually that Israel doesn't treat the members of the nation it has been in conflict with for 65 years equally with its own citizens. Which, to you, is evidence of Israel being an evil state.

OK, fine. I'd like to point out though that the first two examples of my last post refers to non-Israeli Palestinians living in E. Jerusalem and Gaza. Additionally, I'd remind you that when Israel annexed E. Jerusalem it offered all of its residents the opportunity to apply for Israeli citizenship; a literal offer of equality with Israeli citizens.

treated in a discriminatory manner either?

Anyway, the notion that all of the people living in East Jerusalem were offered Israeli citizenship, but that the offer was universally rejected sounds like a fantasy from the Hasbara Handbook of Zionist Fairytales. Proof, please?

In the meantime, here's an article about what happens to Palestinians in East Jerusalem who apply for Israeli citizenship:

Sharp drop in granting of citizenship to Jerusalem's Arabs
Source: Jerusalem Post, Jun 5, 2016

where Israel acted decently towards the Palestinians in the OPT. A great one is how they handled Al Aqsa following the reunification of Jerusalem under Israeli control. They placed it under the control of an Islamic Waqf and forbade Jewish prayer there, (excepting certain, infrequent occasions.)

That said, these are very much exceptions. The rule is that Israel absolutely oppresses the Palestinians living in the OPT, to varying degrees depending on who's in charge of Israel at the time and the current state of the conflict. But I was never arguing that Israel treats Palestinians well or fairly.

I do believe that Israel's occupation of these areas in '67 did result in a dramatic increase in their inhabitants' quality of life, compared to conditions under Egyptian, Jordanian, Syrian and Lebanese control. You're right about Israel's half-hearted offer to grant citizenship to EJ Palestinians. Which is why I was careful to say that they offered the right to apply, as opposed to universal acceptance. Again though, this is contrasted with places like Lebanon which also has a high percentage of Palestinian refugees. Not only are the refugees themselves barred from citizenship, but so are their children and grandchildren, despite having been born in Lebanon.

Again, none of this is meant to excuse Israel's often egregious policies regarding the OPT, but to offer some perspective, as they are the nation that is locked in a bloody conflict with Palestine and has legitimate security concerns, (esp w/ Hamas), versus the Arab states which are supposedly Palestinian allies.

First of all, the GDP in the West Bank (US$5,009.9) is less than half than that of Jordan (US$10,880.3) and much less than Israel (US$ 35,431.6) (http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.PP.CD). I'm not sure how you interpret this as a "dramatic increase in their inhabitants' quality of life" as the people in the West Bank would've logically had a doubled GDP if they'd stayed with Jordan. Perhaps you're referring to the advantages of having a simpler lifestyle without the trappings of modern civilization? And what are security needs you refer to that necessitate imposing Palestinian poverty?

BTW, I've seen other figures that put the West Bank GDP to around US$2,000, but I'm not going to cherry-pick - the World Bank list is good enough for comparisons between countries.

I've posted about the difficult economic conditions for the Palestinians before, and the reports from UNCTAD and the World Bank seem to contradict your argument:

Income Stagnation and Worsening Living Standards Continue For Palestinian Families
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1134132677

UN: Without ‘occupation’ Palestinian economy could double
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1134132379

Oh, and about the Temple Mount: The decision to allow the Waqf limited authority over the Temple Mount seems to be in no way based on any desire to grant equal religious rights - meanwhile, Israel demolished the ancient Sheikh Eid Mosque, because it was in the way of Jewish worshippers accessing the Kotel - hardly something that would be possible if there were equal religious rights in Israel. I don't know of any Synagogue being demolished in Israel in favor of other religions.


Rare Photograph Reveals Ancient Jerusalem Mosque Destroyed in 1967
A few days after the Six-Day War, Israel destroyed the Mughrabi quarter to build the Western Wall Plaza, including one of few remaining mosques from the time of Saladin
Source: Haaretz, Jun 15, 2012
http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/rare-photograph-reveals-ancient-jerusalem-mosque-destroyed-in-1967.premium-1.436593

For the record, when I talk about dramatically increased quality of life, I'm not talking about right now. Currently conditions are awful in the OPT; though still better than they would be in most Arab states. The best of which is undeniably Jordan.

Unfortunately, I interpret the available evidence in much the same way Levy does in the OP, and I furthermore believe that an independent Palestinian state is physically impossible under current or any possible future conditions.

Do you think that the OP is right?

Last edited Sun Sep 18, 2016, 01:56 AM - Edit history (1)

May be wrong to include Gaza but....after 50 years of occupation it clearly is a nonsense to think of Israel as being the same state as it was in 1948........Even the GOI does not claim the Green Line is its border.....

Last edited Sun Sep 18, 2016, 08:38 PM - Edit history (1)

I believe the physical reality on the ground could be easily mitigated if we saw a shift in the political climate; which I predict no forseeable change in for the next few decades. Israel has no interest in land that has Palestinians on it, and the staus quo of endless occupation can't continue forever, which leaves the only real option one of Palestinian independence. Because of this the movement to grant Palestinians an independent state that can live at peace with Israel has always been very popular in Israel.

The Palestinians messed this up horribly with Gaza. Israel has less interest in a free Palestine than in a safe neighbor, whether they are being oppressed or not. Without a sea change in Palestinian ideology you're not going to see a possibility for Palestinian independence that doesn't involve a heavy Israeli military intervention.

Anything written by him, as far as I'm concerned, belongs in the trash.

....its mutual.............