Roger Waters Anti-Semite?

[bigross86]

Again, I'm not saying it's not possible. I'm saying many people hide anti-Semitism by calling it anti-Israel. Richard Falk is also one of those who call their particular brand of anti-Semitism being anti-Israel. Take for instance, this cartoon which he posted. Tell me, the dog wearing a kippah, does that look anti-Israeli or anti-Semitic?

[bigross86]

I'm not talking Palestinian governments which are at best regional like in power under a broader federal system that retains all military and supreme judicial power at a higher level. I'm talking about different rights between WB Palestinians and WB Jewish Settlers. Jewish settlers have special rights- to justice, resources, protection and opportunity.

Ross, I didn't blame the 3 teens, I asked what they were doing where they were. As for the Fogels, they were part of a terrorist movement attacking Palestinians. I don't mourn the death of terrorists or terror supporters. Residents of Itamar (an illegal settlement) attack and routinely kill Palestinian farmers and engaged in a deliberate act of ethnic cleansing in the village of Yanun.

So I see that you still condone the murder of 5 members of a family, while they were sleeping, including an 11 year old and a 4 year old child as well as a three month old baby. What class would you put them in, terrorists, or terror supporters?

You know something, I might even be able to agree with you if the parents had been actively involved in wrongdoing. If they were beaten to death trying to uproot Palestinian olive trees, I'd be upset and outraged, but I'd understand that they brought it upon themselves, you can't be stupid without suffering the consequences. Just like I can understand (never accept) a terrorist taking potshots at armed soldiers in uniform, but I can't condone indiscriminate rocket attacks from Gaza into an Israeli civilian populace.

But having someone come into their bedroom and stabbing them in the middle of the night? You condone that? You, as a person with children you've fought so hard over, you condone the murder of children because you disagree with the parents' ideology?

You disgust me. You physically make me sick.

[zraver]

So I see that you still condone the murder of 5 members of a family, while they were sleeping, including an 11 year old and a 4 year old child as well as a three month old baby. What class would you put them in, terrorists, or terror supporters?

You know something, I might even be able to agree with you if the parents had been actively involved in wrongdoing. If they were beaten to death trying to uproot Palestinian olive trees, I'd be upset and outraged, but I'd understand that they brought it upon themselves, you can't be stupid without suffering the consequences. Just like I can understand (never accept) a terrorist taking potshots at armed soldiers in uniform, but I can't condone indiscriminate rocket attacks from Gaza into an Israeli civilian populace.

But having someone come into their bedroom and stabbing them in the middle of the night? You condone that? You, as a person with children you've fought so hard over, you condone the murder of children because you disagree with the parents' ideology?

You disgust me. You physically make me sick.

The kids were innocent, and I do not condone murder. But the kids were no more innocent than the kids of other terrorists targeted in their homes be they Hamas militants taken out by an IDF bomb or Pashtun youths killed when their parents harbored jihadis in Pakistan and got a Hellfire surprise from the CIA. Parents have a duty to not put their kids in danger by not engaging in criminal acts.

[Double Edge]

I'm not talking Palestinian governments which are at best regional like in power under a broader federal system that retains all military and supreme judicial power at a higher level. I'm talking about different rights between WB Palestinians and WB Jewish Settlers. Jewish settlers have special rights- to justice, resources, protection and opportunity.

That would imply the WB is more suited to the term. How much of the WB does Israel actually occupy ? 6%.

[zraver]

That would imply the WB is more suited to the term. How much of the WB does Israel actually occupy ? 6%.

100% as they control the air space, ports on entry, roads, have supreme judicial power, control the electrical generation and water/sewage systems. Palestinian property rights are near worthless in Israeli courts. The varying zones are just a fiction as supreme authority rests with Israel and even in areas under (supposed) Palestinian control cannot prosecute Israeli citizens for crimes committed.

In Gaza.... The blockade amounts to virtual occupation but I am more lenient here because there is a declared war. My criticisms in this area deal with illegal collective punishment measures and parts of the blockade that are/ were illegal under the LOAC.

[Double Edge]

Would you consider the territories as part of Israel ?

Israel and the apartheid analogy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Interesting point made by critics of the apartheid analogy is they claim the territories are not a part of Israel.

yes, Israel has 'control' of these territories and Israeli's are themselves a minority in certain parts of the WB.

As far as Gaza goes, it was occupied up to 2005.

if the PA decides to relinquish office and forces Israel to take over then the WB will become occupied, all of it.

[zraver]

Would you consider the territories as part of Israel ?

Israel tries to play both sides. For example they treat the WB and East Jerusalem as Israeli territory when expanding settlements which a sovereign government has the right to do, this would also permit them to avoid the charge of colonization in occupied territories which is against international laq. But they they play the other side when they say the native inhabitants are Palestinian and not Israeli Arabs. I'd be happy if Israel picked one or the other and then abided by the laws governing that choice instead of flopping around for advantage based on circumstance and situation.

Legally the territories are occupied and not part of Israel or legally annexed in defensive war... Take your pick, but pick 1 not both.

[TopHatter]

Let's keep it cool guys. No need for this to degenerate into an unseemly brawl.

[zraver]

we cool

[Double Edge]

Israel tries to play both sides. For example they treat the WB and East Jerusalem as Israeli territory when expanding settlements which a sovereign government has the right to do, this would also permit them to avoid the charge of colonization in occupied territories which is against international laq.

ok, so this is the current state of affairs.

But they they play the other side when they say the native inhabitants are Palestinian and not Israeli Arabs. I'd be happy if Israel picked one or the other and then abided by the laws governing that choice instead of flopping around for advantage based on circumstance and situation.

Legally the territories are occupied and not part of Israel or legally annexed in defensive war... Take your pick, but pick 1 not both.

Then there is a loophole. Israel can control the area without owning it. An ambiguous situation exists here.

It got me thinking about borders and whether Israel defines them anywhere. Found these maps on the MFA's site. Was expecting to see a full blue state without any yellow areas. They do not call the territories an integral part of Israel. Usually when it comes to contested territory, countries try to show the whole space as theirs in their maps, not the case here.

How to refer to the territories then ? protectorates ? buffer zones ? 'Not Israel' seems to be the current way of doing it.

If you want to make the case, then an essential component is that Israel must formally claim these areas as part of Israel.

The slogans are easy, backing them up is harder.

[zraver]

ok, so this is the current state of affairs.

Current state of affairs is that the US will veto any UN action that would bring Israel into compliance with international law. This means the civilian BDS is the most powerful tool until the American public gets tired of it. Only when the choice for Israel is allow a for real viable Palestinian state or become a pariah until you do will the Israeli leadership change its tune.

Then there is a loophole. Israel can control the area without owning it. An ambiguous situation exists here.

The loop hole is the US veto...

It got me thinking about borders and whether Israel defines them anywhere. Found these maps on the MFA's site. Was expecting to see a full blue state without any yellow areas. They do not call the territories an integral part of Israel. Usually when it comes to contested territory, countries try to show the whole space as theirs in their maps, not the case here.

Notice those maps show 2 things. First they show how fragmented the Palestinian areas are by Israeli enclaves and roads. Second those maps do not address the issue of sovereignty.

How to refer to the territories then ? protectorates ? buffer zones ? 'Not Israel' seems to be the current way of doing it.

The current term (since 1967) is occupied territories.

If you want to make the case, then an essential component is that Israel must formally claim these areas as part of Israel.

That would make the Palestinians overnight into Israeli-Arabs or rip the thin veneer off the apartheid like policies if Israel did not grant citizenship. Either or would be a disaster for Israel proper and endanger the valid purpose Israel serves for Jews. But formally admitting they are occupied per intenrational law would force Israel to remove the settlers which would be politically painful. So far, Israel's right-wing politicians have not had to face that prospect because of US protection.

[bigross86]

Legally the territories are occupied and not part of Israel or legally annexed in defensive war... Take your pick, but pick 1 not both.

Wrong. Legally they are "Disputed Territories", and not "Occupied Territories", and no matter how many times you try and repeat the "Occupied" claim, that doesn't make it true.

Allow me to please ask you just this one question: If the land is occupied, who did Israel occupy it from?

[Doktor]

Wrong. Legally they are "Disputed Territories", and not "Occupied Territories", and no matter how many times you try and repeat the "Occupied" claim, that doesn't make it true.

Allow me to please ask you just this one question: If the land is occupied, who did Israel occupy it from?

Egypt, Jordan, Syria... You name it.

[bigross86]

Current state of affairs is that the US will veto any UN action that would bring Israel into compliance with international law. This means the civilian BDS is the most powerful tool until the American public gets tired of it. Only when the choice for Israel is allow a for real viable Palestinian state or become a pariah until you do will the Israeli leadership change its tune.

You are aware of the fact that promoting BDS would actually harm the Palestinians much more than it would harm Israel, right? Even Omar Barghouti (who studied at Tel Aviv University), head of the BDS movement knows that the BDS will hurt the Palestinians.

[bigross86]

Egypt, Jordan, Syria... You name it.

Wrong, wrong, and wrong. Zraver's claim is the West Bank, so let's look at the West Bank. Who did the West Bank belong to before Israel captured it in 1967?