What do you think the US's policy towards Israel should be?

[Battlegrinder]

Might Makes Right =/= Legality

Might makes right is how the world actually works, though, laws only matter to the extant that force is available to back them up. International law is particularly toothless in this regard, as the international community has no force on hand to back it's demands, particularly for nuclear weapon states like Israel that have a clear trump card over any attempt to compel them with force.

Probably need to go re-read the UN Charter and associated case law then, because by signing up to it Israel agreed to exactly this by abiding by said Charter and allowing UN oversight. If Israel hates it, tough shit, either leave the UN or get over it because that's what you agreed to. Funny your love and respect of the Law goes out the door when it impedes on Israel's abilities, huh?

Please cite the part of the charter that says the UN gets to decide where a country's capital is.

 

[Bigking321]

I mean... you can say it's illegal or whatever that Jerusalem is Israels capital. But Jerusalem is still Israels capital. That's just reality.

And was it agreed to before or after they beat the armies trying to kill them and they gained a bunch of territory?

Stuff kinda changes after winning or losing a war.

 

[Battlegrinder]

And was it agreed to before or after they beat the armies trying to kill them and they gained a bunch of territory?

Stuff kinda changes after winning or losing a war.

The UN and international law effectively refuse to recognize the validity of claims of territory gained via conquest and military force. Which would be worth caring about, if they had the power to back that opinion up with anything more than a harshly worded letter, but they don't.

 

[History Learner]

Might makes right is how the world actually works, though, laws only matter to the extant that force is available to back them up. International law is particularly toothless in this regard, as the international community has no force on hand to back it's demands, particularly for nuclear weapon states like Israel that have a clear trump card over any attempt to compel them with force.

As I said, it's really hilarious and blatant how much of a hypocrite you are on this, because literally just two pages ago you were talking about how the law matters and now you want it thrown out in favor of a might makes right narrative. If you really think international law is so toothless, it's funny you spent so much time arguing over sanctions; if you really think those are so toothless, why bother even debating it? The fact we know what happened to nuclear armed South Africa and the USSR really says it all, and all your bluster for your pet little apartheid regime fails to hide you know exactly how full of it you are in this regard.

Please cite the part of the charter that says the UN gets to decide where a country's capital is.

United Nations Security Council Resolution 478 and United Nations Security Council Resolution 476.

 

[WolfBear]

The UN and international law effectively refuse to recognize the validity of claims of territory gained via conquest and military force. Which would be worth caring about, if they had the power to back that opinion up with anything more than a harshly worded letter, but they don't.

And they're not even fully consistent in regards to this considering that they allowed Israel to permanently keep its territorial gains from 1948-1949, which of course were gained through military force. Had Israel also conquered the West Bank back then, Israeli rule over the West Bank would be a non-issue today.

 

[Battlegrinder]

As I said, it's really hilarious and blatant how much of a hypocrite you are on this, because literally just two pages ago you were talking about how the law matters and now you want it thrown out in favor of a might makes right narrative.

US law matters, because US law is actually backed up by the power need to enforce it and compel compliance. International law lacks that force.

If you really think international law is so toothless, it's funny you spent so much time arguing over sanctions; if you really think those are so toothless, why bother even debating it?

....Do you actually know what sanctions are, because those actually can be enforced, since they're, again, a matter of US law and are backed by force.

The fact we know what happened to nuclear armed South Africa and the USSR really says it all, and all your bluster for your pet little apartheid regime fails to hide you know exactly how full of it you are in this regard.

The USSR and South Africa did whatever they wanted regardless of the international communities wants, and the USSR in particular was only constrained from taking action against NATO states or China, countries that could back their words with nuclear weapons of thier own.

I don't think this proves what you think it does.

United Nations Security Council Resolution 478 and United Nations Security Council Resolution 476.

That's not part of the UN charter, that's just the UN repeating it's toothless "conquering territory isn't allowed" stance, a stance that no one involved actually believes in.

 

[Bear Ribs]

According to international law and the consensus of the international community, it is not and never will be.

The same international community that elected Saudi Arabia to its Council for Women's Rights?

Let's just note real quick, said Internation community on the UN has passed about as many resolutions condemning Israel as all other issues worldwide combined. So if you're pulling them in regards to Israel, there're really only two possibilities:

1: You think Israel is responsible for as much evil as every other nation on earth, North Korea, Somalia, Russia, China's Uiger internment camps, the Bosnian rape camps, all of their human rights abuses combined only amount to the same abuses as Israel.
2: You think the "International Community" is full of more fecal matter than the platonic ideal of a megalopolis sewer system.

 

[History Learner]

US law matters, because US law is actually backed up by the power need to enforce it and compel compliance. International law lacks that force.

International Law has that force, as the example of Apartheid South Africa shows, and even if you take the baseless position that U.S. law prevents enforcing sanctions on Israel for some magical reason, if you accept might makes right, well, Andrew Jackson shows exactly all that needs to be said in U.S. law, no?

....Do you actually know what sanctions are, because those actually can be enforced, since they're, again, a matter of US law and are backed by force.

So let's enforce them, shall we? Or are you suddenly become a devotee of following the law to the letter and relying on technical arguments not backed by any sort of precedent, legal history or even literal textbook understanding of U.S. law?

The USSR and South Africa did whatever they wanted regardless of the international communities wants, and the USSR in particular was only constrained from taking action against NATO states or China, countries that could back their words with nuclear weapons of thier own.

Ever heard of the sanctions passed in 1979 by the international community when they invaded Afghanistan, most definitely not a nuclear power lol?

I don't think this proves what you think it does.

You seem to think a lot of things not backed by anything in reality, when it comes in the way of your bizarre devotion to a tinpot nation in the Middle East that has never done anything for you or your own nation.

That's not part of the UN charter, that's just the UN repeating it's toothless "conquering territory isn't allowed" stance, a stance that no one involved actually believes in.

As I've repeated now many times, you really need to go actually read up on this before trying to debate because it's blatantly obvious you don't have a clue, because that "conquering territory" bit is directly codified into the UN Charter and is the entire reason the UN Charter exists as a result of the Second World War. The idea the international community doesn't believe in it would come as a hell of a shock to nations such as Iraq, Serbia, Russia, and countless others which were either bombed, invaded or subjected to sanction regimes that literally crippled its economy for years.

Either you don't know the basics of this, or you are being willfully obtuse.

 

[Battlegrinder]

International Law has that force, as the example of Apartheid South Africa shows, and even if you take the baseless position that U.S. law prevents enforcing sanctions on Israel for some magical reason, if you accept might makes right, well, Andrew Jackson shows exactly all that needs to be said in U.S. law, no?

International law has no force, sanctions on South Africa were enforced by individual nations should anyone decide to violate that decision, either via domestic law enforcement cracking down on anyone within a country that tried to violate the national decision to embargo South Africa, or by other countries also cutting off trade if a nation decided to violate that embargo as a whole and that nation's partners decided to act against both countries. A number of countries elected to violate the embargo anyway and faced no repercussions, because their other trading partners didn't care.

Andrew Jackson's "John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it" is the exact problem international law has being enacted, there is no capacity to enforce compliance with the international communities' demands.

Ever heard of the sanctions passed in 1979 by the international community when they invaded Afghanistan, most definitely not a nuclear power lol?

No, I wasn't aware of that, and given the USSR stayed in Afghanistan for another decade and only left for completely unrelated reasons, I'm sure I didn't miss anything of consequence either.

EDIT: And you're missing the point regarding the nuclear power. It's not that you can't do anything to a nuclear power, it's that you cannot directly threaten a nuclear power, because they'll nuke you, and sanctions are not very effective at forcing compliance.

As I've repeated now many times, you really need to go actually read up on this before trying to debate because it's blatantly obvious you don't have a clue, because that "conquering territory" bit is directly codified into the UN Charter and is the entire reason the UN Charter exists as a result of the Second World War. The idea the international community doesn't believe in it would come as a hell of a shock to nations such as Iraq, Serbia, Russia, and countless others which were either bombed, invaded or subjected to sanction regimes that literally crippled its economy for years.

Either you don't know the basics of this, or you are being willfully obtuse.

Who controls Crimea?

 

[Captain X]

Bigotry has an ugly face indeed.

 

[King Arts]

Bigotry has an ugly face indeed.

That's not really fair. You can't shut down all criticism of Israel by claiming bigotry or anti semitism.

Though yes international law is a farce and the U.S. only enforces it when it feels like it, thats why it's own war criminals in it's own military don't get executed but they sent other nations soldiers and leaders to jail. Like what happened in Serbia.

Though the fact remains Jerusalem is Israel's capitol. The ideal solution was in 48 to make it a international joint run city with an executive council led by a Jew, Christian, and Muslim that way all groups that have a claim to the holy city could be said to run it.

 

[Bigking321]

The ideal solution was in 48 to make it a international joint run city with an executive council led by a Jew, Christian, and Muslim that way all groups that have a claim to the holy city could be said to run it.

As I recall the jews agreed with this plan.

And the Muslims absolutely rejected it and tried their first war of genocide.

 

[King Arts]

As I recall the jews agreed with this plan.

And the Muslims absolutely rejected it and tried their first war of genocide.

Yeah, but that was a Muslim mistake. Christians should still get a representative in Israel. Then it could be a diarchy Two executive leaders/consuls like Ancient Roman Republic or Sparta.

 

[Bigking321]

Do Christians even care about having a leadership position in Jerusalem?

I mean, I'm sure some do but I can't recall ever hearing about a push for that. As long as Christians are still welcome to travel there if they want to is the extent of what I've heard people caring about in the area.

 

[Husky_Khan]

Do Christians even care about having a leadership position in Jerusalem?

I mean, I'm sure some do but I can't recall ever hearing about a push for that. As long as Christians are still welcome to travel there if they want to is the extent of what I've heard people caring about in the area.

Yeah plus there's a plethora of different sects of Christianity as well, and even they might not be fans of each other.

Immovable Ladder on the Church of the Holy Sepulchre

A "miracle" that seems to produce more holy fistfights than holy revelations.

www.atlasobscura.com

Talk about intractable problems...

 

[King Arts]

Do Christians even care about having a leadership position in Jerusalem?

I mean, I'm sure some do but I can't recall ever hearing about a push for that. As long as Christians are still welcome to travel there if they want to is the extent of what I've heard people caring about in the area.

Practically no. Christians are ironically a minority in that area compared to Muslims and Jews. But in a perfect world the area would be fully Christian, hell the world would be Christians. But as long as Christians aren’t being oppressed and can practice their faith freely then I support live and let live.

 

[WolfBear]

International Law has that force, as the example of Apartheid South Africa shows, and even if you take the baseless position that U.S. law prevents enforcing sanctions on Israel for some magical reason, if you accept might makes right, well, Andrew Jackson shows exactly all that needs to be said in U.S. law, no?



So let's enforce them, shall we? Or are you suddenly become a devotee of following the law to the letter and relying on technical arguments not backed by any sort of precedent, legal history or even literal textbook understanding of U.S. law?



Ever heard of the sanctions passed in 1979 by the international community when they invaded Afghanistan, most definitely not a nuclear power lol?



You seem to think a lot of things not backed by anything in reality, when it comes in the way of your bizarre devotion to a tinpot nation in the Middle East that has never done anything for you or your own nation.



As I've repeated now many times, you really need to go actually read up on this before trying to debate because it's blatantly obvious you don't have a clue, because that "conquering territory" bit is directly codified into the UN Charter and is the entire reason the UN Charter exists as a result of the Second World War. The idea the international community doesn't believe in it would come as a hell of a shock to nations such as Iraq, Serbia, Russia, and countless others which were either bombed, invaded or subjected to sanction regimes that literally crippled its economy for years.

Either you don't know the basics of this, or you are being willfully obtuse.

That's partially but not completely right. The West itself generally doesn't get punished for its own violations of the UN Charter, such as in Kosovo in 1999, but is perfectly capable of ensuring that other countries get punished for violating the UN Charter if the West so wishes. So, in other words, the UN Charter is only enforced against countries that are too weak to resist the West; meanwhile, the West itself can violate the UN Charter without any consequences, at least whenever it acts as a unified bloc, as in Kosovo in 1999, or where the Western power doing the violating is extraordinarily strong and thus not easy to meaningfully oppose (such as by putting actual sanctions on the US), such as in Iraq in 2003.

 

[WolfBear]

@History Learner What are your thoughts on this plan? It's from some of the same people who previously brought us the Geneva Initiative in 2003, if I recall correctly:

Israeli and Palestinian figures propose a plan for an independent state of Palestine

An independent Palestine and Israel would coordinate on issues that affect both populations in a two-state confederation. The plan by former officials will be submitted to the U.N. and U.S. next week.

www.npr.org

 

[Marduk]

@History Learner What are your thoughts on this plan? It's from some of the same people who previously brought us the Geneva Initiative in 2003, if I recall correctly:

Israeli and Palestinian figures propose a plan for an independent state of Palestine

An independent Palestine and Israel would coordinate on issues that affect both populations in a two-state confederation. The plan by former officials will be submitted to the U.N. and U.S. next week.

www.npr.org

The plan would allow the nearly 500,000 Jewish settlers in the occupied West Bank to remain there, with large settlements near the border annexed to Israel in a one-to-one land swap.


Settlers living deep inside the West Bank would be given the option of relocating or becoming permanent residents in the state of Palestine. The same number of Palestinians — likely refugees from the 1948 war surrounding Israel's creation — would be allowed to relocate to Israel as citizens of Palestine with permanent residency in Israel.

That part is an impractical and dangerous delusion, pretty much guaranteeing low intensity warfare to arise there for good in the areas covered. Which is a reason why Israel won't go for it. They would have to be insane to first leave half a million of their own citizens, highly nationalistic ones at that, in the borders of Palestinian state (which judging by current performance of such governments would lead to events unacceptable to Israeli public opinion) and at the same time import half a million of aggrieved Arab Muslims into Israel proper for no good reason except being a political favor to parties who do not wish it well to say it lightly.
And then again it doesn't seem like the plan has answers for the truly hard questions, like who the hell is going to rule the Palestinian state, and how will they be both willing and able to maintain peaceful relations with Israel?

More realistic people worry about chances of Palestinian Succession Wars (no battlemechs hopefully), which says something about the state of Palestine, its stability, and ability to commit to complex and delicate long term plans.

After Abbas; The Coming War of Palestinian Succession - MEPIN™

{Previously published in The Jerusalem Report, the magazine of The Jerusalem Post} The advantage of a new year is that it offers us an opportunity to understand better the previous year, especially one like 2020 with such extreme highs and lows. For Israel and the world, the pandemic represented...

mepinanalysis.org

 

[WolfBear]

That part is an impractical and dangerous delusion, pretty much guaranteeing low intensity warfare to arise there for good in the areas covered. Which is a reason why Israel won't go for it. They would have to be insane to first leave half a million of their own citizens, highly nationalistic ones at that, in the borders of Palestinian state (which judging by current performance of such governments would lead to events unacceptable to Israeli public opinion) and at the same time import half a million of aggrieved Arab Muslims into Israel proper for no good reason except being a political favor to parties who do not wish it well to say it lightly.
And then again it doesn't seem like the plan has answers for the truly hard questions, like who the hell is going to rule the Palestinian state, and how will they be both willing and able to maintain peaceful relations with Israel?

More realistic people worry about chances of Palestinian Succession Wars (no battlemechs hopefully), which says something about the state of Palestine, its stability, and ability to commit to complex and delicate long term plans.

After Abbas; The Coming War of Palestinian Succession - MEPIN™

{Previously published in The Jerusalem Report, the magazine of The Jerusalem Post} The advantage of a new year is that it offers us an opportunity to understand better the previous year, especially one like 2020 with such extreme highs and lows. For Israel and the world, the pandemic represented...

mepinanalysis.org

FWIW, the number of Jewish settlers in Palestine should end up being much less than 500,000 since most of the Jewish settlers in the West Bank will become a part of Israel through mutually agreed land swaps. Your other points here are pretty valid, though it's worth noting that Israeli Arabs have overall been relatively peaceful.