Middle East Politics

berbatrick said:
To be fair to myself, they pretty much said it themselves!

Click to expand...

Sure, they did, and they ordered their citizens out of Lebanon. But the discrepancy between firebrand rhetoric and nothing actually happening afterwards is a good indicator that it takes more than that for a real escalation.

Doesn't mean it's impossible to happen, or that bin Salman couldn't have been determined to really give it a go. But my point is that not looking for contrary factors, often enough out of prejudice, likely leads to premature conclusions. For example, regarding the Lebanon situation I made the following argument back then:
Synco said:
I thought for the past years it was pretty much established that Israel does not actively seek confrontation in the North – which goes for Hezbollah too. Neither side wants to suffer the heavy casualties and devastation an all-out war would surely cause.

So a premise for the speculative war scenarios earlier in this thread would be a recent, quite radical change in that regard. But are there any credible hints for this (beyond just the general situation concerning Iran, KSA and Syria/Lebanon)?
Click to expand...
And Israel has indeed given bin Salman the cold shoulder.
http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/11/16/israel-isnt-going-to-fight-saudi-arabias-wars/

Also well worth a read in this regard is the recent Nasrallah interview (post #607). It gives good insight into how Hezbollah navigates between its long-term goal of ending Israel and day-to-day pragmatism guided by strategic considerations. It seems inevitable that at some point in the future the situation in Southern Lebanon/Northern Israel/Golan will escalate into a full-blown war, but that doesn't mean everyone is only waiting to pull the trigger right now.
 
Last edited:
Super Hans said:
:lol: You people really are cracking up
Click to expand...

You can laugh all you want. But read the JVP website link I provided:

We join with communities of conscience around the world in supporting Palestinians, who call for BDS until the Israeli government:

Ends its occupation and colonization of all Arab lands occupied in June 1967 and dismantles the Wall; recognizes the fundamental rights of the Arab-Palestinian citizens of Israel to full equality; and respects, protects and promotes the rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and properties as stipulated in UN Resolution 194 [....] (emphasis added)
​
If a Palestinian right of return materialised, Israel as a Jewish State would cease to exist because the Jewish people would become a minority.

​
 
Chairman Woodie said:
You can laugh all you want. But read the JVP website link I provided:

We join with communities of conscience around the world in supporting Palestinians, who call for BDS until the Israeli government:

Ends its occupation and colonization of all Arab lands occupied in June 1967 and dismantles the Wall; recognizes the fundamental rights of the Arab-Palestinian citizens of Israel to full equality; and respects, protects and promotes the rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and properties as stipulated in UN Resolution 194 [....] (emphasis added)
​
If a Palestinian right of return materialised, Israel as a Jewish State would cease to exist because the Jewish people would become a minority.

​
Click to expand...

Which just goes to prove Israel is an apartheid state as it can't be a state for Jewish people and a state for everyone.
 
Chairman Woodie said:
Then Israel is not an apartheid state either. As Israel affords full civil and religious rights to its minority citizens.
Click to expand...

It doesn't. Palestinians do not have the right of return. Any Jewish person anywhere in the world has that right. Palestinians within the West Bank are subject to Israeli military law. Jewish settlers to civil law. Israel is an apartheid state
 
Mozza said:
It doesn't. Palestinians do not have the right of return. Any Jewish person anywhere in the world has that right. Palestinians within the West Bank are subject to Israeli military law. Jewish settlers to civil law. Israel is an apartheid state
Click to expand...

A two state solution, and the Palestinians can solve their own right of return. A problem that could have been solved decades ago.

So Israel has a criteria for citizenship, like any other country.

Military and civilian law basically come with the same rights.
 
Chairman Woodie said:
A two state solution, and the Palestinians can solve their own right of return. A problem that could have been solved decades ago.

So Israel has a criteria for citizenship, like any other country.

Military and civilian law basically come with the same rights.
Click to expand...

Except Israel doesn't want a two state solution. They have only ever offered apartheid

A racist criteria for citizenship, hence an apartheid state.

No they don't.
 
Chairman Woodie said:
A two state solution, and the Palestinians can solve their own right of return. A problem that could have been solved decades ago.

So Israel has a criteria for citizenship, like any other country.

Military and civilian law basically come with the same rights.
Click to expand...

The military (kangaroo) courts that Palestinians are tried in have a 99.74% conviction rate. They impose far harsher sentences.
 
Mozza said:
Except Israel doesn't want a two state solution. They have only ever offered apartheid

A racist criteria for citizenship, hence an apartheid state.

No they don't.
Click to expand...

Israeli citizenship requirements are not based on race. Rather, it is based on either religion, residence, descent or naturalisation.
 
Super Hans said:
The military (kangaroo) courts that Palestinians are tried in have a 99.74% conviction rate. They impose far harsher sentences.
Click to expand...

A 99% conviction doesn't prove anything. Look at the conviction rate in Japan's civilian courts.
 
Last edited:
Chairman Woodie said:
You can laugh all you want. But read the JVP website link I provided:

We join with communities of conscience around the world in supporting Palestinians, who call for BDS until the Israeli government:

Ends its occupation and colonization of all Arab lands occupied in June 1967 and dismantles the Wall; recognizes the fundamental rights of the Arab-Palestinian citizens of Israel to full equality; and respects, protects and promotes the rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and properties as stipulated in UN Resolution 194 [....] (emphasis added)
​
If a Palestinian right of return materialised, Israel as a Jewish State would cease to exist because the Jewish people would become a minority.

​
Click to expand...
See, you originally used the emotive, rather popular hasbara phrase, that JVP "advocates Israel's destruction". This is clearly frequently used to conjure up images of the physical annihilation of the land and people which incorporates the existing state.

But of course, that's not it at all. As a left-wing Jewish organisation, unsurprisingly they don't think religion, ethnicity etc. should matter and that one state could work. Many would disagree but it's hardly an ideal they should be smeared with.

I should add however, that JVP does not take a position on the one state-two state issue. They state that they support BDS and then quote the BDS call verbatim. However, supporting BDS does not mean any given supporter will necessarily boycott Israel until every single one of the demands are met. There is too broad a spectrum of opinion when it comes to how best to resolve the conflict. What I think most BDS supporters would agree with, in my opinion, is that pressure has to be applied to Israel to reduce the imbalance of power when negotiations recommence. As things stand, Israel is not bothered at all if negotiations fail, since then it gets to avoid dealing with issues which it will find very difficult to rectify e.g. the settlements and their associated political costs.
 
Super Hans said:
[....]

I should add however, that JVP does not take a position on the one state-two state issue. They state that they support BDS and then quote the BDS call verbatim. However, supporting BDS does not mean any given supporter will necessarily boycott Israel until every single one of the demands are met. There is too broad a spectrum of opinion when it comes to how best to resolve the conflict. [...]
Click to expand...

Jewish Voice for Peace takes a position on the one state two state issue by virtue of it's support for BDS. You appear to have missed the paragraph directly above the quote:

We join with communities of conscience around the world in supporting Palestinians, who call for BDS until the Israeli government:​

Ends its occupation and colonization of all Arab lands occupied in June 1967 and dismantles the Wall; recognizes the fundamental rights of the Arab-Palestinian citizens of Israel to full equality; and respects, protects and promotes the rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and properties as stipulated in UN Resolution 194 [....]
​
So JVP endorses a one-state solution.
 
Chairman Woodie said:
A 99% conviction doesn't prove anything. Look at the conviction rate in Japan's civilian courts.
Click to expand...
:smirk:
Well anyway, here's Amnesty International on the matter: "Israel has also set up military courts which do not ensure basic fair trial guarantees to prosecute Palestinians. Virtually all cases brought before the military courts end in convictions. Most convictions are the result of plea bargains as Palestinians defendants know that the entire system is so unfair that they will be convicted and given a longer sentence if they go to trial. By contrast, Israeli settlers in the Occupied Palestinian Territories are prosecuted before Israeli civilian courts in Israel and enjoy greater legal protections under Israeli civilian law.

To this day, torture is not criminalized in Israeli law, paving the way for Palestinian prisoners to be tortured and otherwise ill-treated while in Israeli custody."

And of course, torture has been documented for decades. Literally tens of thousands of Palestinians have been tortured by Israel since the occupation began. Close to a million people have been detained by Israel during that period, out of a population that has increased from about 1 million to 5 million since 1967.
 
Chairman Woodie said:
Jewish Voice for Peace takes a position on the one state two state issue by virtue of it's support for BDS. You appear to have missed the paragraph directly above the quote:

We join with communities of conscience around the world in supporting Palestinians, who call for BDS until the Israeli government:​

Ends its occupation and colonization of all Arab lands occupied in June 1967 and dismantles the Wall; recognizes the fundamental rights of the Arab-Palestinian citizens of Israel to full equality; and respects, protects and promotes the rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and properties as stipulated in UN Resolution 194 [....]
​
So JVP endorses a one-state solution.
Click to expand...
Come on mate, you can read. Perhaps you should read the entirety of my post again instead of cherry-picking segments out of context.
 
Super Hans said:
Come on mate, you can read. Perhaps you should read the entirety of my post again instead of cherry-picking segments out of context.
Click to expand...

The content of your post doesn't change the fact that JVP endorses BDS.

Super Hans said:
See, you originally used the emotive, rather popular hasbara phrase, that JVP "advocates Israel's destruction". This is clearly frequently used to conjure up images of the physical annihilation of the land and people which incorporates the existing state.

(Above point accepted, but doesn't change the fact that JVP endorses BDS.)

But of course, that's not it at all. As a left-wing Jewish organisation, unsurprisingly they don't think religion, ethnicity etc. should matter and that one state could work. Many would disagree but it's hardly an ideal they should be smeared with.

(So JVP does take a stance on the one state two state solution. Just as I said.)

I should add however, that JVP does not take a position on the one state-two state issue. They state that they support BDS and then quote the BDS call verbatim.

(Answered this point in my previous post without referencing your contradictory statement above.)

However, supporting BDS does not mean any given supporter will necessarily boycott Israel until every single one of the demands are met. There is too broad a spectrum of opinion when it comes to how best to resolve the conflict. What I think most BDS supporters would agree with, in my opinion, is that pressure has to be applied to Israel to reduce the imbalance of power when negotiations recommence. As things stand, Israel is not bothered at all if negotiations fail, since then it gets to avoid dealing with issues which it will find very difficult to rectify e.g. the settlements and their associated political costs.

(You are entitled to your opinions. But it doesn't change JVP's endorsement of BDS.)
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Super Hans said:
:smirk:
Well anyway, here's Amnesty International on the matter: "Israel has also set up military courts which do not ensure basic fair trial guarantees to prosecute Palestinians. Virtually all cases brought before the military courts end in convictions. Most convictions are the result of plea bargains as Palestinians defendants know that the entire system is so unfair that they will be convicted and given a longer sentence if they go to trial. By contrast, Israeli settlers in the Occupied Palestinian Territories are prosecuted before Israeli civilian courts in Israel and enjoy greater legal protections under Israeli civilian law.

To this day, torture is not criminalized in Israeli law, paving the way for Palestinian prisoners to be tortured and otherwise ill-treated while in Israeli custody."

And of course, torture has been documented for decades. Literally tens of thousands of Palestinians have been tortured by Israel since the occupation began. Close to a million people have been detained by Israel during that period, out of a population that has increased from about 1 million to 5 million since 1967.
Click to expand...

If the Palestinians face an unfair system, so do the Israelis, because trials are conducted according to Israeli law.

Prosecutions in Military Courts
http://www.law.idf.il/603-3077-en/Patzar.aspx
 
Chairman Woodie said:
The content of your post doesn't change the fact that JVP endorses BDS.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure whether you genuinely don't get what is not a complicated premise, or whether you are trolling. In the spirit of this site, I'll assume it is the first and explain one last time.

Quite simply, endorsement of BDS does not mean that fulfillment of the goals of BDS is the only outcome JVP would be happy with. For example, if Israel and the Palestinians negotiate a two-state solution to the conflict, and say for example that solution involves a symbolic right of return to Israel with the rest moving to the Palestinian state or other countries and compensation, one can't assume that JVP would then say, "We will continue boycotting Israel until every last refugee is back in Israel." Furthermore, BDS would be rendered completely irrelevant in that context.
 
Super Hans said:
I'm not sure whether you genuinely don't get what is not a complicated premise, or whether you are trolling. In the spirit of this site, I'll assume it is the first and explain one last time.

Quite simply, endorsement of BDS does not mean that fulfillment of the goals of BDS is the only outcome JVP would be happy with. For example, if Israel and the Palestinians negotiate a two-state solution to the conflict, and say for example that solution involves a symbolic right of return to Israel with the rest moving to the Palestinian state or other countries and compensation, one can't assume that JVP would then say, "We will continue boycotting Israel until every last refugee is back in Israel." Furthermore, BDS would be rendered completely irrelevant in that context.
Click to expand...

1) It still doesn't change the fact that, at present, JVP endorse BDS.

2) If that peace scenario occured, it would be irrelevant what JVP or BDS or any other group advocate.
 
Chairman Woodie said:
1) It still doesn't change the fact that, at present, JVP endorse BDS.
Click to expand...
And, neither a one-state or a two-state solution, as they say. Like I said, it's about applying pressure on Israel more than the specific goals of the BDS call.
 
Super Hans said:
That's interesting. Does Israeli law include Military Order 101? https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/c...ur-outrageous-facts-about-military-order-101/
Click to expand...

Amnesty misrepresent the Order. For example, among other errors and omissions, Amnesty claim that:

"unless an Israeli military commander provides authorization in advance, Palestinians in the West Bank are banned from attending and organising a procession"
​
One, there is no right to assembly or protest under IHL.

Two, only demonstrations that risk the possibility of incitement to violence or have links to terror require a permit. Other demonstrations don't need prior permission.

Correction: Three, the requirement to need a permit only applies to Area C.
 
Last edited:
Chairman Woodie said:
If the Palestinians face an unfair system, so do the Israelis, because trials are conducted according to Israeli law.

Prosecutions in Military Courts
http://www.law.idf.il/603-3077-en/Patzar.aspx
Click to expand...

Palestinian Civilians being tried by military courts. Jewish civilians in the same place are tried by civil courts, hence one rule for one, one for the other.

Also in practice Israeli military will stand around whilst settlers tear up Palestinian property, but a Palestinian will be lucky not to be shot if he looks at an Israeli wrong
 
Chairman Woodie said:
One, there is no right to assembly or protest under IHL.
Click to expand...
Incorrect. This right is enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Chairman Woodie said:
Two, only demonstrations that risk the possibility of incitement to violence or have links to terror require a permit. Other demonstrations don't need prior permission.
Click to expand...
So it's up to the IDF to decide beforehand if there is a "possibility" of violence. Which in practice means they can declare any assembly illegal. Interestingly, undercover IDF soldiers and Shin Bet operatives have been known to infiltrate peaceful assemblies in order to instigate violence.

"links to terror" - Given that Israel has declared at least 15 Palestinian organisations as terror organisations, that leaves them plenty of room for maneuver.

Chairman Woodie said:
Three, the order does not apply to the entire West Bank because only Area C is under Israeli jurisdiction.
Click to expand...
Incorrect. Palestinians in any part of the West Bank can be charged in Israel's military courts. Of course, when it comes to Military Order 101, most protests occur in Areas B and C (80% of the West Bank) since those are the areas where there is a settler and/or IDF presence. Kind of pointless for those in Area A to protest while penned in to their little ghettos.

But back to the point you tried to dodge. If military law and Israeli civil law are the same as you claim, are settlers subject to Military Order 101?
 
Super Hans said:
Incorrect. This right is enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

(You need to re-read point one.)

So it's up to the IDF to decide beforehand if there is a "possibility" of violence. Which in practice means they can declare any assembly illegal. Interestingly, undercover IDF soldiers and Shin Bet operatives have been known to infiltrate peaceful assemblies in order to instigate violence.

"links to terror" - Given that Israel has declared at least 15 Palestinian organisations as terror organisations, that leaves them plenty of room for maneuver.


Incorrect. Palestinians in any part of the West Bank can be charged in Israel's military courts. Of course, when it comes to Military Order 101, most protests occur in Areas B and C (80% of the West Bank) since those are the areas where there is a settler and/or IDF presence. Kind of pointless for those in Area A to protest while penned in to their little ghettos.

(To correct my earlier statement, the requirement to need a permit only applies to Area C.)

But back to the point you tried to dodge. If military law and Israeli civil law are the same as you claim, are settlers subject to Military Order 101?

(As Mozza points out below, in practice, the Order would not be applied to Israelis.)
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Chairman Woodie said:
To correct my earlier statement, the requirement to need a permit only applies to Area C
Click to expand...
Are you sure about that? Issa Amro has been charged with Military Order 101 and he's in Hebron, Area A. His case is an absolute shocker by the way. I believe part of the charge included that he was wearing an "I have a dream" t-shirt.
 
Last edited:
Super Hans said:
Are you sure about that? Issa Amro has been charged with Military Order 101 and he's in Hebron, Area A. His case is an absolute shocker by the way. I believe part of the charge included that he was wearing an "I have a dream" t-shirt.
Click to expand...

Quite ironic given that MLK was a Zionst shill.
 
You (and I) might not agree with everything this guy has to say - but I do agree with the bit about how the US does indeed have the power to facilitate prosperity in the region, rather than perpetuate poverty and misery, which begs the question: Why don't they? Whose best interests do they actually serve?
 
DenisIrwin said:
You (and I) might not agree with everything this guy has to say - but I do agree with the bit about how the US does indeed have the power to facilitate prosperity in the region, rather than perpetuate poverty and misery, which begs the question: Why don't they? Whose best interests do they actually serve?
Click to expand...


They serve there own interests. Why would anyone expect usa to strive towards a prosperous west asia or for that matter any part of the world ? At the end of the day every country looks out for its interest only. Now the real question that arises is what benefit does usa derive by the current status quo in west asia ?
 
VidaRed said:
They serve there own interests. Why would anyone expect usa to strive towards a prosperous west asia or for that matter any part of the world ? At the end of the day every country looks out for its interest only. Now the real question that arises is what benefit does usa derive by the current status quo in west asia ?
Click to expand...
To quote one paragraph from that article:
Ultimately, the promotion of wealth and a strong middle class in the Middle East is America’s best hope. This principle was once the mainstay of US foreign policy; it won the US respect around the world. Today, sanctions and military intervention have become the mainstay of US policy. Free trade, the rule of law, and respect for national sovereignty have been pushed aside. Democracy promotion has become a codeword for hurting US enemies and an cynical instrument of regime-change. Rarely does the US promote democracy to friendly potentates. U.S. foreign policy has slipped its moorings.
Click to expand...
I agree with this. America's interests, if they are, in fact, the promotion of democracy, would be better served, surely, by facilitating those things: "free trade, the rule of law, and respect for national sovereignty".
 
The US has two primary interests in the Middle East - the maintenance of enough stability in the Persian Gulf to allow for the continued export of its oil to America's allies and the rest of the world, and the maintenance of enough stability in the Levant to keep the Suez Canal open and prevent that region's conflicts from spilling over into the Persian Gulf. The one is achieved by a massive US military presence designed to deter any would-be challengers to the status quo (e.g. Saddam, Iran), the other is achieved by Israel.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.