Boycotts & Sanctions

[Formaldehyde]

Israel is not South Africa...

Well, duh. I never claimed they were identical.

Yet they clearly have much in common, including the practice of apartheid and a growing worldwide boycott based on their reprehensible acts. They even jointly developed nuclear weapons despite many of the white supremacists hating Jews nearly as much as they did blacks.

And the Israeli courts as well as the rest of the government are clearly not doing nearly enough to stop the settlement of the West Bank. They are even allowing it to continue to occur as punishment for the acts of a handful of Palestinians.

 

[Flying Pig]

I wonder how you would react if someone constantly denied your right to exist as person?

Your right to exist as a country is not the same as the right of your people to exist as people, though I don't know enough to stand here and say that Iran has never advocated a Final Solution.

 

[Tahuti]

And the Israeli courts as well as the rest of the government are clearly not doing nearly enough to stop the settlement of the West Bank. They are even allowing it to continue to occur as punishment for the acts of a handful of Palestinians.

Actually, Israeli settlements are routinely declared "illegal outposts" by Israeli civilian courts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intern..._settlements#Unauthorized_or_illegal_outposts

The problem is that the military is rarely ordered to enforce such edicts, so it is true that the government does very little if anything at all, it is also highly fractured to decide anything. Since a very proactive policy against settlements could mean a settler intifada, it is somewhat understandable, even if the settlements are in the way of a comprehensive agreement with the Palestinians.

 

[classical_hero]

Your right to exist as a country is not the same as the right of your people to exist as people, though I don't know enough to stand here and say that Iran has never advocated a Final Solution.

Iran has said the Israel (aka Zionist Regime) should be wiped off the face of the map. Not very cryptic if you ask me. There is a reason why Israel is worried about Iran getting nuclear weapons.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Actually, Israeli settlements are routinely declared "illegal outposts" by Israeli civilian courts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intern..._settlements#Unauthorized_or_illegal_outposts

The problem is that the military is rarely ordered to enforce such edicts, so it is true that the government does very little if anything at all, it is also highly fractured to decide anything. Since a very proactive policy against settlements could mean a settler intifada, it is somewhat understandable, even if the settlements are in the way of a comprehensive agreement with the Palestinians.

Then "actually" you just confirmed my own statement, unless you really think this is "doing enough". And continuing to allow settlers to violate the law is hardly "somewhat understandable", nor would it lead to your patently absurd "settler intifada".

Besides from your own article:

The summary of the Sasson Report[121] explains that local law requires the fulfillment of a number of basic conditions before establishing a settlement in the Judea, and Samaria. It lists four pre-conditions that must be fulfilled in each case. The second pre-condition regarding title to the land cites the precedent established in the Elon Moreh case. The third pre-condition is that a settlement can only be established according to a lawfully designed building scheme, which has the power to produce a building permit. The fourth pre-condition is that the bounds of jurisdiction of the settlement must be determined in advance by order of the Commander of the area. The Israeli Supreme Court has ruled that the fulfillment of the applicable Hague IV Convention criteria is a mandatory and integral part of satisfying those three pre-conditions of the local law. Sasson summed up the situation by explaining:

An unauthorized outpost is a settlement which does not fulfill at least one of the above mentioned conditions. And I must emphasize: an unauthorized outpost is not a "semi legal" outpost. Unauthorized is illegal.

So the courts actually ruled that there is such a thing as a "legal settlement" which is in direct defiance of UN mandates and international law.

Iran has said the Israel (aka Zionist Regime) should be wiped off the face of the map. Not very cryptic if you ask me. There is a reason why Israel is worried about Iran getting nuclear weapons.

How many times does that have to be debunked in this forum before it is not repeated yet again?

 

[Flying Pig]

Iran has said the Israel (aka Zionist Regime) should be wiped off the face of the map. Not very cryptic if you ask me. There is a reason why Israel is worried about Iran getting nuclear weapons.

Yes, that's not actually the same as saying that the Israelis should be wiped out. I think that North Korea and the Kim-ist regime should be wiped off the map, but the people inside it ought to stay where they are.

 

[Borachio]

I've always thought that such an interpretation is being unduly indulgent towards the Iranians, tbh.

If they'd meant to say they just wanted to see regime change in Israel, they could have simply said so.

 

[Tahuti]

So the courts actually ruled that there is such a thing as a "legal settlement" which is in direct defiance of UN mandates and international law.

That is true. However, not all settlements have arisen from the same circumstances. All "legal" settlements were built without permission from the Palestinian government which constitutes the violation of International Law, but few settlements are built on territory that actually has been taken from Palestinian individuals and which invariably is considered illegal by Israel too.

 

[classical_hero]

How many times does that have to be debunked in this forum before it is not repeated yet again?

http://www.thewire.com/global/2011/10/debating-every-last-word-ahmadinejads-wipe-israel-map/43372/

In a study for the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, Joshua Teitelbaum states that Ahmadinejad's public statements, taken as a whole, indicate that the Iranian leader is bent on the "actual physical destruction of the State of Israel," however one may translate his 2005 speech.

Link to video.
Whoops

Also show once when has said that Israel has a right to exist.

@FP, Most Islamic countries don't bother to call Israel by name, since that would legitimise Israel, so they only ever [wiki]Zionist Regime[/wiki]

The term is described as a means of expressing hostility towards Israel, refusing to acknowledge its existence, and denying its legitimacy or right to exist. Virginia Q. Tilley argues that the term implies condemnation of the idea of a Jewish state, but not necessarily of a Jewish presence.[25] Matthew Gray writes that the term denies Israel the status of a "state", and emphasizes Israel's Zionist philosophy. Its use by Arab state media and leaders, even though other terms are equally "politically useful", "reinforces the state's anti-Israel posture and the perception of Israel as a sinister threat". Describing it as "derogatory, indirect language", Darrell Jodock states its intent is to "deny Israel any place in the family of nations". Referring to it as a "common epithet", Eric Sundquist indicates that it "echoed the Arab view, repeated in the core doctrine of the PLO, that Israel was no state at all but an illegal colonialist excrescence".

Don't be a Useful Idiot for the Muslims Nations by allowing the to deny the right of Israel to exist as a state.

 

[Flying Pig]

It still sounds to be a demand for the destruction of the State of Israel rather than the destruction of the citizens of Israel. You'll excuse me if I take a statement from the Jerusalem Centre for Policy Studies on Iranian foreign policy with a pinch of salt, though. At any rate, I don't think there's anything necessarily wrong with claiming that Israel has no right to exist; it's certainly not self-evident that it does. It takes quite a blinkered approach to say that it absolutely should or absolutely shouldn't be where it is.

 

[peter grimes]

Wut? Where did this bit of thread appear from and why?

It seems to have included a quote from me, and a subsequent reply by Mouthwash, but then doesn't include what I said in reply to Mouthwash.

I can't remember what I said now.

Moderator Action: Yes, as Mouthwash pointed out this was split off from the Bookworm thread, as there was interest in continuing the discussion.

I thought I got all the relevant posts - if I missed any just report the posts you want added to this thread and we'll get to it. They will be folded in chronologically.

 

[Formaldehyde]

If they'd meant to say they just wanted to see regime change in Israel, they could have simply said so.

Only that is exactly what they did do, even more indirectly, and which has been documented numerous times in this forum as I just did yet again above.

This is one trope that simply refuses to die because it is used so frequently to demand the actual destruction of the Iranian government.

In a study for the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, Joshua Teitelbaum states that Ahmadinejad's public statements, taken as a whole, indicate that the Iranian leader is bent on the "actual physical destruction of the State of Israel," however one may translate his 2005 speech.

Well, gee, then it must be true despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

What Ahmadinejad actually stated was that he thought Jerusalem in particular, and Israel in general, should be a land that can be peacefully shared by all, including Jews. What a horrifically terrible man.

What is so hypocritical is that Israel in particular, and unlike Iran, continues to directly attempt to overthrow a sovereign government. They even assassinate their civilians which are clearly acts of terrorism.

 

[Mouthwash]

I've always thought that such an interpretation is being unduly indulgent towards the Iranians, tbh.

If they'd meant to say they just wanted to see regime change in Israel, they could have simply said so.

I cannot imagine why this one single quotation has been so perplexing for the Western world. The Iranian and the general Arab view on Israel is not complicated at all- it has no right to exist; the Palestinians should return and demographically restore their sovereignty over Palestine. They're not against the idea of a "Jewish" state, but since the Muslim world thinks that only Ashkenazim are Zionists, they think it should be in Europe. The Sephardi and Mizrahi Jews would return to their original Arab countries. Basically the classic form of racism.

It still sounds to be a demand for the destruction of the State of Israel rather than the destruction of the citizens of Israel. You'll excuse me if I take a statement from the Jerusalem Centre for Policy Studies on Iranian foreign policy with a pinch of salt, though. At any rate, I don't think there's anything necessarily wrong with claiming that Israel has no right to exist; it's certainly not self-evident that it does. It takes quite a blinkered approach to say that it absolutely should or absolutely shouldn't be where it is.

Israel has the same right to exist as Turkey and Poland do. If you're an anarchist and you don't see the state as legitimate at all, then fine. If you think that Israel's existence should be questioned solely because of what it is, then we have a problem.

 

[Flying Pig]

Israel has the same right to exist as Turkey and Poland do. If you're an anarchist and you don't see the state as legitimate at all, then fine. If you think that Israel's existence should be questioned solely because of what it is, then we have a problem.

Well, only in the sense that states have a 'right to life'. In my book, states only exist because the people who live in them want them to. Given that quite a chunk of the 'Israeli' population would rather like to live in a rather different state, it's certainly not obvious that Israel ought to exist in its current form. In the same way, the UK won't have a 'right' to exist if the Scots decide that they want to be independent.

Even then, most models of legitimacy would take issue with the idea that 'Israel is a Jewish homeland because the British say it is'. Nationalists say that a state has legitimacy when it is a political manifestation of a nation's self-government, which means that only nation-states such as France, Italy or Germany have a 'right' to exist. Israel's not one of those. Most people take the approach I outlined above, which makes it at least a tricky question. Pragmatics dictates that 'ought' doesn't come into it; states tend, in a sort of Darwinian mechanism, toward stability, because the unstable ones collapse more often than the stable ones. By that logic, Israel's definitely only mostly stable.

So, in short, Israel's 'right to exist' is, if anything, about as far as that of Turkey and Poland as it's possible to get.

 

[asbestos]

Arab view on Israel is not complicated at all- it has no right to exist;

Actually, the PLO has long recognized Israel's right to exist. Even Hamas has grudgingly agreed to discuss a two-state solution, which is, de facto, a recognition of Israel's right to exist. The Arab league has offered to normalize relations with Israel if a two-state settlement can be reached.

 

[Formaldehyde]

By acknowledging the obvious, the government of Israel's only excuse to continue to engage in atrocities themselves disappears. Meanwhile, they continue to hypocritically call for the destruction of any Muslim government that even questions these acts.

 

[Mouthwash]

By acknowledging the obvious, the government of Israel's only excuse to continue to engage in atrocities themselves disappears. Meanwhile, they continue to hypocritically call for the destruction of any Muslim government that even questions these acts.

So this is where we start making up things completely?