News Is Israel a Rogue State? A Discussion on International Controversy

[kyleb]

your post that referred to Hamas being willing to SERIOUSLY seek out peace?

That's not new, as explained http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas#Goals":

A memorandum prepared by the political bureau of Hamas in the 1990s at the request of western diplomats, published in a book by Azzam Tamimi, states that Hamas is "a Palestinian national liberation movement that struggles for the liberation of the Palestinian occupied territories and for the recognition of Palestinian legitimate rights."

The problem being that Israel has always thumbed their nose at anything of the sort.

As well it was palestinians from MY AREA not only on the media. There are a bunch of people from that part of the world that live near me. They all support attacking Israel.

Many do, as many Jews support attacking Palestinians, but not all on either side, yet our media shamelessly by and large promotes that cycle of violence while ingoring those working for a peaceful resolution to the conflict.

So before any attacks against Israel frmo neighbouring states occurred Israel randomly attack the Palestinian people?

Not quite, as Israel was attacked the day after they declared statehood, but that was a response to their founders systemically ethnically cleansing hundreds of thousands of Palestinians from the region in the months before.

No?

No, there is no one that fits the discription you presented, and your string of arguments from ignorance does nothing to change that fact. Beyond that, this question I found particularly disturbing:

I guess that the Arabs killed them all then?

Despite my previously noting the fact that the residents of Gush Etzion were evacuated by Jordanian officials in 1948, you speculate killing and blame "the Arabs" as a whole. Should I take that to suggest you harbor disdain for Arabs in general?

From what I have been reading it has been a constant point of contention. The settler movement has people in the government. When their supporters fall out of power and the ground work they have laid for their support is uprooted they have back ups in other branches of government that continue to push for them. It goes back and forth even still.

There is back and forth on the details of the colonization, but no notable opposition to it as a whole.

It is far from the government planned campaign to displace Palestinians that you seem to be saying it is.

It's a government planned campaign to colonize the West Bank and deny Palestinian sovereignty over the territory, as exemplified by government sponsored financial incentives to encourage colonization I mentioned, and also http://www.knesset.gov.il/elections/knesset15/elikud_m.htm":

Settlements

The Jewish communities in Judea, Samaria and Gaza are the realization of Zionist values. Settlement of the land is a clear expression of the unassailable right of the Jewish people to the Land of Israel and constitutes an important asset in the defense of the vital interests of the State of Israel. The Likud will continue to strengthen and develop these communities and will prevent their uprooting.

Self-Rule

The Government of Israel flatly rejects the establishment of a Palestinian Arab state west of the Jordan river.

The Palestinians can run their lives freely in the framework of self-rule, but not as an independent and sovereign state. Thus, for example, in matters of foreign affairs, security, immigration and ecology, their activity shall be limited in accordance with imperatives of Israel's existence, security and national needs.

I hope you might take that as cause to question the credibility of whatever you have been reading.

Even the authorization of the plan to re-establish Gush Etzion which you just referenced was grudging and originally quite limited per your own link.

They squabbled over the details of the colonization, as they still do, nearly half a million settlers later.

Allegedly illegal.

Illegal, as demonstrated by http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?pr=71&code=mwp&p1=3&p2=4&p3=6&case=131&k=5a".

I doubt that the signatories of the convention meant to prevent peoples dislocated by war from returning afterwards due to the redrawing of borders.

Of course they didn't, but the vast majority of the nearly half a million settlers in the West Bank aren't even descendants of the few thousand peoples dislocated during the 1948 war, so where is there any reasonable dispute on the illegality of those hundreds of thousands of settlers who don't fit your description?

In fact if you read the rest of the section you referenced earlier, with only a single line, it indicates that those displaced by war should be returned to their land as soon as possible.

Given the option to return to their land that is, which Israel has constantly refused to the hundreds of thousands of Palestinians refugees and their descendants who were displaced from what is now Israel.

Obviously, such as the case of Gush Etzion, the Jews displaced from the Gazan region by the original war were never allowed back. They were capable of returning almost 20 years later and this supposedly means that they were breaking the very section of the convention that ought to have protected their return in the first place? Seems more than a little ridiculous to me.

Your citing the legitimate rights of a few thousand people to defend illegitimate colonization of hundreds of thousands of people is utterly ridiculous.

I mention the settlements classified as illegal by Israel because I doubt that a country actively attempting to displace a population through colonization would deem any settlement of their people in the area illegal.

They are colonists, not anarchists.

Yes, they are agents of Israel sent by their government to escort and protect the Palestinians. The individuals involved unfortunately are not doing their job properly.

Were it a few individuals rather than systemic disregard for the protection of Palestinians, I'd consider your argument here reasonable.

Fortunate for the Palestinians that there is an Israeli organization called Yesh Din made up of retired Israeli generals and politicians working to try to protect them, according to the article you cite.

Israelis like those in Yesh Din are far outnumbered by those who lack such regard for Palestinians rights under Israeli law, and ones who respct Palestinians rights under international law are even fewer.

As already noted there is sufficient reason to question whether or not the settlements are really illegal (even if obviously ill advised) or that the government, as opposed to a movement among the Nation's people which would include some politicians (they are just people too of course), is actively attempting to displace the Palestinian people.

My opinion, as I already noted, is that this seems a major (and complex) political issue in Israel itself, that they are attempting to deal with it, and that this does not make them a "rogue state".

What line would Israel have to cross before you would feel comfortable applying the term to them?

 

[mheslep]

Look, one can't claim this in one sentence:

My intent, here and otherwise, is to dispel confusion though rational discourse.

and then site mocking comedy shows in the next:

Jon Stewart also made an excellent analogy of the situation http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-january-5-2009/strip-maul"

 

[mheslep]

That's not new, as explained http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas#Goals"

First that's a Wiki link to highly charged political subject for which the underlying reference is not available on the net, and second there's no mention I can find of any association of the statement with the US Army War College.

 

[kyleb]

My bad, http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/pub894.pdf" I had originally intended to cite:

When HAMAS was established, it defined its mission as the liberation of Palestinians and cessation of Israeli aggression against them. That is to say, its goal is not the destruction of Israel, as is commonly asserted by the American and Israel media, and certainly HAMAS does not possesses the military means to attain that goal.

Which references the same source, but I changed to the Wiki article since it actually quotes the source, which can be seen http://books.google.com/books?id=qi...cognition+of+Palestinian+legitimate+rights."". I'll go back and correct my post now.

Edit:

Look, one can't claim this in one sentence:
and then site mocking comedy shows in the next:

Do you have anything even resembling a rational argument against the analogy, or just a compulsion to ad hominem the source?

 

[mheslep]

Do you have an rational argument against the analogy, or just a compulsion to ad hominem the source?

What analogy, and what ad hominem? Saying 'here is somebody else that thinks as I do' is not an analogy. I've not personally attacked you, I'm challenging your assertion.

You've asserted your intent "is to dispel confusion though rational discourse." I contest that you make that case by citing comedy shows and the like. Rather, it supports the notion of an intent to do exactly the opposite: emotionalize the issue.

 

[mheslep]

My bad, http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/pub894.pdf" I had originally intended to cite:



Which references the same source, but I changed to the Wiki article since it actually quotes the source, which can be seen http://books.google.com/books?id=qi...cognition+of+Palestinian+legitimate+rights."". I'll go back and correct my post now.

Thanks.

 

[kyleb]

What analogy, and what ad hominem?

The one Stewart made near the end of the clip I presented, which it seems you prefer to ignore based the character of the show rather than any rational dispute with the analogy itself. Am I to take it you didn't even watch the clip?

 

[mheslep]

The one Stewart made near the end of the clip I presented, which it seems you prefer to ignore based the character of the show rather than any rational dispute with the analogy itself. Am I to take it you didn't even watch the clip?

Yep watched it, not interested though I like Stewart, and ignoring Stewart is not an ad hominem here.

 

[kyleb]

Attacking the arguer to ignore the argument is ad hominem, which you are doing by dismissing Stewart/TDS as a comedy program rather than addressing the analogy they present.

 

[Hurkyl]

The analogy is being dismissed as comedy, because it is comedy, rather than any sort of serious political commentary. You think otherwise?

 

[DaveC426913]

The analogy is being dismissed as comedy, because it is comedy, rather than any sort of serious political commentary. You think otherwise?

The fact (or opinion) that it is couched in humour does not negate its validity as an argument. To claim it does would be an ad hominem (dismissing a valid argument based on who is doing the arguing).

It is no accident that Jon Stewart couches biting political discourse in seemingly harmless mockery. Indeed, one of the reasons it is so funny is because of how well it hits the mark.

It seems some people are mixing up cause and effect here.

It is is not that: it is a good argument because it is funny,
it is that: it is funny because it is a good argument.



This entire objection would go away of kyleb simply removes Jon Stewart from the equation and restates the analogy as if it were his own. Then objecters can simply attack kyleb's argument directly.

 

[tiny-tim]

"rogue state"

A lion will attack even if it is not attacked.

Any elephant will attack if it is attacked.

A rogue elephant will attack even if it is not attacked.​

Any state will attack if it is attacked.

A rogue state will attack even if it is not attacked.

You can't call Israel a rogue state just because it responds to attacks on its own citizens … that may or may not be over-reaction, but it certainly isn't being a rogue state, in the way that ordinary people use the adjective "rogue".

The definition quoted from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/rogue+state?r=75" …

a state that does not respect other states in its international actions

… is simplistic and wrong.

A dictionary should reflect common usage of a word (or phrase), and this does not.

Incidentally, this definition is virtually the same as that normally given for "pariah state" (although dictionary.reference.com itself, surprisingly does not have a definition for "pariah state"!) … see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pariah_state" …

A pariah state is one whose conduct is considered to be out of line with international norms of behavior.

 

[Hurkyl]

Indeed, one of the reasons it is so funny is because of how well it hits the mark.

It seems some people are mixing up cause and effect here.

Yes, you and kyleb. It would be a ridiculous statement no matter who said it. The fact it's funny doesn't make it any stronger of a statement -- except to people who are easily swayed by that sort of thing.

But, just for fun, we can answer humor with humor. They keep the guy locked in the hallway because he keeps throwing rocks at them whenever they let him into the living room.

 

[kyleb]

This entire objection would go away of kyleb simply removes Jon Stewart from the equation and restates the analogy as if it were his own.

Yeah, I'm not one to present something as my own which isn't though. Regardless, I do thank you for emphasizing the distinction between the arguer and the argument.

You can't call Israel a rogue state just because it responds to attacks on its own citizens …

Nor was I, but rather because Israel refuses to respect Palestinians rights under international law.

The definition quoted from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/rogue+state?r=75" …

… is simplistic and wrong.

A dictionary should reflect common usage of a word (or phrase), and this does not.

As I said previously when others made this argument, feel free to present whatever you might consider a more authoritative source for the definition.

The fact it's funny doesn't make it any stronger of a statement...

I wouldn't find it funny if I didn't find it analogous to the situation. Like I see no humor in this:

They keep the guy locked in the hallway because he keeps throwing rocks at them whenever they let him into the living room.

How do you figure "whenever they let him into the living room" is when the "rocks" are "throw[n]"? it seems to me the rockets are a response to Israel's refusal to respect the rights of the refugees, and the rights of Palestinians to sovereignty over what little of their homeland is still legally theirs under international law.

 

[Hurkyl]

Like I see no humor in this:

I didn't expect you to; you don't seem like the kind of person who could enjoy a jab at something he believes in. Similarly, I expected you to be far more critical of an analogy "illustrating" an opposing point of view than one "illustrating" your own point of view.

But I am genuinely surprised that you cannot even see what aspect of the situation the analogy tries to capture.

 

[Evo]

This thread should have been closed a long time ago.