probeson

FeatherFall, I've provided laws that prohibit denunciations of Israel as a state for Jews, I've shown laws that privilege Jews over non-Jews for citizenship while denying citizenship and the right of return for those who Arabs who were forced out, I've shown Equal Protection policy that show "discrimination between Arabs and Jews is legitimate based on the founding principles of Israel as a state for the Jewish people", I've shown the Nationality Law that prohibits Palestinians from marrying Israelis, I've shown the National Planning Law that confiscates property from Arab Israelis but provides for illegal Jewish settlements...all of these are discriminatory. ..and I haven't even begun to show why Palestinians living in the OPT should be included in the mix. " I'm currently of the opinion that Israel has repeatedly defended itself from Arab aggression, that the Palestinians never gave up their anti-Semitic Jihad like some of their neighbors, and that Israel's long-term decisions are more or less justified. You could begin to convince me otherwise if you were to show me that the so-called Nakba was not a warranted response by Israelis to an existential threat." Such discussions usually go nowhere. It should be clear to anyone who has objectively looked into this conflict that all of the wars Israel has fought happened outside its mandated borders. If this is true then how can one say it was defensive when it was clearly an invasion? And invasion is an act of aggression. Frankly, I do not see their resistance as anti-Semitism,,it's more like anti-colonialist.They have a right to resist by any means necessary. I firmly believe the agggressor forfeits ALL claims to morality, even the right to live. I may just visit the discussion...just to see how one justifies ethnic cleansing and attempted genocide....not to mention , creating the largest refuge population in the world.

Nicky, Cmon man... You know full well that when the Palestinians where ethnically cleansed from their homeland, many fled to these neighboring countries. Jews are cautioned against travelling to these countries for security reasons but Palestinians have families there. A petition was files against it. From the article in Haaretz: "The petition goes on to argue that Israeli Arabs who travel to enemy states ? mainly to Syria ? usually do so to visit their families, and that barring them from doing so severely limits their freedom of movement."

SoftwareNerd. Actually..I'm only speaking of Israeli-Palestinians. Take the amendment to the Basic Law: "Any legislative measures and other measures calculated to prevent a racial group or groups from participation in the political, social, economic and cultural life of the country and the deliberate creation of conditions preventing the full development of such a group or groups, in particular by denying to members of a racial group or groups basic human rights and freedoms, including ..the right to freedom of movement" First Israeli Arabs are prevented from visiting family members that live in countries that Israel does not approve. This law does not apply equally to all citizens. Proof: http://www.haaretz.c...ges/997986.html

FeatherFall, Under your analogy , the right of return is not discriminatory but it does become discriminatory when not applied evenly. For instance,the Palestinians who were ethnically cleansed from their homes during the Nakba are not allowed to return...and they actually lived in Israel. Besides...this may have been considered necessary 60 years ago but to continue the policy 60 years later strains credulity. It is not that one(such as the law of return) particular law or measure is in itself racist, it is the totality that reveals the intent. I'm speaking here of a system of laws that consistently disenfranchises the non-Jew. Sure, we can ignore one or two...but fifteen? I can't really give you a 'proper' time frame for an occupation. But I will say that Israel has maintained the longest occupation in modern history. It would be a different matter all together if Israel had borders. It doesn't! Where are the borders of this state? This is why the Pals do not recognize it. A state without borders is a contradiction of terms. If it has no borders then it is responsible for all under its heel. It has ruled Palestine through a brutal and humiliating dictatorship for nearly fifty years...and its borders are growing. A state is a state when it has control over its territory...Israel was given 51% of Palestine but controls ALL of it. If no one knows where the borders are , only where they should be, then technically it's no longer an occupation-it is annexation but while the indigenous people living in poverty and squalor. Secondly, Of course Israel was the aggressor. The biggest clue is that all of those wars were fought outside of its borders.

The term apartheid is a very specific concept. It may subsume an unlimited number of concretes but each will have similar characteristics but the measure of each may be omitted. Now here is the definition I provided for the concept: Apartheid- when any group imposes a status of legal inferiority or second class citizenship on another group because of religious, racial, ethnicity, or gender, which deprives them of social,legal, economic, cultural. or basic human rights Now, from the legal definition: Any legislative measures and other measures calculated to prevent a group or groups from participation in the political, social, economic and cultural life of the country and the deliberate creation of conditions preventing the full development of such a group or groups, in particular by denying to members of a group or groups basic human rights and freedoms, including the right to work, the right to form recognized trade unions, the right to education, the right to leave and to return to their country, the right to a nationality, the right to freedom of movement and residence, the right to freedom of opinion and expression, and the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association; d. Any measures, including legislative measures, designed to divide the population along racial/ethnic lines by the creation of separate reserves and ghettos for the members of a racial group or groups, the prohibition of mixed marriages among members of various racial groups, the expropriation of landed property belonging to a racial group or groups or to members thereof; We may break this down into the following categories: measures calculated to prevent a group or groups from participation in the political, social, economic and cultural life of the country by denying to members of a group or groups basic human rights and freedoms, ​​These freedoms include : right to work right to form recognized trade unions the right to education the right to leave and to return to their country the right to freedom of movement and residence the right to freedom of opinion and expression right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association​ ​In addition: Any measures, including legislative measures, designed to divide the population along racial/ethnic lines by the creation of separate reserves and ghettos for the members of a racial group or groups, the prohibition of mixed marriages among members of various racial groups the expropriation of landed property belonging to a racial group or groups or to members thereof Now..the central question here is -Is Israel an Apartheid state? To show if this is true, one would have to demonstrate that Israel meets the above criteria. Now lets take these separately as they would be easier to deal with. First: the prohibition of mixed marriages among members of various racial groups Israel passed the Family Unification Law in 2003. The law only applies to Palestinians. Anyone living in another country not deemed an enemy state are welcome. All the enemy states are Arab countries. But if an Israeli Jew marries another Jew from one of the same enemy countries, he/she can obtain citizenship. Does this meet the criteria above? Is it discriminatory ?

Leonid, "And I cannot see any basis for your claim that Jewish state is inherently racists simply because it's Jewish. France is a French country because the majority of its population is French, they use French language and share French heritage and culture. Nobody claims that France is racists or antidemocratic, in spite that 10% of its population are Arabs. " France and Israel are two different animals. Israel is a melting pot of Jews from all over the world. It is an avowed "Jewish State". It is not united around principles, like America or France for that matter, but around religion-or being Jewish. Based on the evidence I have provided, there are a system of laws that favor Jews over non-Jews. That is plain to see. If you have laws on your books that will allow any Jew to immigrate but not any Arab, then you have a tiered system of laws that places one group in an superior position. If a Jew wanted to immigrate to America, " a country for whites", but we took all comers except Jews then that would be racist would it not? What if America only took white people but everyone else was refused? What if we displaced non-whites to make way for whites...would that be racist? What if a white citizen of America wanted to marry a non-white citizen from another country -thereby giving him/her citizenship but was refused...but could marry a white person under the same circumstances and have citizenship granted him/her? Would that sound like a system of institutional discrimination? It's the same for Israel except they are a Jewish state.

Nicky, Once upon a time, you could say it would be unfair to call the military dictatorship of the WB and Gaza a form of apartheid. You could have even said it was a 'temporary measure' .But Israel has now maintained control over these territories for nearly 50 years - that's almost as long as Israel has been a state. In addition Israel has annexed East Jerusalem and announced plans to permanently control up to nearly half of the West Bank and it still controls all of Gaza ..so much so that it can control how many calories Gazans consume: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/18/world/middleeast/israel-counted-calories-needed-for-gazans-in-blockade.html?_r=0 For all intents and purposes, Israel and the Palestinian territories it controls have functioned as one integrated economic and political unit. It is no longer possible to view an occupation of such long duration as a "temporary". We must include Gaza in the equation as it is still under occupation. Also...the idea that helping Jews to migrate while excluding everyone else is inherently racist. If you are applying the law differently to groups of people then it is discriminatory..plain and simple. If it privileges one group over another and there are a system of laws to the same end - it is apartheid. How can it not be so when it is an avowed 'Jewish State'? As for the sources... Here is a report from Human Rights Watch. It is titled Separate and Unequal http://www.hrw.org/en/reports/2010/12/19/separate-and-unequal Here's a statement from B'Tselem about the policies of this apartheid state: "“The forbidden roads regime (for Palestinians) is based on the principle of separation based on discrimination, and assumes that every Palestinian constitutes a security threat. This assumption is racist, and cannot justify a policy that indiscriminately harms the entire Palestinian population. Therefore, the policy violates human rights and international law,” I see no need to cite Israeli law. We only need to know that a system of laws exist that privilege Jews over non-Jews to show Apartheid.

Nicky, The Citizenship Law, the National Planning Law, the Basic Law, etc...are for Israeli citizens. Take the...: Development Authority (Transfer of Property Law) (1950) Transfers confiscated Palestinian villages and private property to the Development Authority, which is empowered to dispose of it in the interests of the State, giving priority to the Jewish National Fund - a Zionist organization aimed at settling Jewish immigrants to Israel. Both the JNF and the Jewish Agency - organizations that act exclusively in the interest of Jews - take on the status of quasi-governmental organizations within the framework of the Development Authority Law. Cmon man, Anyone can see the law privileges Jews over non-Jews.

Leonid, In my opinion, Israeli Apartheid is more sinister than the Apartheid practiced in South Africa because it has the veneer of inclusion but without the substance. The very idea of a 'Jewish state" goes against the requirements of a democracy. It marginalizes every one who is not Jewish. If laws favor one group over another then must violate the rights of the inferior group. The fact that some people have an opinion that Israel does not practice apartheid does not change its essential nature. That would be social metaphysics. However, if it confers a status of legal inferiority by force against its own citizens because of race, creed, religion, or other criteria then it is by definition, an apartheid state. I completely disagree that Israeli Arabs have the same rights as Jews in Israel. How could they when the idea of a "Jewish State" makes them unequal before the law? The National Planning Law, The Citizenship Law, The Jewish National Fund that expropriates land from non-Jew and gives to Jews...and this isn't even half of it.

Spiral, With the exception of the law that forbids material support to the enemy, most of the discriminatory laws clearly favor Jews or non-Jews. ""... bars a list of candidates from participation in elections to the Knesset “if its aims or actions, expressly or by implication” deny “the existence of the State of Israel as the state of the Jewish people.” That is not racially motivated - That is telling someone you will not allow them to participate if they deny your existence, which is quite resonable. I'd show someone the door of they denied my right to exist. " Denying that ,"the existence of the State of Israel as the state of the Jewish people.” is getting compliance from those seeking office that they will accept their second class citizenship(if they are not Jewish) and will make no efforts to change it. It is an inherently "racist" law. Look more closely, the law is not about denying the existence of the state of Israel, it prohibits challenges to Jewish privilege. Remember that a 'Jewish state' means the state favors Jews and that all are not equal before the law. It is institutional racism at its finest because it stifles dissent. If you look at the laws I provided, with the exception of what you mentioned, the rest are discriminatory. A "Jewish state" is no different from a 'white state", or an 'Islamic state'. The bottom line is the same-that some are second class and do not enjoy a government which deals with each citizen according to non-racist criteria.

I fail to see how providing a justification for racially discriminatory laws changes the essential nature of Apartheid. Is Israel an Apartheid state? YES OR NO?? Is Zionism an inherently discriminatory belief? YES OR NO? If you answer to the affirmative, based on the evidence I have provided, then who really gives a crap why they are an apartheid country? I mean, who would defend institutional racism and discrimination? Furthermore, the laws do not target those who want to destroy the state, it targets its own citizens. The vast majority of the laws posted target Israeli citizens of Arab descent. In addition...according to the definition I provided: "when any group imposes a status of legal inferiority or second class citizenship on another group because of religious, racial, ethnicity, or gender, which deprives them of social,legal, economic, cultural. or basic human rights" ....Apartheid MUST take the form of law(i.e. force). You can't have apartheid without force.

Let me begin by defining my terms: Apartheid-when any group imposes a status of legal inferiority or second class citizenship on another group because of religious, racial, ethnicity, or gender, which deprives them of social,legal, economic, cultural. or basic human rights From the UN definition of Apartheid and international law: http://www.law-ref.org/APARTHEID/index.html --->c. Any legislative measures and other measures calculated to prevent a group or groups from participation in the political, social, economic and cultural life of the country and the deliberate creation of conditions preventing the full development of such a group or groups, in particular by denying to members of a group or groups basic human rights and freedoms, including the right to work, the right to form recognized trade unions, the right to education, the right to leave and to return to their country, the right to a nationality, the right to freedom of movement and residence, the right to freedom of opinion and expression, and the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association; d. Any measures, including legislative measures, designed to divide the population along racial/ethnic lines by the creation of separate reserves and ghettos for the members of a racial group or groups, the prohibition of mixed marriages among members of various racial groups, the expropriation of landed property belonging to a racial group or groups or to members thereof; <---- Zionism- Jewish Nationalism. The belief that Israel/Palestine should be the homeland of a "Jewish" state So I ask you, how can one have a state for Jews(Zionism) that does not give preferential treatment to Jews over all other groups? If it does not give preferential treatment to Jews then it is not a Zionist state. But we have all heard it said from its elected leaders that Israel expects the Palestinians to accept it as a Jewish state, have we not? Such a state as Israel can not truly be considered a democratic state either. If Israel gives a Jew more privileges than the non-Jew then all are not equal before the law-hence undemocratic. Isn't a "Jewish state" by definition, exclusive of other ethnicities? So is Israel deserving of the apartheid appellation? Let's see: First: "Any legislative measures and other measures calculated to prevent a racial group or groups from participation in the political, social, economic and cultural life of the country and the deliberate creation of conditions preventing the full development of such a group or groups, in particular by denying to members of a racial group or groups basic human rights and freedoms, including ..the right to freedom of movement" First Israeli Arabs are prevented from visiting family members that live in countries that Israel does not approve. This law does not apply equally to all citizens. Proof: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/997986.html They have also set aside lands for the purpose of constructing "Jewish only" roads. Wonderful , wide , and well-paved roads, brightly lit at night--all that on stolen land. When a Palestinian drives on such a road, his vehicle is confiscated and he is sent on his way. May I also add that humanitarian activists cannot transport Palestinians either. Curfews also fall under restriction of freedom of movement. Based on a series of long curfews in the majority of Palestinian towns and villages and hundreds of CHECKPOINTS navigable only with Israeli-issued permits-movement between towns and villages is extremely restricted, and often impossible. DO YOU AGREE THAT THIS IS DESIGNED TO RESTRICT FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT FOR A PARTICULAR RACIAL GROUP-YES OR NO? I am aware that the checkpoints are in the Occupied WB but they( WB Palestinians) are still subject to Israeli law. The restriction of movement for the first example applies to Israeli Arabs. proof: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/804600.html Next: Any legislative measures and other measures calculated to prevent a group or groups from participation in the political, social, economic and cultural life of the country and the deliberate creation of conditions preventing the full development of such a group or groups, in particular by denying to members of a group or groups basic human rights and freedoms, including the right to work, the right to form recognized trade unions, the right to education, the right to leave and to return to their country, the right to a nationality, the right to freedom of movement and residence, the right to freedom of opinion and expression, and the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association; Next: "Any legislative measures and other measures calculated to prevent a racial group or groups from participation in the political, social, economic and cultural life of the country and the deliberate creation of conditions preventing the full development of such a group or groups. Basic Law-1958 Passed in 1985, Section 7A(1) bars a list of candidates from participation in elections to the Knesset “if its aims or actions, expressly or by implication” deny “the existence of the State of Israel as the state of the Jewish people.” In 2002 both Section 7A(1) of the Basic Law: the Knesset and the Law of Political Parties were amended further to bar those whose goals or actions, directly or indirectly, “support armed struggle of an enemy state or of a terror organization, against the State of Israel.” These amendments were added expressly to curtail the political participation of Palestinian Arabs within Israel – such as Azmi Bishara – who have expressed solidarity with Palestinians resisting military occupation in the West Bank and Gaza. The Law of Political Parties (1992)Bars the Registrar of Political Parties from registering a political party if it denies “the existence of the State of Israel as a Jewish and democratic State.” Next: "Any measures, including legislative measures, designed to divide the population along racial lines by...the prohibition of mixed marriages among members of various racial groups." 4. Judicial Practice: Equal Protection Cases The Israeli courts – guided by the Supreme Court – have consistently decided that discrimination between Arabs and Jews is legitimate based on the founding principles of Israel as a state for the Jewish people; “nationality” is considered a legitimate basis for discrimination. In the State of Israel vs. Ashgoyev (1988), an Israeli settler was convicted by the Tel Aviv District Court of shooting a Palestinian child. The judge sentenced him to a suspended jail term of six months and community service. When challenged by critics, the trial judge, Uri Shtruzman, said: “It is wrong to demand in the name of equality, equal bearing and equal sentences to two offenders who have different nationalities who break the laws of the State. The sentence that deters the one and his audience, does not deter the other and his community.” The Citizenship and Entry Law-The law, passed July 31, 2003 prohibits Palestinian spouses from obtaining citizenship, permanent residency and temporary residency status in Israel by marriage to an Israeli citizen. Under the new law, thousands of Palestinians living in Israel must go back to the West Bank or Gaza, and they will be denied identity cards—their passports to get past police checkpoints. Keep in mind that any Jew from anywhere gets blanket citizenship simply for the asking. Any Jewish citizen can easily obtain citizenship for their spouses especially since there is a strong stigma against Jews who marry outside of their faith. So this law does not affect the Vast majority of Jews- only Israeli Arabs. Proof: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/996697.html The Nationality and Entry law forbids the marriage of Palestinians and Israelis and also forbids spouses of Arab citizens, who reside in the occupied territories from joining their families in Israel? THESE LAWS PROHIBIT INTERMARRIAGE AND MEETS THE CONDITIONS ABOVE- DO YOU AGREE YES OR NO? proof: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1135963.html Next: ......the expropriation of landed property belonging to a racial group or groups or to members thereof Absentee Property Law (1950) Classifies the personal property of Palestinians who fled during the Zionist terror campaign of 1947/48 as "absentee property" and places it within the power of the Custodian of Absentee Property. According to the law, even the property of Palestinians who are present within the newly created state of Israel, but are not physically present on their property ("internal refugees"), becomes "absentee property." This creates the category of "present absentees." http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1129744.html National Planning and Building Law (1965) Creates a system of discriminatory zoning that freezes existing Arab villages while providing for the expansion of Jewish settlements. The law also re-classifies a large number of Arab villages as "non-residential" creating the "unrecognized villages." These villages do not receive basic municipal services such as water and electricity; all buildings are threatened with demolition orders. DO THESE LAWS TARGET A PARTICULAR RACIAL GROUP WITH THE EFFECT OF SEIZING THEIR PROPERTY? YES OR NO? proof: http://www.haaretz.co.il/hasen/spages/1076058.html Development Authority (Transfer of Property Law) (1950)Transfers confiscated Palestinian villages and private property to the Development Authority, which is empowered to dispose of it in the interests of the State, giving priorty to the Jewish National Fund – a Zionist organization aimed at settling Jewish immigrants to Israel. Both the JNF and the Jewish Agency – organizations that act exclusively in the interest of Jews – take on the status of quasi-governmental organizations within the framework of the Development Authority Law. World Zionist Organization (Jewish Agency (Status) Law (1952)Establishes the World Zionist Organization and the Jewish Agency as organizations with governmental status in fulfilling Zionist objectives – the immigration and settlement of Jews in Palestine. Next: .... in particular by denying to members of a racial group or groups basic human rights and freedoms, including the right to leave and to return to their country. Law of Return (1950) Grants right of immigration to Jews born anywhere in the world. Amended in 1970 to extend this right to "a child and a grandchild of a Jew, the spouse of a Jew, the spouse of a child of a Jew and the spouse of a grandchild of a Jew." A "Jew" is defined as "a person who was born of a Jewish mother or has become converted to Judaism and who is not a member of another religion." But a Palestinian born in Israel is not allowed to return to his home and property for fear of upsetting the Jewish majority. Non-Jewish native-born Palestinians - most importantly those who fled during the Zionist massacres in 1947 and 1948 - are in most cases prevented from returning. Nationality (/Citizenship) Law (1952) Confers automatic citizenship upon all who immigrate under the Law of Return. Non-Jews - including native-born Palestinians - must prove residency and pass other tests; citizenship is granted at the discretion of the Minister of the Interior. Under the new interim policy for "family unification" passed by the Israeli Cabinet in 2002, and made part of the Nationality and Entry into Israel Law by the Knesset in 2003, a discriminatory system has been put in place preventing applications for residency or citizenship from Palestinian spouses of Israeli citizens. DO THESE LAWS PREVENT PALS FROM EXERCISING THE RIGHT OF RETURN? YES OR NO? proof: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArtStEng.jhtml?itemNo=840119&contrassID=1&subContrassID=1&title='Knesset%20extends%20law%20banning%20Israeli-Palestinian%20family%20unification%20'&dyn_server=172.20.5.5 Forgive the caps, they are for emphasis. Do these laws and their systematic uniformity illustrate what I mean? I could go on and on but that should be enough for you to catch the drift. As a side note, this is not just my assessment. Israeli apartheid is openly discussed in the UN and it is being recognized by Human Rights Organizations.

You raise some interesting points but it is a propagandistic version of events, in my opinion. I will respond to them but it does not seem appropriate yet as I am trying to prove my claim that Israel is the aggressor.I don't think it controversial to say that Israel attacked first but it is now being suggested that rhetoric is equivalent to dropping a bomb. To begin discussing history at this point will only muddle the issue and it will deteriorate into your version against mine.

The stated goals of the Likud is control of all of Palestine are they candidates for destruction too? It is my opinion that these fighters are fighting a moral war of self defense. . Israel was granted 51% of Palestine but now controls ALL of it. I would say this is more than an impression. Look this is simple. If Israel is inside the borders of the PP then it cannot also be outside of it. This means that to say that Israel has a right to land outside its borders contradicts the principle of sovereignty as it cannot have rights to ALL of Palestine when its borders are clearly defined. It is to say that what is not Israel is not Israel's. . Okay, Israel has jurisdiction over this territory. It is a completely subjective evaluation that a theocratic socialist country is objectively better than a theocratic fascist one so there is no "justly acquired land".As for the destruction of the Western world.....pure speculation-unless you claim some special knowledge about the future. Please explain how a theocratic socialist country has more legitimacy than a theocratic fascist one. Second, you have no idea of what kind of government the Palestinians will create, once again you are claiming omnipotence.

To say that the threat of force is grounds for initiating actual force is to obliterate the non-initiation of force principle. According to your logic, then it really doesn't have to be a communicated threat. One may simply purchase a gun for his personal defense and become a valid candidate for destruction. A threat is a subjective evaluation about someone's intentions and since no one is omnipotent, there is simply no way to determine the contents of someone elses mind.This isn't a moral principle to protect one's life this is a cover to take someone elses. Any person in possession of a weapon coud be considered a threat-what then? Furthermore, now the principle is so muddled as to be non- existent. According to this expanded meaning then any ME state with the means has the moral right to destroy Israel as it has undeclared nuclear weapons or any state has the right to destroy any state by claiming omnipotence about the future. Where do you draw the line? When is it valid? ...there is no way to tell which is probably the intention of whoever thought of this cover for aggression.

I am familiar with the lexicon and I am surprised you would mention it. Still it does not negate what force actually is , it only strengthens my argument. For instance: "Man’s rights can be violated only by the use of physical force. It is only by means of physical force that one man can deprive another of his life, or enslave him, or rob him, or prevent him from pursuing his own goals, or compel him to act against his own rational judgment.The precondition of a civilized society is the barring of physical force from social relationships—thus establishing the principle that if men wish to deal with one another, they may do so only by means of reason: by discussion, persuasion and voluntary, uncoerced agreement" "One does not and cannot “negotiate” with brutality, nor give it the benefit of the doubt. The moral absolute should be: if and when, in any dispute, one side initiates the use of physical force, that side is wrong—and no consideration or discussion of the issues is necessary or appropriate." "Whatever may be open to disagreement, there is one act of evil that may not, the act that no man may commit against others and no man may sanction or forgive. So long as men desire to live together, no man may initiate—do you hear me? no man may start—the use of physical force against others" Based on the dictionary definition and the "precise definitions" you require then it should obvious that rhetoric is not physical force or violence. Are you actually defending taking property and keeping it by force? Seriously? It is immoral, unequivocally immoral PERIOD! If it is not done through treaty or purchase , or any other form of consent then it is wrong. A nation is just a group of individuals , so it can gain no additional rights such as the right to usurp the present owner and you are correct, it is not taking property -it is seizing TERRITORY. . Let's be serious, we are not talking about UN law, we are talking about whether a nation has the right to initiate force against other nations. I am attempting to establish that Israel is the aggressor according to moral law. I am suggesting that international law(in some cases) is moral and I am frankly in awe of the venom against the UN when it basically carved up Palestine to make a homeland for Jews-against the collective will of the Palestinians. This act alone is immoral according to Objectivist standards as Jews do not have the right to set up a theocratic socialist state. So please let's dispense with the rants against the UN, we are talking about international laws that prohibit aggression. We both already agreed these were moral laws-correct? I am simply trying to establish who the aggressor is in this context. Once we do that then the rest is easy. As for the war of 48, well ....you simply do not know what you are talking about when you say they were "swiftly invaded". I am choosing my words carefully- They were not invaded by the Arab League, it was the Arabs who fought a defensive war against an Israeli land grab. But I digress but I will revisit this later if you like but let's take one thing at a time. Now since the dictionary agrees that force is physical violence and the lexicon with its "precision" agrees then can we agree that a threat is not physical violence, so therefore if an aggressor(Israel) attacks its neighbors when physical violence has not been initiated then it is the aggressor? If not, why not?

. I am only talking about those international laws that outlaw the initiation of force. These can be said to be moral laws. True, but I am making a moral argument that amounts to Israel's disregard for laws that outlaw stealing land is immoral. You are seeking to deprive me of ammunition. I doubt very seriously that taking your neighbors property through force can be considered moral whether there is a law against it or not -irregardless of who enforces it. . I find it odd that you would say that Israel governs better when it does not have the consent of the governed. For that matter, any dictator could be said to be as legitimate. . Y Have you forgotten that this "corrupt neighborhood" created your state in the first place? And just how has this this house been invaded? This makes no sense to me Perhaps we should define our terms: Force- The use of physical power or violence to compel or restrain http://www.thefreedictionary.com/force It seems you are using an exotic definition of force. It means physical violence. Obviously rhetoric is not subsumed under physical violence so therefore what you consider force is not force. So if Israel attacked its neighbors when "violence to compel or restrain" was not used first, then it is the aggressor.

I would be very interested in learning about mass killings against Israel, from my research, the ratio is about 100:1. I submit to you that land expropriation,colonialism, political assassinations,control of commerce represent a threat against one's life and should be met with the maximum force possible to resist and deter it. We are not talking about stealing a piece of gum. Then you have misunderstood. If Israel has sovereignty over land WITHIN the partition plan then it is a contradiction to say it also has sovereignty over land outside it. What's outside is non-Israel.It makes little difference WHO'S land is outside its borders-it does not belong to Israel. So the land outside its borders cannot be Israel's because Israel has already been defined.All land not within the borders of the surrounding states, belong the Palestine. Therefore you cannot homestead land already owned by someone else because your border has already been defined. If individual rights are your benchmark then why is Israel more legitimate?Does it not grant additional favor to Jews? Is there not institutional racism in Israel? Does it not grant the right of return to Jews but not to Palestinians who have lived there all their lives? Isn't it a socialist state too? What does non-western even have to do with it? There is no such thing as the right to enslave, morality ends where the gun begins. How odd....the UN had the right to CREATE, i.e. take land against the wishes of the indigenous population and create Israel AND define its borders but it cannot tell Israel that it cannot steal land outside its borders? Really? Then you have just made the case yourself that Israel is illegitimate. Oh, but I agree but does this apply to Israel as well? It is specifically the outlawing of the initiation of violence that I am speaking of but you seem to be suggesting that laws against occupation, disproportionality, pirating in international waters , etc...should have "no relevance to us and is not a frame of reference" This seems self -contradictory to me. If international law should outlaw violence then how do you advocate stealing someone elses property? Why is it that all actions of the UN are immoral except the one that created Israel?

It has been suggested that the topic has deviated from its main point and is actualy more relevant in this thread: http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.php?showtopic=19777&st=20&gopid=262775&#entry262775 I welcome any comments and I assure you that I will offer a reasonable and logical argument to support my ideas.

Thank you. You are probably correct, there are too many issues on the table and it seems more productive to tackle them one at a time. Since this is an Objectivist forum, it seems that the starting point should be , "Who is the aggressor?". It seems the moral argument is the least controversial and it will tend to keep the conversation from deteriorating into a reasonable interpretation of history vs the numerous myths that surround the subject. Of course some history will have to be involved as the current situation is a product of historical causality. If we can agree that it is the initiator of force who is the criminal and by doing so, he has forfeited ALL rights , including the right to life then this moral principle is evident in Israel's actions against the Palestinians. I say we have a moral obligation to call a spade a spade and that we should side with the victim who suffers unjustly. The illegal annexation of land or land theft is an act of aggression.I'm sure it is not controversial to say that if you deprive me of my property then you have deprived me of the means to sustain my life so such an act is a direct/indirect attack on my life, so I have the right to defend myself or resist you if you are in the process of doing so. The only land that is Israel's is the land that it was given under the Partition Plan(PP), everything else belongs to someone else by the law of non contradiction. What does not belong to the surrounding states, who's borders are already defined or territory under dispute, is Palestine by the law of non contradiction. Therefore, all land that Israel occupies after 48 that was not given under the PP is stolen, Occupied Palestinian Territory(OPT). But this is not the end of its aggression, it was given 51%(I believe) but it now controls ALL of it-including the land the Palestinians live on. Occupation is when a hostile army has control over a territory not its own. A simple analogy is having a gang invade your home, run its operation against your wishes, restrict your movement....complete expropriation by force.Under these circumstances, one is morally bound to resist this initiation of force BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY. whether it is by lobbing rockets blindly out of your bedroom, each family member blowing themselves up to kill the enemy -whatever it takes to defend one's life is fair game. Remember, the aggressor has no rights because of his criminal act so he cannot claim self defense. Lastly, it is an act of force to invade a collective of people, occupy them AND then set up a military dictatorship where you control their movement, monitor them, control all commerce, assassinate its leaders, etc..... they have not only the right to resist and defend themselves but it would be immoral not to. If you disagree with the methods they use to defend themselves then it would still require one to show that these actions would still be chosen if they were not suffering under Israels's yoke. Now, I am sure that the comeback will be that Israel has a right to these territories because they were acquired during a war. Well, it is illegal under international law to acquire land by war (UN 242). Second, the war or pretext Israel used to acquire these territories was an AGGRESSIVE war which makes it still illegitimate. Third, armistice lines are not borders under international law. Now, if you disagree with international law AS AN INSTITUTION then what are you really saying? That nation states(the individuals that comprise them) do not have rights that other nations are morally bound to respect? That any nation has the RIGHT to initiate force against another? If the purpose of the rule of law is to place force under objective control( in a society of individuals )then why does this not apply to a collective of individuals? Hell , aren't you making the case that the strongest country , if it was able, would not be immoral if it just annexed Israel because it decided it was in its self interest to do so and imposed its laws on it and if Israel could not defend itself then tough cookie? Am I clear enough?

Which part is nonsense? I take it you agree with the rest so I can easily clear up any "nonsense".

Okay. Agreed, but by your own logic, this applies to Israel as well. Israel has basically setup an apartheid system of governance where it practices a virulent form of institutional discrimination against its own citizens. Does this count too? You are correct that I am wrong but neither are you correct as to the premise of Objectivist politics. The premise of Objectivist politics is actually the right to life. I could make the case that a state that treats a segment of its population as second class citizens while favoring others is not really a democracy as in a democracy, ALL have an equal share in government- but I won't. As to our regional interests and how to further/protect them....well this is entirely a subjective evaluation and and it's pointless to go into the many reasons why support for Israel worls against our interests. First, Hamas has said that they will accept an Israel based on the INTERNATIONALLY recognized borders of 67. This is an amazing concession as the only territory they may morally claim does not include Jerusalem. They only have RIGHTS to the land granted under the Partition Plan of 48. Hamas accepts 67 borders5 If we agree that the moral is the practical then if you steal somebody's land illegally then you give it back or pay them for it. Since they do not want money but what is rightfully theirs then the only moral option is clear. UN resolution 242 made it inadmissible to acquire territory by force so all land stolen is rightfull, legally Palestinian Occupied Territory(OPT). What you call "terror" is their moral right of self defense and the aggressor has forfeited ALL rights when he initiated force in the first place. This is basic Objectivism 101. Occupation is aggression. Theft of land is aggression. Colonialism(settlers) is aggression so what you call a "campaign of terror" makes no sense. If you invade and OCCUPY my home and me and my family retreat to the bedroom and use whatever means at your disposal to resist, can I really be said to be fighting dirty if I used unsavory methods? If you don't like my methods then get the hell out of my home and leave us alone! It's that simple. The rest of your response is superfluous speculation to defend the indefensible.

Then please point out to me what facts are relevant other than the initiation of force? If the aggressor does not assault his victim then there is no conflict to begin with? No?

What does this have to do with anything I have said? What does this have to do with me? The facts and issues speak for themselves.

Well, I just recently found out that there was a response to my post and I apologize for not coming back to finish the job. Well, where shall I begin? Since Capitalistswine has offered the most concise rebuttal, I will respond to his. While I could not find any specific quotes where Objectivist intelligentsia have advocated financial support for Israel, I have found something even better: ARI-"We hold that the state of Israel has a moral right to exist and to defend itself against attack — and that the United States should unequivocally support Israel." Unequivocal support...meaning no doubt or misunderstanding. Now, how in God's name could any country be worthy of such support when our interests are not the same? Actually, the opposite is more closer to the truth. Why should we risk our national self interest for a country who is basically a welfare recipient of taxpayers, who's policies are reviled the world over, and put us on a collision course with the Islamic world? Civilized by who's standards? Keep who in check? Israel's enemies are not America's enemies.Hizbollah, Hamas, and Iran are a threat to Israel not America and we needlessly make enemies when we support the ethnic cleansing of Jerusalem-a Muslim holy place.Why should we sacrifice ourselves when we receive no commensurate benefit? Why should we continue to spend our diplomatic capital in the UN when Israel has very little to offer in return? Is this not self-sacrifice? . Context-dropping ...when , where? What are you even talking about? Please explain how these are "arbitrary" rules of conduct against the initiation of force?: You cannot annex(steal, take) territory outside your sovereign borders with agreement of the country your are taking it from You cannot invade just anyone you feel like You cannot kill or target innocent civilians You cannot just hijack ships with state flags in waters that belong to no one You cannot use force indiscriminately, it should be proportionate to the offense. Especially when there are other means you can use (LIKE ENDING THE OCCUPATION) You cannot set up an apartheid system of government You cannot keep land acquired by war and armistice lines are not borders How odd that you seem to subscribe to anarchy among nations or the primitive idea that a national collective have no rights another collective is bound to respect.This is a very crude form of collectivism- where what is good or right is so because a state says so. Is there no moral law applicable to a collective of individuals or are they above morality? If the rule of law is necessary to place force under objective control then why does this not apply to nation states? The reason you can brush it so easily aside is that the US has been protecting your country from the wrath of world opinion for over 40 years with its veto power against Security Council Resolutions. If it wasn't for this, Israel would be crushed under sanctions and isolation and the vote in the General Assembly and Security Council , with DAMN NEAR THE WHOLE WORLD ON ONE SIDE and the US and Israel on the other , would ensure that justice, morality, and human decency would prevail. What kind of philosophical view is it that is inimical to the rule of law? And what kind of defense is "everyone else is doing it?".Let me guess, the people in these institutions are basically liberal pussies, with their talk of human rights,justice, activism against oppression, criticism of the killing of defenseless civilians etc....hell, you live in the real world right? Sometimes, these things are necessary huh? No, I chose my words carefully. There are several parallels, on several levels. I did not say they were the same but that there actions and methods of dealing with an unwanted population are similar.I realize you maybe trying to paint me with an extremist brush but there are FACTUAL similarities Consider: 1.They are/were both based on ethnic-superiority, the Master Race and the Chosen People 2.Both were Nationalist Socialist countries- Jewish nationalism and German nationalism 3.Both seek/sought to create a larger socialist state where their are "special rights" for the favored people. 4.The Nazi's sought to illegally create "lebensraum" or living room in Poland and Zionism seeks to illegally expand into Palestine 5. Both created ghettos or concentration camps for their unwanted populations -Gaza vs Poland 6.Both relentlessly invaded, attacked and occupied their neighbors 7. Both use(d) self defense as a justification for attacking their neighbors but it was the Nazis that created this defense at Nuremberg I realize the historical connection and its sensitivity but a fact is a fact. I am not saying Zionism is Nazism but still .... Then maybe you should start with Zionism- which is basically Jewish nationallism. Your comments fit nicely, does this include your beloved Israel as well? . Is the whole world out to get Israel? Surely not the US congress too? There is not one politician of repute who would use this commission for political games. I believe they gave an honest assessment of the cause and you, as a supporter (and probably citizen)of Israel , are probably biased. I have watched Bin Laden and the plight of the Palestinians was his mantra.