Reply #31: There are various legal arguments to support either side.

[Shaktimaan]

At any rate there doesn't exist a court with the jurisdiction to make an official ruling on the question, so the point is academic. As you stated there isn't a state on that land, it does not officially belong to anyone at this point. That does not mean that the land automatically reverts solely to the Palestinians. Israel considers the land disputed, not necessarily occupied. There is no legal precedent to consider Palestinian Arabs the rightful owners at the exclusion of Jews.

It is not just Israel who only complies with International Law or UN decisions when it is in their interests. It is every state, without exception. Just as might does not indicate right, neither does the law, necessarily. Or the UN. "Right" is a very subjective term. My point is that if you focus exclusively on what the Palestinians want without taking Israel's position into consideration then you won't get very far at all. No nation would be excited to put themselves at risk out of concern for their enemy's needs. Unless the peace process also works for Israel then it will break down every time.

If i punched somebody and put my heel on that person's throat, would i be justified in keeping it there until that person promised not to retaliate?

Well, I would say that the answer would depend entirely on why you punched them in the first place. Just because you were able to punch them and immobilize them it does not necessarily mean that you are in the wrong.

You talk of perceptions among the palestinians and the israelis. The reality is that Israel has just slaughtered hundreds of palestinians after deliberately provoking a fight that had been planned for months with Hamas. To add grevious injury to insult, this was done *after* Israel "put the palestinians on a diet" with a blockade that punished an entire 1.5m population for voting the wrong way.

Does that make the Israeli perception in any way invalid. Consider the situation immediately following Israel's 2005 withdrawal, when the rocket fire began in earnest. All of the serious criticisms against Israeli policies towards Gaza are in reference to actions taken in response to the rocket fire. So Israeli concessions have always resulted in more terrorism and less security for Israel. Considering that, are you surprised that the peace process has continually broken down? The point I made before applies... if it hurts Israel more than it helps for them to make concessions to the Palestinians then what is their motivation for doing so supposed to be?

Israel did not take any actions because of how the Palestinians voted. The Palestinians of the WB voted in Hamas as well. It was Hamas' actions that caused the Israeli response. Not the election results.

Now why would you call the Gazans "non-quislings?" Does that mean that to refrain from terrorism or to try and work with the Israelis is somehow a betrayal of the Palestinian cause? Things have been improving in the West Bank... does that mean that the people there have sold out somehow?

The palestinians do have rights. And they have obligations. but to expect a people under a brutal military occupation to observe their obligations without any of the rights that come in tandem is a specious, tendentious argument.

Well, at what point do the Palestinians become responsible? The Palestinians have only one real obligation, which is to avoid attacking Israel. It is easy to provide excuses for why they have been unable to focus on building their state instead of fighting Israel but ultimately they won't do the Palestinians any good. Nothing Israel did in 2005 should have prevented Gaza from success. But Israel can not hand the Palestinians a successful state, all they can do is provide them with the opportunity for one. At any point, even now, they can stop focusing on trying to exact revenge upon Israel and instead focus on themselves. You can assume that Israel would prevent them in some way but there's not really any way to know for sure because they have yet to try it. Israel managed to build a very successful state under worse conditions and with far longer odds against them. Many other states have as well.

As for the question I think you were trying to ask, how do we make Israel comply with international law and norms of behaviour? I honestly don't know but i don't buy Israeli goods if i come across them. It's a small step, but it is a start.

That wasn't really my question. I don't think that Israel is acting outside of what's considered normal behavior. You seem to think that if Israel only took certain actions then the possibility for peace would present itself. Honestly, there isn't any nation that would just resolve itself to accept a problem like the terrorism that Israel has consistently been the target of. At what point does Israel have the right to take action, if ever, in your opinion? Surely you don't think that Hamas and IJ's actions are dependent on the occupation for a motive? Terrorism existed before the occupation... but then every action that Israel takes to defend itself becomes the newest excuse for terrorism. If all you have is a hammer then every problem looks like a nail, I suppose.