Israel and Palestine Conflict Heats Up

[Easo]

But wait, there is even more:

Israel investigating shooting of Palestinian boy in West Bank

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-58010712

Sadly, I have seen way too many videos, not only from Israel/Palestine but also from elsewhere in the world, about attempting to drive through checkpoint while ordered to stop, for whatever the reason.

P.S.
Hamas answer about rockets is truly funny.

[tehdang]

But wait, there is even more:


https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-58010712

Sadly, I have seen way too many videos, not only from Israel/Palestine but also from elsewhere in the world, about attempting to drive through checkpoint while ordered to stop, for whatever the reason.

P.S.
Hamas answer about rockets is truly funny.

I hope for their sake that they have video of the alleged activity.

When the car did not stop, one of the soldiers fired at its wheels, it said.

Mohammed al-Alami's family said he was shot in the chest. He was taken to a hospital in the nearby city of Hebron but died of his wounds.

Obviously, an investigation is needed when the reports diverge this much.

[Easo]

So regarding that eviction case which was used as a pretext for protests and rocket launches afterwards - Israeli Supreme Court has proposed a compromise - no one get's evicted and can keep living there, but they recognise the land as belonging to Jewish organisation.

Under the court's plan, the Palestinians - among more than 70 families threatened with eviction - would remain as "protected tenants" who cannot be evicted for the foreseeable future so long as they pay rent to the Jewish organisation which owns the land - a status quo which existed up until the 1980s.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-58024060

Let's hope that reason prevails.

[Endus]

So regarding that eviction case which was used as a pretext for protests and rocket launches afterwards - Israeli Supreme Court has proposed a compromise - no one get's evicted and can keep living there, but they recognise the land as belonging to Jewish organisation.



https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-58024060

Let's hope that reason prevails.

Given that the Turkish documents about the actual land ownership demonstrate it was never owned by the Jewish landlords that Israel claims, and that said evidence was barred from the Israeli courts, this is just extortion, using the threat of forced evictions to make the Palestinians living there pay what's essentially protection money.

There's no way to accept the Israeli courts' decisions, as they are anything but an unbiased source.

[jonnysensible]

So regarding that eviction case which was used as a pretext for protests and rocket launches afterwards - Israeli Supreme Court has proposed a compromise - no one get's evicted and can keep living there, but they recognise the land as belonging to Jewish organisation.



https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-58024060

Let's hope that reason prevails.

whats the point in having a court if they aren't going to rule on the case? Completely evading its duty. Either the Palestinians have the right to the property or the settlers do.

[tehdang]

So regarding that eviction case which was used as a pretext for protests and rocket launches afterwards - Israeli Supreme Court has proposed a compromise - no one get's evicted and can keep living there, but they recognise the land as belonging to Jewish organisation.



https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-58024060

Let's hope that reason prevails.

Something tells me there’s going to be extreme pressure from Palestinian activist groups for them to refuse to pay rent to Jewish landlords.

[Easo]

Given that the Turkish documents about the actual land ownership demonstrate it was never owned by the Jewish landlords that Israel claims, and that said evidence was barred from the Israeli courts, this is just extortion, using the threat of forced evictions to make the Palestinians living there pay what's essentially protection money.

There's no way to accept the Israeli courts' decisions, as they are anything but an unbiased source.

Or... The courts actually made an unbiased ruling...? You argue from the position where Arabs were always right. This is not exactly the region with the best documentation about, well, everything. People do live in houses across the world without any kind of proof they actually own them, even if they actually do, just lack papers. Not exactly unique to Palestine.

whats the point in having a court if they aren't going to rule on the case? Completely evading its duty. Either the Palestinians have the right to the property or the settlers do.

Simplest answer? There might not be enough evidence by both sides.

Something tells me there’s going to be extreme pressure from Palestinian activist groups for them to refuse to pay rent to Jewish landlords.

I would love to answer this, but I will refrain from it.

[Endus]

Or... The courts actually made an unbiased ruling...? You argue from the position where Arabs were always right.

Where did I ever make such a claim? I've condemned actions by Arabs plenty. You're deflecting.

This is not exactly the region with the best documentation about, well, everything. People do live in houses across the world without any kind of proof they actually own them, even if they actually do, just lack papers. Not exactly unique to Palestine.

That's kind of a shitty argument if you're claiming that Israeli citizens own properties outside of Israel and thus can evict the Palestinians living there.

Unless they've got solid documentation, and I have not seen any argument that they do, the courts shouldn't have any opinion. Worse, the Israeli court shouldn't even have jurisdiction.

Simplest answer? There might not be enough evidence by both sides.

If that were the case, the Court would be ethically obliged to not decide in favor of either side.

That is not what happened.

[tehdang]

I would love to answer this, but I will refrain from it.

It’s fine, I’m speculating about the future anyways. The real eviction part of the dispute never was the major constituting element. Legitimate Jewish land claims of any kind always was. And this recognizes them in some respect, whether or not it’s enough of a recognition to start a riot on the Temple Mount or fire rockets from Gaza or anything.

But whatever. Wait and see.

[Easo]

I guess we will see in a week.

Where did I ever make such a claim? I've condemned actions by Arabs plenty. You're deflecting.



That's kind of a shitty argument if you're claiming that Israeli citizens own properties outside of Israel and thus can evict the Palestinians living there.

Unless they've got solid documentation, and I have not seen any argument that they do, the courts shouldn't have any opinion. Worse, the Israeli court shouldn't even have jurisdiction.



If that were the case, the Court would be ethically obliged to not decide in favor of either side.

That is not what happened.

You started by automatically blaming Israeli court. It implies that you took their side.

Who the hell cares what YOU have or have not seen? You are no one and nobody, just an anonimus on a game forum, like we all are. Do you have access to court materials? You do not, therefore you guess by what is basically press releases.

Again, you do not know anything as you were not in court room. I also assume that you do not read Arabic and/or Ivrit, so documents would be pointless anyway.

[Endus]

You started by automatically blaming Israeli court. It implies that you took their side.

I took the side of the residents in this particular instance.

That's not the same as "arguing from the position that Arabs are always right".

There was no "automatic blaming". That's prejudicial horseshit you're imputing because you need to make this about my personal character, not the facts, for some reason.

[ati87]

So regarding that eviction case which was used as a pretext for protests and rocket launches afterwards - Israeli Supreme Court has proposed a compromise - no one get's evicted and can keep living there, but they recognise the land as belonging to Jewish organisation.



https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-58024060

Let's hope that reason prevails.

Didn't even read the article at first but I can tell even without reading that this isn't a compromise and that the Palestinians would reject this.
First "belongs to Jewish organisations" really does show that the law itself was a racist law to begin with.

There was a story in the Guardian a couple of days ago how Poland is not given back properties that where stolen by the Nazi's during the occupation. Honestly though it's hard to find feel sorry for the decedents of those that got wronged (to put it mildly) if you are doing the exact same thing or benefited from this exact behaviour.

[JohnBrown1917]

This whole home ownership is bullshit anyway, because we A) know it only runs one way, Palestinians that own homes in Israel are not allowed to return. B) East-Jerusalem is occupied by Israel and its now enforcing its will, this just glorified theft by Israeli home-corporations on private citizens.

[Endus]

This whole home ownership is bullshit anyway, because we A) know it only runs one way, Palestinians that own homes in Israel are not allowed to return. B) East-Jerusalem is occupied by Israel and its now enforcing its will, this just glorified theft by Israeli home-corporations on private citizens.

That last bit is the real problem, in my eyes.

It isn't part of Israel. Why the hell do Israeli courts have any jurisdiction?

[Easo]

Palestinians decided against that compromise, as expected. This might end with them getting nothing, final ruling is yet to occur.

I took the side of the residents in this particular instance.

That's not the same as "arguing from the position that Arabs are always right".

There was no "automatic blaming". That's prejudicial horseshit you're imputing because you need to make this about my personal character, not the facts, for some reason.

You went with blah blah Israeli courts bad/biased, so maybe try to be less prejudiced yourself. You seem quite defensive...

Didn't even read the article at first but I can tell even without reading that this isn't a compromise and that the Palestinians would reject this.
First "belongs to Jewish organisations" really does show that the law itself was a racist law to begin with.

There was a story in the Guardian a couple of days ago how Poland is not given back properties that where stolen by the Nazi's during the occupation. Honestly though it's hard to find feel sorry for the decedents of those that got wronged (to put it mildly) if you are doing the exact same thing or benefited from this exact behaviour.

Ah yes, it's gotta be racism!!11
*eyeroll*

That last bit is the real problem, in my eyes.

It isn't part of Israel. Why the hell do Israeli courts have any jurisdiction?

1. Because it is disputed territory in their eyes.
2. Since you were one of those arguing that Israel as occupiers are responsible for vaccination of Palestinians (IIRC), then you should have no reason to dislike that they also hold the judiciary power. No choosing specific things...

[JohnBrown1917]

1. Because it is disputed territory in their eyes.

Irrelevant.

2. Since you were one of those arguing that Israel as occupiers are responsible for vaccination of Palestinians (IIRC), then you should have no reason to dislike that they also hold the judiciary power. No choosing specific things...

2 very different things, Israel is responsible for the needs of the people in territory they block off or occupy. Making it even worse by just taking shit is not exactly a point.

But hey, if Israel pulls back from the west bank/east Jerusalem and stops any blockade they have in place they won't have to worry about such pesky things.

[Endus]

You went with blah blah Israeli courts bad/biased, so maybe try to be less prejudiced yourself. You seem quite defensive...

What "prejudice"?

I'm not "defensive". You're being slanderous and abusive and I'm choosing to not fire back in kind.

1. Because it is disputed territory in their eyes.

They don't get to make that determination. In fact, claiming it as Israeli territory would be a war crime.

2. Since you were one of those arguing that Israel as occupiers are responsible for vaccination of Palestinians (IIRC), then you should have no reason to dislike that they also hold the judiciary power. No choosing specific things...

Feel free to quote me on that. I'm pretty sure I expressed no such opinion. I believe the only thing I might have said regarding vaccines was that Israel should not be blocking vaccines from going to Palestine. Which, y'know; https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...y-palestinians

[ati87]

Palestinians decided against that compromise, as expected. This might end with them getting nothing, final ruling is yet to occur.

This isn't a compromise.....losing your home on paper still means you lost your home.

Ah yes, it's gotta be racism!!11
*eyeroll*

I suggest glasses, I used to do this as well when I was 11 and I needed glasses.

But lets reverse this. Can any Palestinians go to a Jewish Israeli owned property, show proof that the land of which that house is build was previously owned by them or there family and take ownership?

[Elegiac]

"Might makes right" is not a concept that you just get to ignore simply because you find it unjust or irrational.

Actually, ignoring that very concept is pretty much the basis for pretty much any legal framework.

But good on you for admitting that Israel has no legal justification for what it's doing and that it's purely an exercise in colonialism. :thumbsup:

[Elegiac]

The very opposite of what you claimed is true when that might is enforced by a state with an army.

Which they are not at liberty to use at whim because the social contract goes both ways, thus not in fact making it "might makes right". Please go re-read your Rousseau, and your Weber to boot.