This is bullshit of the purest ray serene—and it’s also beside the point. What counts is not the right to defend one’s self but the ability to do so. The founders of Israel grasped this distinction, which is a core principle of Zionism. One could say, indeed, that antisemites contributed to the foundation of Israel by reminding the Jews that on the bottom line, they can rely on no one but themselves.
Well, you know, I said what I said, which was clear enough, as is typical of everything that I say. So perhaps the failure of comprehension is down to you.
Why does the US need to give billions in handouts every year if Israel has the “ability” to defend itself as you are saying here? Let the American people have the money for themselves to solve their own problems then. No wonder the average person in America is worse off and scraping barrel with the war mongering uni-party system it has.
You are mistaken in thinking that you can explain anything to an uneducated boy who writes stupid essays in a fit of socialist narcissism.
He does this for self-affirmation, using propaganda techniques known from the times of Nazi and Soviet newspapers, and not in order to listen to another point of view or analyze the facts.
The majority of us are occupying what is now called the United States and Canada, also Northern Ireland and Scotland, etc. Interesting and important to really think about.
It's an interesting concept that an occupier cannot war against the occupied. But where has the US and Israel or even their other allies ever agreed to such a concept? Just because the UN pronounces something - with the intent of requesting that it be discussed as in the case of its proclamation. - does not make it the rule of law for its individual members. Nor does a report written at the behest of the UN hold legal bound over UN members. I'm not suggesting the zionist dictatorship some call Israel is in the "right" when it comes to all its actions against the occupied territories, but in lieu of a UN peqce keeping force in those territories, I believe Israel will do what it wants to do and execute a strong propaganda effort to support it. The bottom line is that the western world has not risen to substantially defend the rights of those in the occupied territories, so all the proclamations amount to little but tragic virtue signaling.
You're right. International law is plagued by anarchy — there's no overarching force that can impose its will. Personally, I think it's time we start thinking on a more global level and devise ways to enforce humanitarian law.
Palestinians don’t believe Israel is illegally occupying “West Bank” and “Gaza.” They believe Israel is immorally occupying the whole of Palestine. An important distinction.
It doesn't matter what they believe. The UN has been very clear — Palestinian resistance is legal and a human right. You can claim "they believe X, Y, and Z," but all of that is irrelevant.
I know but my point is relevant because it precludes Israeli withdrawal from West Bank and Gaza. As Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza in 2005 showed, a Palestinian state in the 1967 territories would be a revanchist state, focused on positioning itself to gain the territory that it really wants. Palestinians have made it very clear that all migration of Jews to Palestine after 1880 is illegitimate. Today, some of them would be fine if Israeli Jews and their wealth stuck around, as long as they are willing to live under Arab majority rule. Others want them to go back to from where they came. Palestinian right to self-determination is contingent on their acceptance of similar Israeli right. Those are the facts of life when you start a war and lose.
No, it's not relevant. You don't get to break the law the because you think other people will break it if given the opportunity. What you're articulating is preemptive war — "We have to occupy/attack X country because otherwise they'll do it to us!"
This has repeatedly been upheld as a war crime (see the Iraq War).
No, it is relevant. Knowing the intentions of an adversarial group is super important to how you respond to that groups actions. If I am slapped in the face by my friend because I lost a bet, I will have a different reaction than if I am slapped because they want to beat me up. If the Palestinians only wanted to decolonize the west bank, Israel should have a very different reaction to that compared to the current situation in which the intention is to get rid of Israel. And calling something a war crime doesn’t actually mean anything. Laws can be wrong. I totally believe Israel has overreacted and is doing terrible things. That being said, I don’t buy this analysis.
"Laws can be wrong" is nonsensical, considering we're talking about the UN. Israel is a UN member and has voluntarily joined, subjecting themselves to UN regulations.
That's an insane thing to say with regards to illegal occupations.
Describing laws is a descriptive, not normative statement. It doesn’t actually tell me if something is wrong. I consent to be a U.S citizen, yet I don’t agree all of the laws are moral. But that wasn’t the main point I was making anyways.
I'm of the opinion that, barring compliance with US demands for radical change in Israeli domestic policy, regime change, by any necessary means, should be implemented. I couldn't care less about Biden's reelection, but this might be a path forward for our nation.
I'm amazed at how Biden is willing to decrease his chances of winning the election simply to support Israel. His polling on the matter falls daily, and he's steadfast in his commitment. It's like a suicide pact.
I think this is a well written article and you make some strong arguments and good points. I'll offer some thoughts; ou seem to make two separate arguments., with the first argument being a general one:
1. If a nation starts a confrontation then it has no right to claim self defense.
2. Israel started this confrontation, because "According to the United Nations, Israel has been illegally occupying the West Bank and Gaza since the 1967 Six-Day War." [QUOTE]
3. "Therefore, Israel has no right to claim “self-defense” in a confrontation it started" [QUOTE]
The second argument you make, on the other hand, is more specific:
1. The UN has ruled that occupied people have a right to fight their occupiers.
2. Israel is the occupier of Palestine.
3. Therefore, the Palestinians have a right to fight Israel.
_____________________________
I am not sure how persuasive these arguments will be to those who do not accept the same starting premises that you do. For the first argument, I imagine that responses would vary widely. Here are two I can see:
"Starting a conflict" is a vaguely defined term. China sent a spy balloon over the United States recently. If the United States retaliated by firebombing a city, then the Chinese government would likely retaliate in "self-defense." I don't think you could really claim that the Chinese government thereafter forever gave up its right to any sort of self defense whatsoever because "it started it."
I also imagine that people would disagree that Israel "started the conflict" in the first place. That is, premise 2 of you first argument is not necessarily convincing, the UN is not a perfect body which omniscientally knows and declares "who started a conflict."
This leads into the critique of the second argument you offer; why should anybody care about UN law? Morality is different than legality. Laws are still worth caring about from a practical standpoint though when there is an agency which will enforce them. But the UN neither has omniscient moral judgements nor any real legal power - so again, so what? I think the people who believe that Israel has a right to defend itself already know and don't care about what the UN has to say, and so I am not sure how useful this argument is.
As per the "who cares about the UN," argument, I think you make good points but are missing one point. International law is plagued by anarchy — there's no body to enforce it, unlike domestic laws which can be enforced by a government. However, ISRAEL is a willing participant in the UN. They have repeated affirmed it is the over-arching international body, including by Israel's formation, which came from a UN decree.
The same can be said about the US. Biden constantly talks about the "rules based international order," but throws it out the window when it comes to hold our allies to account.
I hear your thoughts on "who started a conflict" can be a cyclical finger-pointing contest, but I don't think it applies here. After all, Israel is STILL occupying the Palestinian territories. To use the China spy balloon metaphor, I think a better one would be if China invaded California. The source is still currently present and provides a lasting impact, as opposed to a one-off incident such as a spy balloon. Because the inciting event is still ongoing, I find that a conclusive reason to say Israel started this.
Suppose the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour had been detected. USA would have had a right to self-defence. BUT. What is done in self defence has to be proportionate. Israel has acted disproportionately and. In doing so, is supported by USA and UK and others. A truly appalling situation.
That's not an accurate comparison, though. In the Pearl Harbor situation, Japan was the aggressive party. The US had a right to defend itself against this aggression. In Israel-Palestine, Israel is the aggressive party, ala Japan.
SD Butler, Joe, Eomar and all the Jew/Israel haters on this thread: just wait until January 20, 2025 when one of President Trump’s first official orders will be to green light Israel to rid the Middle East of Hamas, Gaza and “Palestine”
The Jordanians, Saudi’s and Egyptians will be cheering. Of course the Queers for Palestine will be melting down, but I digress…
This is bullshit of the purest ray serene—and it’s also beside the point. What counts is not the right to defend one’s self but the ability to do so. The founders of Israel grasped this distinction, which is a core principle of Zionism. One could say, indeed, that antisemites contributed to the foundation of Israel by reminding the Jews that on the bottom line, they can rely on no one but themselves.
Are you saying it's not about who has "the right to self defense," but who is able to conquer the other party? Am I understanding that correctly?
Well, you know, I said what I said, which was clear enough, as is typical of everything that I say. So perhaps the failure of comprehension is down to you.
Enlighten me
Enlighten yourself—if, though I doubt, that's possible.
👍🏻
Why does the US need to give billions in handouts every year if Israel has the “ability” to defend itself as you are saying here? Let the American people have the money for themselves to solve their own problems then. No wonder the average person in America is worse off and scraping barrel with the war mongering uni-party system it has.
You are mistaken in thinking that you can explain anything to an uneducated boy who writes stupid essays in a fit of socialist narcissism.
He does this for self-affirmation, using propaganda techniques known from the times of Nazi and Soviet newspapers, and not in order to listen to another point of view or analyze the facts.
Damn, you got me!
Great article. Thank you Joe!
The majority of us are occupying what is now called the United States and Canada, also Northern Ireland and Scotland, etc. Interesting and important to really think about.
Your analysis of the Big Lie around Israel's "right to defend itself" is superb. Thank you.
Thanks Rybin! I appreciate your kind words.
The "illusory truth effect" is a really great way to lead into this analysis
Thanks! I think it helps explain the long-running tactic of "Israel has a right to defend itself" and why politicians cling to it.
❤️
https://open.substack.com/pub/eomar/p/zionism-an-obstacle-to-peace?r=b9f3l&utm_medium=ios
Nice work! I just subscribed.
No it does not
✊🏻
It's an interesting concept that an occupier cannot war against the occupied. But where has the US and Israel or even their other allies ever agreed to such a concept? Just because the UN pronounces something - with the intent of requesting that it be discussed as in the case of its proclamation. - does not make it the rule of law for its individual members. Nor does a report written at the behest of the UN hold legal bound over UN members. I'm not suggesting the zionist dictatorship some call Israel is in the "right" when it comes to all its actions against the occupied territories, but in lieu of a UN peqce keeping force in those territories, I believe Israel will do what it wants to do and execute a strong propaganda effort to support it. The bottom line is that the western world has not risen to substantially defend the rights of those in the occupied territories, so all the proclamations amount to little but tragic virtue signaling.
You're right. International law is plagued by anarchy — there's no overarching force that can impose its will. Personally, I think it's time we start thinking on a more global level and devise ways to enforce humanitarian law.
Palestinians don’t believe Israel is illegally occupying “West Bank” and “Gaza.” They believe Israel is immorally occupying the whole of Palestine. An important distinction.
It doesn't matter what they believe. The UN has been very clear — Palestinian resistance is legal and a human right. You can claim "they believe X, Y, and Z," but all of that is irrelevant.
I know but my point is relevant because it precludes Israeli withdrawal from West Bank and Gaza. As Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza in 2005 showed, a Palestinian state in the 1967 territories would be a revanchist state, focused on positioning itself to gain the territory that it really wants. Palestinians have made it very clear that all migration of Jews to Palestine after 1880 is illegitimate. Today, some of them would be fine if Israeli Jews and their wealth stuck around, as long as they are willing to live under Arab majority rule. Others want them to go back to from where they came. Palestinian right to self-determination is contingent on their acceptance of similar Israeli right. Those are the facts of life when you start a war and lose.
No, it's not relevant. You don't get to break the law the because you think other people will break it if given the opportunity. What you're articulating is preemptive war — "We have to occupy/attack X country because otherwise they'll do it to us!"
This has repeatedly been upheld as a war crime (see the Iraq War).
No, it is relevant. Knowing the intentions of an adversarial group is super important to how you respond to that groups actions. If I am slapped in the face by my friend because I lost a bet, I will have a different reaction than if I am slapped because they want to beat me up. If the Palestinians only wanted to decolonize the west bank, Israel should have a very different reaction to that compared to the current situation in which the intention is to get rid of Israel. And calling something a war crime doesn’t actually mean anything. Laws can be wrong. I totally believe Israel has overreacted and is doing terrible things. That being said, I don’t buy this analysis.
"Laws can be wrong" is nonsensical, considering we're talking about the UN. Israel is a UN member and has voluntarily joined, subjecting themselves to UN regulations.
That's an insane thing to say with regards to illegal occupations.
Describing laws is a descriptive, not normative statement. It doesn’t actually tell me if something is wrong. I consent to be a U.S citizen, yet I don’t agree all of the laws are moral. But that wasn’t the main point I was making anyways.
I'm of the opinion that, barring compliance with US demands for radical change in Israeli domestic policy, regime change, by any necessary means, should be implemented. I couldn't care less about Biden's reelection, but this might be a path forward for our nation.
Israel is a cancerous tumor on the body politic of the US and should be recognized and excised as such.
I'm amazed at how Biden is willing to decrease his chances of winning the election simply to support Israel. His polling on the matter falls daily, and he's steadfast in his commitment. It's like a suicide pact.
Yes he should be on side of Jihad right?
Hi Joe,
I think this is a well written article and you make some strong arguments and good points. I'll offer some thoughts; ou seem to make two separate arguments., with the first argument being a general one:
1. If a nation starts a confrontation then it has no right to claim self defense.
2. Israel started this confrontation, because "According to the United Nations, Israel has been illegally occupying the West Bank and Gaza since the 1967 Six-Day War." [QUOTE]
3. "Therefore, Israel has no right to claim “self-defense” in a confrontation it started" [QUOTE]
The second argument you make, on the other hand, is more specific:
1. The UN has ruled that occupied people have a right to fight their occupiers.
2. Israel is the occupier of Palestine.
3. Therefore, the Palestinians have a right to fight Israel.
_____________________________
I am not sure how persuasive these arguments will be to those who do not accept the same starting premises that you do. For the first argument, I imagine that responses would vary widely. Here are two I can see:
"Starting a conflict" is a vaguely defined term. China sent a spy balloon over the United States recently. If the United States retaliated by firebombing a city, then the Chinese government would likely retaliate in "self-defense." I don't think you could really claim that the Chinese government thereafter forever gave up its right to any sort of self defense whatsoever because "it started it."
I also imagine that people would disagree that Israel "started the conflict" in the first place. That is, premise 2 of you first argument is not necessarily convincing, the UN is not a perfect body which omniscientally knows and declares "who started a conflict."
This leads into the critique of the second argument you offer; why should anybody care about UN law? Morality is different than legality. Laws are still worth caring about from a practical standpoint though when there is an agency which will enforce them. But the UN neither has omniscient moral judgements nor any real legal power - so again, so what? I think the people who believe that Israel has a right to defend itself already know and don't care about what the UN has to say, and so I am not sure how useful this argument is.
All the best.
As per the "who cares about the UN," argument, I think you make good points but are missing one point. International law is plagued by anarchy — there's no body to enforce it, unlike domestic laws which can be enforced by a government. However, ISRAEL is a willing participant in the UN. They have repeated affirmed it is the over-arching international body, including by Israel's formation, which came from a UN decree.
The same can be said about the US. Biden constantly talks about the "rules based international order," but throws it out the window when it comes to hold our allies to account.
I hear your thoughts on "who started a conflict" can be a cyclical finger-pointing contest, but I don't think it applies here. After all, Israel is STILL occupying the Palestinian territories. To use the China spy balloon metaphor, I think a better one would be if China invaded California. The source is still currently present and provides a lasting impact, as opposed to a one-off incident such as a spy balloon. Because the inciting event is still ongoing, I find that a conclusive reason to say Israel started this.
Suppose the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour had been detected. USA would have had a right to self-defence. BUT. What is done in self defence has to be proportionate. Israel has acted disproportionately and. In doing so, is supported by USA and UK and others. A truly appalling situation.
That's not an accurate comparison, though. In the Pearl Harbor situation, Japan was the aggressive party. The US had a right to defend itself against this aggression. In Israel-Palestine, Israel is the aggressive party, ala Japan.
SD Butler, Joe, Eomar and all the Jew/Israel haters on this thread: just wait until January 20, 2025 when one of President Trump’s first official orders will be to green light Israel to rid the Middle East of Hamas, Gaza and “Palestine”
The Jordanians, Saudi’s and Egyptians will be cheering. Of course the Queers for Palestine will be melting down, but I digress…
I'm glad you enjoyed it!