Ex-Shin Bet chief calls for segregated Palestinian roads

Watch
Illiberal Liberal
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#1
Ex-Shin Bet chief calls for West Bank road segregation

Israeli lawmaker and former Shin Bet chief on Sunday called for the segregation of West Bank roads to stop the wave of vehicular terror attacks.

Likud MK Avi Dichter said that separating Israeli and Palestinian drivers on West Bank highways was an inevitable move.“This is a significant issue, not only politically, but operationally.

Ultimately, we must move towards separation,” he said in a morning interview with Galey Israel, a regional West Bank radio station.

“The policy allowing for dual-access roads, as if it was one country — like being able to travel between Israel and Nablus [in the West Bank] with your car is a very problematic reality,” Dichter continued.

Source: http://www.timesofisrael.com/ex-shin-bet-chief-calls-for-west-bank-road-segregation/

Israel are really earning their annual $3 billion of military aid from the U.S.
0
reply
LockheedSpooky
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#2
Report 5 years ago
#2
Well, we know how the UK deals with things when there are two warring peoples.


Image



But what do the British call this? the APARTHEID wall??


Oh no, they've branded it as the PEACE wall :lol:
0
reply
Illiberal Liberal
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#3
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#3
(Original post by LockheedSpooky)
But what do the British call this? the APARTHEID wall??

Oh no, they've branded it as the PEACE wall :lol:
Not remotely comparable scenarios.

Not to mention I don't remember defending the 'Peace wall'.
0
reply
LockheedSpooky
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#4
Report 5 years ago
#4
(Original post by Law-Hopeful)
Not remotely comparable scenarios.

Not to mention I don't remember defending the 'Peace wall'.
Oh, it's very comparable.

We have Catholic and Protestant communities kept apart by a wall. Many of the schools are all Catholic and all Protestant.

This all takes place in the same country.


In Israel, it's between a state and disputed land. So in THAT regard it's not comparable, it's actually more understandable there than here.

Anyway, this doesn't appear to be official policy - just one person giving his opinion. It would only happen in the areas of Israeli control and not the autonomous 'palestinian' areas
0
reply
Illiberal Liberal
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#5
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#5
(Original post by LockheedSpooky)
In Israel, it's between a state and disputed land. So in THAT regard it's not comparable, it's actually more understandable there than here.
The West Bank is 'disputed land'? Disputed by whom, exactly? The UNSC? The ICJ? The Supreme Court of Israel?

It would only happen in the areas of Israeli control and not the autonomous 'palestinian' areas
I think the problem is that some 'areas of Israeli control' no other country on Earth recognises as legitimately belonging to Israel.
0
reply
LockheedSpooky
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#6
Report 5 years ago
#6
(Original post by Law-Hopeful)
The West Bank is 'disputed land'? Disputed by whom, exactly? The UNSC? The ICJ? The Supreme Court of Israel?


I think the problem is that some 'areas of Israeli control' no other country on Earth recognises as legitimately belonging to Israel.
Under the control of does not necessarily denote ownership. For example, the UK as part of NATO has been occupying Afghanistan for 14 years.


This is where you and I differ.

You see there is a clear legal definition for occupation. Occupation of land can only be classed as occupied if it was seized from a recognised sovereign state. Since 'palestine' has never been a state and since the land was captured from countries whose mandate over the territories was not recognised, the land is therefore disputed.

This is what international law states.


Now what happened was that mainly in the 70's (but it carries on till today) the Arab lobby used its oil power to ram through resolutions at the UN which basically meant that rules and laws were applied differently only to the state of Israel.

Now what we have are scores of (non-binding) resolutions against Israel because of the automatic majority the Islamic bloc and their allies enjoy at the UN.

So I discount the UN and these international bodies because the system is fixed and actually contradicts international law.
0
reply
Errm2
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#7
Report 5 years ago
#7
(Original post by LockheedSpooky)
Under the control of does not necessarily denote ownership. For example, the UK as part of NATO has been occupying Afghanistan for 14 years.


This is where you and I differ.

You see there is a clear legal definition for occupation. Occupation of land can only be classed as occupied if it was seized from a recognised sovereign state. Since 'palestine' has never been a state and since the land was captured from countries whose mandate over the territories was not recognised, the land is therefore disputed.

This is what international law states.


Now what happened was that mainly in the 70's (but it carries on till today) the Arab lobby used its oil power to ram through resolutions at the UN which basically meant that rules and laws were applied differently only to the state of Israel.

Now what we have are scores of (non-binding) resolutions against Israel because of the automatic majority the Islamic bloc and their allies enjoy at the UN.

So I discount the UN and these international bodies because the system is fixed and actually contradicts international law.
If you don't recognise those bodies, then the State of Israel does not exist as an entity.


Thank you for clarifying that you do not believe the State of Israel should exist...
1
reply
AverageExcellence
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#8
Report 5 years ago
#8
(Original post by LockheedSpooky)
Well, we know how the UK deals with things when there are two warring peoples.


Image



But what do the British call this? the APARTHEID wall??


Oh no, they've branded it as the PEACE wall :lol:
very ignorant comparison, it has nothing to do with apartheid but when you have people throwing molotov cocktails, rocks and bricks over your wall into your garden then we'll see.. it has nothing to do with separating actual populations completely apart.
0
reply
LockheedSpooky
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#9
Report 5 years ago
#9
(Original post by AverageExcellence)
very ignorant comparison, it has nothing to do with apartheid but when you have people throwing molotov cocktails, rocks and bricks over your wall into your garden then we'll see.. it has nothing to do with separating actual populations completely apart.
Um, right.

And what do you think the barrier in Israel is there for? exactly the same thing, although I would add suicide bombing to the list.


The point is, this wall is termed a "peace wall" and deemed necessary to separate two communities.

Where British and European commentators fall down, is labelling the exact same barrier "apartheid" when Israel does it.

I believe the term 'hypocrisy' is apt in that case.
0
reply
Rat_Bag
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#10
Report 5 years ago
#10
(Original post by LockheedSpooky)
You see there is a clear legal definition for occupation. Occupation of land can only be classed as occupied if it was seized from a recognised sovereign state. Since 'palestine' has never been a state and since the land was captured from countries whose mandate over the territories was not recognised, the land is therefore disputed.
There is something inconsistent in what you're writing here.

You say that occupation of land can only be class as occupied is seized from a recognised sovereign state. Jordan's occupation of the West Bank would satisfy this.

Then you say that the land seized must be land whose mandate to own it (at state level) is recognised. Did Jordan's occupation of the West Bank satisfy this?

Hypothetically, if Arab armies were to seize West Jerusalem tomorrow, would that become occupied land, or disputed land?

Additionally, does resolution 181 in 1947 not create the recognition of both a Palestinian and Israeli state?
0
reply
Illiberal Liberal
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#11
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#11
(Original post by LockheedSpooky)
You see there is a clear legal definition for occupation. Occupation of land can only be classed as occupied if it was seized from a recognised sovereign state. Since 'palestine' has never been a state and since the land was captured from countries whose mandate over the territories was not recognised, the land is therefore disputed.
Palestine is recognised as a state by 70% of the constituent states of the UN. (Israel is recognised by 83%.)

Speaking of recognition, could you list the countries that have recognised Israel's annexation of East Jerusalem? Can you name one?

This is what international law states.
The ICJ disagree.

So I discount the UN and these international bodies because the system is fixed and actually contradicts international law.
I'm not sure what "automatic majority" the "Islamic bloc" possess in the UN that you speak of, regardless, to suggest that this holds true for the ICJ would be quite ridiculous.
0
reply
LockheedSpooky
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#12
Report 5 years ago
#12
(Original post by Rat_Bag)
There is something inconsistent in what you're writing here.

You say that occupation of land can only be class as occupied is seized from a recognised sovereign state. Jordan's occupation of the West Bank would satisfy this.

Then you say that the land seized must be land whose mandate to own it (at state level) is recognised. Did Jordan's occupation of the West Bank satisfy this?

Hypothetically, if Arab armies were to seize West Jerusalem tomorrow, would that become occupied land, or disputed land?

Additionally, does resolution 181 in 1947 not create the recognition of both a Palestinian and Israeli state?
No.

Neither Jordan's nor Egypt's annexation of the WB & Gaza were recognised, therefore Israel did not seize the sovereign land of a recognised state.

That's the part of international law that was 'swept' aside just for Israel. No other territory on earth is subjected to this skewed version of law.

As for two states, I think if you read your history books you'll clearly learn the Jews agreed to BOTH partition plans which heavily favoured the Arabs (and contradicted the Balfour agreement). The Jews also agreed to make Jerusalem an international city under the control of the UN.

The Arabs refused all agreements put forward. They wanted 100% of the land and went to war. A war which they lost and a price has to be paid.

Even Abbas agrees that the Arabs screwed up.

0
reply
Errm2
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#13
Report 5 years ago
#13
(Original post by LockheedSpooky)
No.

Neither Jordan's nor Egypt's annexation of the WB & Gaza were recognised, therefore Israel did not seize the sovereign land of a recognised state.

That's the part of international law that was 'swept' aside just for Israel. No other territory on earth is subjected to this skewed version of law.

As for two states, I think if you read your history books you'll clearly learn the Jews agreed to BOTH partition plans which heavily favoured the Arabs (and contradicted the Balfour agreement). The Jews also agreed to make Jerusalem an international city under the control of the UN.

The Arabs refused all agreements put forward. They wanted 100% of the land and went to war. A war which they lost and a price has to be paid.

Even Abbas agrees that the Arabs screwed up.

But you don't believe in the UN and other international bodies yet you are here, talking about "recognition".

Which body would you have confer legitimacy upon nation states and their actions?
0
reply
AverageExcellence
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#14
Report 5 years ago
#14
(Original post by LockheedSpooky)
Um, right.

And what do you think the barrier in Israel is there for? exactly the same thing, although I would add suicide bombing to the list.


The point is, this wall is termed a "peace wall" and deemed necessary to separate two communities.

Where British and European commentators fall down, is labelling the exact same barrier "apartheid" when Israel does it.

I believe the term 'hypocrisy' is apt in that case.
There is a distinct difference because the wall is not imposed by the state to oppress or undermine one community or another, it is requested by both communities on the shank hill to minimise sectarian violence with a view of bridging the ethnic tensions long term. There is plenty of Catholic Protestant mixing elsewhere in northern Ireland. The peace wall is designed to address the local historical and geographical context of the violence.

That is completely different than the Israeli example which is the state in this case imposing separation onto the Palestinians to forward its own agenda in the west bank and support the regimes survival there.
0
reply
LockheedSpooky
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#15
Report 5 years ago
#15
(Original post by AverageExcellence)
There is a distinct difference because the wall is not imposed by the state to oppress or undermine one community or another, it is requested by both communities on the shank hill to minimise sectarian violence with a view of bridging the ethnic tensions long term. There is plenty of Catholic Protestant mixing elsewhere in northern Ireland. The peace wall is designed to address the local historical and geographical context of the violence.

That is completely different than the Israeli example which is the state in this case imposing separation onto the Palestinians to forward its own agenda in the west bank and support the regimes survival there.

Ah, so you agree with me that it's down to your own hypocritical reading of both situations.

Two people separated by a barrier.

One barrier you're an apologist for, the other barrier you term a great crime.

Thanks for showing your hypocrisy for all to see.


I'm going to guess gunning down unarmed people in Gibraltar is also "completely different"

Anyway, thanks for playing. There are enough threads about Israel, so I think I'll leave this one.
0
reply
AverageExcellence
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#16
Report 5 years ago
#16
(Original post by LockheedSpooky)
Ah, so you agree with me that it's down to your own hypocritical reading of both situations.

Two people separated by a barrier.

One barrier you're an apologist for, the other barrier you term a great crime.

Thanks for showing your hypocrisy for all to see.


I'm going to guess gunning down unarmed people in Gibraltar is also "completely different"

Anyway, thanks for playing. There are enough threads about Israel, so I think I'll leave this one.
Wow your herp derp nationalist goggles are obvious, but no i don't agree to any hypocrisy whatsoever, they have offered to take the walls down several times but local councils have insisted they stay for the want of both communities' residents there. A barrier protecting personal property of both communities is completely different from segregation, if a loyalist really wanted to walk down the street guarded by barrier they could, it is not blocked off, it is specifically designed to minimise and negate projectiles thrown by yobs from both communities which increases their feeling of security to reduce tensions and build up mutual trust.

the Israeli situation is completely different and only somebody being deliberately obtuse would see otherwise. The israeli 'apartheid' is deliberately targeting one particular one community and is designed to oppress those people's liberties to promote another's security. How is that ANYTHING like Northern Ireland considering that Stormont is built on a consensus driven model whereby both communities get equal say? show's your very elementary view of both situations illustrates your lack of understanding.

As for the clearly ignorant Gibraltar comment, the men killed were planning attacks of british soldiers at a parade in Gibraltar - which has absolutely nothing to do with the Northern Irish dispute - out there and violently resisted when confronted.
0
reply
Rat_Bag
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#17
Report 5 years ago
#17
(Original post by LockheedSpooky)
No.

Neither Jordan's nor Egypt's annexation of the WB & Gaza were recognised, therefore Israel did not seize the sovereign land of a recognised state.
Recognised by who?

Again (since you didn't answer), does resolution 181 in 1947 not create the recognition of both a Palestinian and Israeli state?

(Original post by LockheedSpooky)
As for two states, I think if you read your history books you'll clearly learn the Jews agreed to BOTH partition plans which heavily favoured the Arabs (and contradicted the Balfour agreement).
How is this relevant to the discussion of the sovereignty and recognition of the state of Palestine? Assuming you are still discussing this from the perspective of international law

(Original post by LockheedSpooky)
The Jews also agreed to make Jerusalem an international city under the control of the UN.
Again (since you didn't answer), hypothetically, if Arab armies were to seize West Jerusalem tomorrow, would that become occupied land, or disputed land?

(Original post by LockheedSpooky)
The Arabs refused all agreements put forward. They wanted 100% of the land and went to war. A war which they lost and a price has to be paid.
But do these actions nullify Resolution 181? Do these actions mean that Israel is a sovereign recognised state, and Palestine is not? If not, care to explain why.

(Original post by LockheedSpooky)
Even Abbas agrees that the Arabs screwed up.

But he's speaking from the perspective of political strategy, not international law
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Have you experienced financial difficulties as a student due to Covid-19?

Yes, I have really struggled financially (62)
17.32%
I have experienced some financial difficulties (100)
27.93%
I haven't experienced any financial difficulties and things have stayed the same (137)
38.27%
I have had better financial opportunities as a result of the pandemic (48)
13.41%
I've had another experience (let us know in the thread!) (11)
3.07%

Watched Threads

View All