UN Panel: Israeli Settlements Are Illegal

[Ridgerunner]

What you mean the UN that created the modern state of Israel and that Israel is a member of? It was legal for them to create the nations boundaries in 1948 but it’s illegal now for them them to enforce said boundaries? Illogical.

There is a lot in international relations that can reasonably be termed illogical. Nevertheless, it is not illogical to conclude that the UN has some responsibility in the present situation. Did the UN prevent the Arab aggression against Israeli that caused Israel to be in possession of the West Bank? No, it did not. Does the UN prevent attacks on Israel from the West Bank or Gaza? No.

So, Israel is supposed to allow the formation of yet another hostile state on its borders and take no preventive measures because the despots and dictators that run the UN say so? Not logical.

 

[George_Stegmeir]

Any way you cut it, the original 1948 Israeli border were abrogated by the several Arab wars against Israel, in which Israel was not the agressor. In these wars, Israel conquored Arab, Egyptian and Jordanian territory, all of which was originally given to these countries by the UK who originally acquired the territory by defeating the Turkish Empire in WW I. The only reason the UK did this was they bankrupted themselves in winning WW II, and could no longer afford to keep these areas a colonies…apart from the anti-colonial sympathies of the Western Nations following WW II.
In any case Israel did not acquire the West Bank or any other territory through agression on their part. They acquired it by winning the wars waged upon them by Arabic agressors.
I have only one question: Since when in the history of the world has a non agressor had to give back territory they won in a war they didn’t start?
I will admit that Israel gave Gaza back to the Palestinians, but they really did not have to!..and if you know your history, the Gaza Strip was a part of the Jewish Nation at the time of Christ - that is where Bethleham, the city of David and as we all know, the birthplace of Christ is located. I think the Israelis gave it to the Palestinians in order to preserve the safety of the Christian pilgrims who go there. Not out of any generosity on the Israeli’s part, but because these same pilgrims are an essential element in the Israeli economy. If Bethleham had remained under Israli control, the Arab Palestinians would have assaulted the pilgrims and their sacred sites, thus making it too dangerous for all pilgrims in the region and thus hurting the Israeli economy.

 

[OneSheep]

It is not for me to forgive Arafat or not forgive him. He did no harm to me. To purport to forgive him for his having injured others is to demean his victims and tacitly approve the wrongs done to them.

Ridgerunner, I see that you mean well in protecting the Israeli narrative, and your voice against anti-semitism is to be commended, and in that sense I appreciate your vigilance on the topic. I also appreciate your sensitivity toward Israelis. You are under the impression that if you forgive Arafat, then Israelis would feel offended. You thinking that if you forgive someone, you are approving their behavior. Such are the normal hesitations for forgiving someone.

But your reasons for not forgiving are simply not supported in the gospel or the ccc, so I really don’t know where they come from, other than stubborn refusal to love those whom you resent. Simply put, if you feel any negativity toward anyone, and you refuse to forgive, you are not presenting a standpoint that conforms to our Gospel. If forgiveness demeans victims and tacitly approves wrongs, which it does not, then the Church and our gospel would have added such exceptions to the rule. This is simply not the case, your statement has no basis in our doctrine. Those who have been wronged are to forgive. If those who have been wronged feel resentful of someone who has forgiven their enemy, then again, they are to forgive the forgiver. Forgiving people never means approval of their sins.

From the CCC:
2843 Thus the Lord’s words on forgiveness, the love that loves to the end,142 become a living reality. The parable of the merciless servant, which crowns the Lord’s teaching on ecclesial communion, ends with these words: "So also my heavenly Father will do to every one of you, if you do not forgive your brother from your heart."143 It is there, in fact, “in the depths of the heart,” that everything is bound and loosed. It is not in our power not to feel or to forget an offense; but the heart that offers itself to the Holy Spirit turns injury into compassion and purifies the memory in transforming the hurt into intercession.

2844 Christian prayer extends to the forgiveness of enemies,144 transfiguring the disciple by configuring him to his Master. Forgiveness is a high-point of Christian prayer; only hearts attuned to God’s compassion can receive the gift of prayer. Forgiveness also bears witness that, in our world, love is stronger than sin. The martyrs of yesterday and today bear this witness to Jesus. Forgiveness is the fundamental condition of the reconciliation of the children of God with their Father and of men with one another.145

2845 There is no limit or measure to this essentially divine forgiveness,146 whether one speaks of “sins” as in Luke (11:4), “debts” as in Matthew (6:12). We are always debtors: "Owe no one anything, except to love one another."147 The communion of the Holy Trinity is the source and criterion of truth in every relation ship. It is lived out in prayer, above all in the Eucharist.148

God does not accept the sacrifice of a sower of disunion, but commands that he depart from the altar so that he may first be reconciled with his brother. For God can be appeased only by prayers that make peace. To God, the better offering is peace, brotherly concord, and a people made one in the unity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.149

Many of Arafat’s actions were objectively evil. We have to accept that. Whether his mother beat him during his potty training or his first girlfriend jilted him might make him less culpable subjectively, but not objectively.

None of our past experiences change the fact that any of our evil actions are evil. What can change is the contempt, resentment, and/or hatred that we feel toward another person when we forgive. What you are communicating on this thread, Ridgerunner, is a lot of negativity toward Israel’s enemies. Your zeal does not come from a detailed, unemotional analysis of some kind of technical manual on rightness or wrongness, but from a person who truly cares about the wellbeing of the Israelis, a sentiment that I share with you. Can you read my post here and still maintain that forgiveness is not the Catholic approach? Do you have doctrinal or theological support for your position?

 

[Digitonomy]

I have only one question: Since when in the history of the world has a non agressor had to give back territory they won in a war they didn’t start?

Without thinking too hard, we in the United States gave back Japanese territory after World War II, such as Okinawa in 1972.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Ridgerunner, I see that you mean well in protecting the Israeli narrative, and your voice against anti-semitism is to be commended, and in that sense I appreciate your vigilance on the topic. I also appreciate your sensitivity toward Israelis. You are under the impression that if you forgive Arafat, then Israelis would feel offended. You thinking that if you forgive someone, you are approving their behavior. Such are the normal hesitations for forgiving someone.

But your reasons for not forgiving are simply not supported in the gospel or the ccc, so I really don’t know where they come from, other than stubborn refusal to love those whom you resent. Simply put, if you feel any negativity toward anyone, and you refuse to forgive, you are not presenting a standpoint that conforms to our Gospel. If forgiveness demeans victims and tacitly approves wrongs, which it does not, then the Church and our gospel would have added such exceptions to the rule. This is simply not the case, your statement has no basis in our doctrine. Those who have been wronged are to forgive. If those who have been wronged feel resentful of someone who has forgiven their enemy, then again, they are to forgive the forgiver. Forgiving people never means approval of their sins.

From the CCC:
2843 Thus the Lord’s words on forgiveness, the love that loves to the end,142 become a living reality. The parable of the merciless servant, which crowns the Lord’s teaching on ecclesial communion, ends with these words: "So also my heavenly Father will do to every one of you, if you do not forgive your brother from your heart."143 2844 Christian prayer extends to the forgiveness of enemies,144 transfiguring the disciple by configuring him to his Master. Forgiveness is a high-point of Christian prayer; only hearts attuned to God’s compassion can receive the gift of prayer. Forgiveness also bears witness that, in our world, love is stronger than sin. The martyrs of yesterday and today bear this witness to Jesus. Forgiveness is the fundamental condition of the reconciliation of the children of God with their Father and of men with one another.145

2845 There is no limit or measure to this essentially divine forgiveness,146 whether one speaks of “sins” as in Luke (11:4), “debts” as in Matthew (6:12). We are always debtors: "Owe no one anything, except to love one another."147 The communion of the Holy Trinity is the source and criterion of truth in every relation ship. It is lived out in prayer, above all in the Eucharist.148

God does not accept the sacrifice of a sower of disunion, but commands that he depart from the altar so that he may first be reconciled with his brother. For God can be appeased only by prayers that make peace. To God, the better offering is peace, brotherly concord, and a people made one in the unity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.149

None of our past experiences change the fact that any of our evil actions are evil. What can change is the contempt, resentment, and/or hatred that we feel toward another person when we forgive. What you are communicating on this thread, Ridgerunner, is a lot of negativity toward Israel’s enemies. Your zeal does not come from a detailed, unemotional analysis of some kind of technical manual on rightness or wrongness, but from a person who truly cares about the wellbeing of the Israelis, a sentiment that I share with you. Can you read my post here and still maintain that forgiveness is not the Catholic approach? Do you have doctrinal or theological support for your position?

We are commanded to love our enemies. We are commanded to pray for our enemies. We are commanded to pray for sinners, which would include those who offend against others. We are commanded to forgive our enemies.

Nowhere are we commanded or even encouraged to forgive the enemies of others who are not enemies of ourselves. Nowhere are we commanded to forgive one who has harmed us in no way but has harmed another.

If that was anywhere in Catholic doctrine, you would have found it, as you have obviously searched resources to come up with it. But you didn’t.

To the extent an Israeli has harmed a Palestinian, he should be forgiven by that Palestinian. To the extent a Palestinian has harmed an Israeli, the Israeli should forgive that Palestinian. But for me, who is harmed in no way, nor threatened by either one, it is an offense against the dignity of the person harmed for me to purport to forgive his assailant.

Virtually everything I have said in this thread about Israelis and Palestinians was told to me by Palestinians. Am I supposed to forgive them for saying Israelis can be harsh and arrogant? Am I supposed to forgive them for criticizing their own leaders and culture and the vicious gangs that infest their world? They did no harm to me in the slightest for saying either thing. One Palestinian Arab friend of mine was nearly killed in that wedding bombing in Amman. It is for him to forgive whoever did that. Not for me. For me to purport to forgive whoever did it is to take upon myself a moral duty that he, not I, owes. I can’t do it for him.

Am I supposed to forgive Black September for murdering a cousin of another Arab Palestinian friend? Black September has never harmed me. It is for the friend to forgive Black September, and it mocks his loss for me to purport to do it for him.

I can feel the hostility you have for my stating what you dismiss as the “Israeli narrative”. I forgive you for that hostility. I forgive you for judging my heart without actually knowing it.

But some things are factually correct and some things are factually incorrect, and when one gets the same story from both sides as well as from other sources, it can be persuasive.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Have to go now. Probably won’t be back for a couple of days. Be of good cheer, all!

 

[George_Stegmeir]

Without thinking too hard, we in the United States gave back Japanese territory after World War II, such as Okinawa in 1972.

Okinawa was an integral part of Japan before WW II. The reason we kept it so long was the fact that the population of Okinawa was particularly difficult to westernize. I won’t go into the details, but there still is a significant part of the Okinawan population that believes Japan was fully justified in her actions leading up to and including WW II.
Other territories, such as Iwo Jima which is uninhabited except for a small group that tends to visitors, really don’t amount to much.
The territory that Israel kept, such as the West Bank, really did not belong to any cogent legitimate political entity…unless you consider Jordan, which was artificially created by the Brits to be one.
If you want to blame anyone for the Middle East mess, blame the Brits who set up one group of people against another using the old theory of divide and conquor. The best example of this is how they divided Persia into Iran and Iraq! Just think of the millions that have been killed there by in-fighting between Iran and Iraq and Sunni Moslems against Shiites!
The mess with Israel and her neighbors is small potatoes compared to that.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

Okinawa was an integral part of Japan before WW II. The reason we kept it so long was the fact that the population of Okinawa was particularly difficult to westernize. I won’t go into the details, but there still is a significant part of the Okinawan population that believes Japan was fully justified in her actions leading up to and including WW II.
Other territories, such as Iwo Jima which is uninhabited except for a small group that tends to visitors, really don’t amount to much.
The territory that Israel kept, such as the West Bank, really did not belong to any cogent legitimate political entity…unless you consider Jordan, which was artificially created by the Brits to be one.
If you want to blame anyone for the Middle East mess, blame the Brits who set up one group of people against another using the old theory of divide and conquor. The best example of this is how they divided Persia into Iran and Iraq! Just think of the millions that have been killed there by in-fighting between Iran and Iraq and Sunni Moslems against Shiites!
The mess with Israel and her neighbors is small potatoes compared to that.

The very same Okinawa that was it’s de jure own kingdom before integration in 1871?

The West Bank is/was part of Palestine, an entity created by the UN just like the state of Israel. If the West Bank is part of Israel then Israel is an apartheid state, if the West Bank is part of the state of Palestine then Israel is guilty of war crimes and if it neither then Israel has committed crimes against reality.

But yeah, the Brits really screwed things up.

 

[Digitonomy]

Okinawa was an integral part of Japan before WW II. The reason we kept it so long was the fact that the population of Okinawa was particularly difficult to westernize…
The territory that Israel kept, such as the West Bank, really did not belong to any cogent legitimate political entity…

I can’t tell if you’re moving the goalposts, or conceding that Okinawa was territory won by a non-aggressor that was given back after a war the non-aggressor didn’t start?

 

[OneSheep]

We are commanded to love our enemies. We are commanded to pray for our enemies. We are commanded to pray for sinners, which would include those who offend against others. We are commanded to forgive our enemies.

Nowhere are we commanded or even encouraged to forgive the enemies of others who are not enemies of ourselves.

I am glad we are delving into this, Ridgerunner, because this is an extremely important issue, and the answers to these questions are truly what should guide Catholics in foreign policy.

The gospel is not so precise on the matter because, as Jesus said, the law is writtten in our hearts. The command is to love our neighbor. Our neighbor is everyone. If I feel negatively toward someone, the first act of love is for me to forgive him.

It does make sense that we are not obligated to forgive people who we do not condemn. It also makes sense that we are not obligated to forgive person “A” if we do not care about the harm he has done to person “B”. On the other hand, if we love people, how can we stand back and not feel negatively toward person “A” ?

Nowhere are we commanded to forgive one who has harmed us in no way but has harmed another.

Let me give you a scenario. Let us say that you have two sons. Your two sons each have a son. Your two grandchildren do not get along well. They have a bad history together, and continue to badmouth each other and even occasionally do other hurtful things to each other.

Your sons, too, are angry at each other over the whole issue, blaming the other brother’s son for the whole problem. They are not each other’s enemy per se, nor have they harmed each other. You ask them to forgive each other, but they tell you that they have no obligation to forgive. What would you say? Or would you not ask them to forgive each other? Would you say something like “okay, it is not your written obligation, but I want you two to get along, so we can be a family again, so please forgive”?

If that was anywhere in Catholic doctrine, you would have found it, as you have obviously searched resources to come up with it. But you didn’t.

Actually, those were the first references I came to, and there was no need to dig deeper. Those refer to the Lord’s prayer. The ccc doesn’t get into nitty-gritty specifics as to when we are to forgive and when we are not, I don’t think. The Catholic Answer is to let love be our guide. Do we allow people to continue to hurt each other? No. Do we encourage ALL people to love and forgive each other, regardless of circumstances? Yes. Do we set an example, do we forgive everyone we ever hold any grudge toward or hold in contempt or feel negatively about in any way? Yes.

To the extent an Israeli has harmed a Palestinian, he should be forgiven by that Palestinian. To the extent a Palestinian has harmed an Israeli, the Israeli should forgive that Palestinian. But for me, who is harmed in no way, nor threatened by either one, it is an offense against the dignity of the person harmed for me to purport to forgive his assailant.

Well, it looks like we agree on the part about the Palestinians and Israelis toward each other.

Let us go back to the Grandfather scenario, but this time only one of the grandchildren has hurt the other. The hurt grandchild refuses to forgive. Do you withhold your own forgiveness so that you do not offend the dignity of the one who is hurt, or do you continue to hold a grudge against the offending grandchild?

Virtually everything I have said in this thread about Israelis and Palestinians was told to me by Palestinians. Am I supposed to forgive them for saying Israelis can be harsh and arrogant? Am I supposed to forgive them for criticizing their own leaders and culture and the vicious gangs that infest their world? They did no harm to me in the slightest for saying either thing. One Palestinian Arab friend of mine was nearly killed in that wedding bombing in Amman. It is for him to forgive whoever did that. Not for me. For me to purport to forgive whoever did it is to take upon myself a moral duty that he, not I, owes. I can’t do it for him.

The wedding bombing is tragic. If you feel no anger whatsoever toward the bombers, then I suppose there is no reason for you to forgive them. On the other hand, if the friend of yours has friends who are angry, then all those who are angered should forgive, whether they are directly affected or not. Otherwise, these things have a way of never ending.

If you feel no contempt or negativity toward someone, such as when you hear people criticizing one another, then forgiveness is not an issue. On the other hand, we all have slightly different things that we take offense to. If we hear someone criticizing a person we love, and we feel negatively toward the critic, then there is another opportunity for forgiveness. See what I am saying? These things are too complicated to specify based on circumstances. If we feel negatively toward someone, it eventually becomes time to forgive. It does no good for anyone to hang onto a grudge.

continued…

 

[OneSheep]

Am I supposed to forgive Black September for murdering a cousin of another Arab Palestinian friend? Black September has never harmed me. It is for the friend to forgive Black September, and it mocks his loss for me to purport to do it for him.

We cannot forgive anyone on behalf of anyone else. We forgive because of each and every one our own relationships with God, which is a relationship totally involved with one another.

Let us say that someone hurt you. Because I care about your well-being, I am angry at the person who hurt you. Over time, I come to understand and forgive the person who hurt you - I do not approve of what they did, but I forgive the person. Now, I may encourage you to forgive the one who hurt you and explain how you can do so, but you may never forgive the other person. Would you feel offended that I have reconciled? Let us assume the answer is yes. I would not feel offended in that situation, because forgiveness is between an individual and God and others, and why would I discourage forgiveness?

I am thinking that perhaps you have a personal rule that says “never forgive someone unless they have been forgiven by the person directly hurt”. If you have such a rule, and someone violates it, then this is yet another opportunity to forgive. Can you forgive the forgiver?

I can feel the hostility you have for my stating what you dismiss as the “Israeli narrative”. I forgive you for that hostility. I forgive you for judging my heart without actually knowing it.

But some things are factually correct and some things are factually incorrect, and when one gets the same story from both sides as well as from other sources, it can be persuasive.

I have no hostility for either the Israeli or Palestinian narratives, nor do I dismiss either one. I dismiss no one’s narrative. I have told you that your contempt and/or anger is understandable, and I even pointed out how I could feel the same way as you do in your shoes. But I very much agree with your approach here. You took offense toward what you perceived as my judgment, and you forgave me. Thanks.

I did get a little frustrated with what I perceived as a “Israel has done no wrong” approach, but you straightened me out on that one. What I am trying to do here is show you a way that we Catholics are to approach foreign policy when we are considering what to do about nations and peoples aggressive to our friends. Whatever we do, we are to start with forgiveness, unless, as you point out, we have no feelings of negativity toward the parties involved. But as you also pointed out, the Palestinians and Israelis should forgive each other. We can encourage such forgiveness by setting an example.

 

[estesbob]

The very same Okinawa that was it’s de jure own kingdom before integration in 1871?

The West Bank is/was part of Palestine, an entity created by the UN just like the state of Israel. If the West Bank is part of Israel then Israel is an apartheid state, if the West Bank is part of the state of Palestine then Israel is guilty of war crimes and if it neither then Israel has committed crimes against reality.

But yeah, the Brits really screwed things up.

I suspect if Okinawans were daily sending rockets into US cities and sending their children into US cafes exploding suicide vests the US would react much as the Israelis do.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

I suspect if Okinawans were daily sending rockets into US cities and sending their children into US cafes exploding suicide vests the US would react much as the Israelis do.

And I suspect if Americans blatantly stole Okinawan land the Okinawans would react much as the Palestinians do.

 

[Darryl1958]

I suspect not. Sending rockets involves a constant stream of money and outside interests to sustain them being sent. Okinawa is too far removed from global geopolitics and religious passions for the world to sustain much of an interest for even six years, let alone sixty.
Palestinians are the pawns in the geopolitical games being staged. It is outside interests that are playing them, feeding them the constant barrage of religiously charged venom against the apes and pigs, fitting them with the suicide bombs.
Iran is only the latest player in the game for regional dominance, using the Palestinians as the vehicle to power.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

I suspect not. Sending rockets involves a constant stream of money and outside interests to sustain them being sent. Okinawa is too far removed from global geopolitics and religious passions for the world to sustain much of an interest for even six years, let alone sixty.
Palestinians are the pawns in the geopolitical games being staged. It is outside interests that are playing them, feeding them the constant barrage of religiously charged venom against the apes and pigs, fitting them with the suicide bombs.
Iran is only the latest player in the game for regional dominance, using the Palestinians as the vehicle to power.

Ireland managed just fine.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I am thinking that perhaps you have a personal rule that says “never forgive someone unless they have been forgiven by the person directly hurt”. If you have such a rule, and someone violates it, then this is yet another opportunity to forgive. Can you forgive the forgiver?

I have told you that your contempt and/or anger is understandable,

I do not have any such rule. I believe it is irrelevant at best whether I purport to forgive someone who has injured another. But I believe it’s worse than that. I also feel it is vain and prideful of me to purport to do that when I am in no way harmed by the person’s action.

I do not have any anger toward Palestinians. Please remember again that I have friends who are Palestinians. I do have contempt, as do they, for certain aspects of Arab culture. Many in the Arab world have overcome those negative aspects of the culture, but many have not.

Some of my ancestors were Italian. At one time the “law of vendetta” was a part of Italian culture at times and in places. Most Italians, I believe, have overcome that and no longer live by it. But some still do. It is quite all right for me or anyone else to have contempt for that particular aspect of Italian culture. It does not mean I have contempt for Italians or even the better aspects of Italian culture.

I am a southern man. While I consider many aspects of Southern culture in a positive way, I realize that oppression of blacks was once pervasive in much of the South. I have contempt for that aspect of the culture. But it is not for me to forgive Southerners of that. It is for black people and God to forgive them.

 

[Ridgerunner]

And I suspect if Americans blatantly stole Okinawan land the Okinawans would react much as the Palestinians do.

Well, Americans pretty blatantly stole the Hawaiian islands. Some of the native Hawaiians reacted negatively (though many also resented home-grown tyrants) and some still do. However, you don’t see native Hawaiians murdering “Haole” children.

And, of course, you are assuming Israel “stole” “Palestnian” land. From Jordan, you mean? Or are you referring to the Brits or perhaps the Turks?

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

Well, Americans pretty blatantly stole the Hawaiian islands. Some of the native Hawaiians reacted negatively (though many also resented home-grown tyrants) and some still do. However, you don’t see native Hawaiians murdering “Haole” children.

And, of course, you are assuming Israel “stole” “Palestnian” land. From Jordan, you mean? Or are you referring to the Brits or perhaps the Turks?

No I mean the pieces of land the individual Palestinians lived on.

 

[YKohen]

They chose war. They fled.

Where the Arabs won; namely Judea, Samaria, and Gaza- and half of Jerusalem, they ethnically cleansed every last Jew and stole the Jews property.

 

[Ridgerunner]

No I mean the pieces of land the individual Palestinians lived on.

I realize people say this, and further research might be worthwhile, but it is my understanding that there was no organized land registration system in the West Bank before the Israelis took it from Jordan. It was more a matter of reputed possession than it was clear “ownership”; something like it is in much of Mexico today.

It it clear that, presently, many Arabs’ ownership is sufficiently clear that they can sell it. Indeed, some Arabs who sell their land to Israelis fear reprisal from other Arabs and leave the area. Some land has been confiscated by israel in connection with terrorist activities. It is, or at least was, the practice to confiscate the land of anyone involved in terrorist activities, bulldoze any buildings on it and hold it. Some land has been, in effect, “condemned” for the purpose of building security structures, roads, etc, in the same sort of way state and the federal governments in the U.S. “condemn” land for public purposes.

But despite hyperbolic anecdotal accounts, Israelis don’t just go in and “seize” Arab property the way people sometimes allege.