[wat0n]

No, I was not, I was trying to explain to you why we insist on Israel, but I am not surprised you do not want to hear it.

And to that effect, you used an essentially moral argument.

If anything if you had tried to make one based on realpolitik, I don't see why would you bother at all.

This would take a century. By this time you would have removed all Muslim presence in Israel. We all know that Israel is trying to buy time to complete its territorial conquest.

Oh, this shit again? Is this why the percentage of Muslims in the territories under Israeli control + Gaza has been steadily increasing for the last 40 years?

How pitiful, you find yourself inventing sins to try to make Israel looks like any other country and divert the discussion.

Now, tell me, what would have been the point for us to support such great crimes? Sell weapons? But we did stop selling them. Support the Hutu? They were losing. This does not make sense.

Who the fuck knows? But it is undeniably true that the Hutu leaders took refuge in the Zone Turquoise and then used it to flee.

Capture the political leaders? Under which law? There was no international tribunal at this time, this was not a French territory, the Hutu govt was still officially ruling and their opponents also slaughtered civilians. Besides this would have go against the UN mandate that forced us to stay neutral.

Genocide is illegal under international law, in case you didn't know.

As for stopping Hutu radiostations, again let me remind you that we were not ruling the area, this was not our mission. Rescue operations and humanitarian camps were, something that no one else did.

You are blaming us for not having bossed things around and solved the conflict. But no African country wanted France to solve the conflict and restore order, and we were not allowed to do so by the UN mandate.

Shutting them down would have stopped their use as propaganda to incite killings of Tutsis, is this not a humanitarian goal?

[Harmattan]

And to that effect, you used an essentially moral argument.

No, I invoked subjectivity (feelings, intimate perception), not objectivity (moral). And I provided an analogy to help you empathize my point of view and acknowledge that subjectivity is bounded by cultural distance.

Since the beginning you are the one who wants to see in my argument a moral foundation of some sort while the core of my argument has always been subjectivity and partiality, simply to explain why we focus on Israel.

The only logical ground I did rely on was the fact that changing Muslim countries seems hopeless in any foreseeable future. Any observer of Muslim countries should agree.

Oh, this shit again? Is this why the percentage of Muslims in the territories under Israeli control + Gaza has been steadily increasing for the last 40 years?

But you very well know that you are grabbing the whole Palestinian land, expelling Arabs and setting up Jews instead. You constantly did that, yet the Arab fraction did not increase - instead it would have remained constant without its higher fertility rate.

First you grab the land. Then you will find a way to deal with the Arabs left in Israel. Actually some of your right-wing associations have already started taking care of that and started cleaning East Jerusalem from its Arabs through various means (buying lands under cover through a Palestinian proxy (*), setting up fake archaeological works, etc).

(*) Which is not the crux of the problem. The real problem is that those real estate operations are driven by racial considerations and constitute an attempt at a non-lethal ethnic cleansing from those organizations.

Genocide is illegal under international law, in case you didn't know.

Please define "international law". Because at this time there was no court to lawfully judge them, no prison to lawfully detain them, and right now there is still no authority to enforce those so-called "laws". The only way for us to arrest them at this time would have been to violate the UN mandate.

An invasion army could have arrested them since it only depends from its country's law, but the Turquoise operation took place under the UN mandate that prohibited such things. The international law and our obligations towards the UN therefore commanded that we do nothing. How do you think African countries would have reacted if France seized this humanitarian operation to arrest and change the power in place? especially with their opponents also slaughtering civilians? And how do you think the govt's troops would have reacted?

Shutting them down would have stopped their use as propaganda to incite killings of Tutsis, is this not a humanitarian goal?

Seizing the power would have stopped the conflict, this would have been humanitarian by this logic. Yet this would have contravened the UN mandate.

Ruling out freedom of speech and shutting down medias is considered in most countries as pretty invasive, beyond what is allowed to a humanitarian mission. And I guess this would have created a dangerous legal precedent.

[wat0n]

No, I invoked subjectivity (feelings, intimate perception), not objectivity (moral). And I provided an analogy to help you empathize my point of view and acknowledge that subjectivity is bounded by cultural distance.

Since the beginning you are the one who wants to see in my argument a moral foundation of some sort while the core of my argument has always been subjectivity and partiality, simply to explain why we focus on Israel.

Saying the Muslims are barbarians is morally charged, however. And morality is not really objective, anyway, but in any event it is not hard to claim that such position based on "feelings" is not moral.

The only logical ground I did rely on was the fact that changing Muslim countries seems hopeless in any foreseeable future. Any observer of Muslim countries should agree.

If so, then why would you expect Muslim fundamentalists to change their behavior towards Israel if the latter left the West Bank?

But you very well know that you are grabbing the whole Palestinian land, expelling Arabs and setting up Jews instead. You constantly did that, yet the Arab fraction did not increase - instead it would have remained constant without its higher fertility rate.

First you grab the land. Then you will find a way to deal with the Arabs left in Israel. Actually some of your right-wing associations have already started taking care of that and started cleaning East Jerusalem from its Arabs through various means (buying lands under cover through a Palestinian proxy (*), setting up fake archaeological works, etc).

(*) Which is not the crux of the problem. The real problem is that those real estate operations are driven by racial considerations and constitute an attempt at a non-lethal ethnic cleansing from those organizations.

The percentage of the Muslim population in the whole of what most people call "Palestine" has steadily increased since 1969, this is a factual claim.

Where have they been ethnically cleansed to, anyway?

Please define "international law". Because at this time there was no court to lawfully judge them, no prison to lawfully detain them, and right now there is still no authority to enforce those so-called "laws". The only way for us to arrest them at this time would have been to violate the UN mandate.

The Genocide Convention stands out as international law.

BTW, had France overtly violated the Mandate, hell, had it even decided to drive the Tutsi RPF from Rwanda and give extremist Hutus a free pass, the UN would have done nothing to stop it. Neither would have any of the Powers. The UN Mandate itself depended on French enforcement.

An invasion army could have arrested them since it only depends from its country's law, but the Turquoise operation took place under the UN mandate that prohibited such things. The international law and our obligations towards the UN therefore commanded that we do nothing. How do you think African countries would have reacted if France seized this humanitarian operation to arrest and change the power in place? especially with their opponents also slaughtering civilians? And how do you think the govt's troops would have reacted?

Please show that the UN Mandate prohibited the arrest of the Hitu leaders responsible for the genocide who resided in the Zone.

Seizing the power would have stopped the conflict, this would have been humanitarian by this logic. Yet this would have contravened the UN mandate.

Ruling out freedom of speech and shutting down medias is considered in most countries as pretty invasive, beyond what is allowed to a humanitarian mission. And I guess this would have created a dangerous legal precedent.

Not really, since those radiostations were part of the infrastructure used during the genocide for that end. That's not different from saying that French soldiers shouldn't have taken over arms depots owned by the Hutu militias and used during the genocide that were located within the Zone because it would have been regarded as an "invading army".

[Harmattan]

Saying the Muslims are barbarians is morally charged, however.

I agree on this part.

If so, then why would you expect Muslim fundamentalists to change their behavior towards Israel if the latter left the West Bank?

Your current problem is that almost all Muslims feel like you deserve the worse. If tomorrow your only problem is with fundamentalists, this will be a significant improvement for your regional diplomatic relations.

As for the fundamentalists themselves, Palestinians depend on European humanitarian aid, so should the Hamas persist after signing a fair peace treaty with you we would remorselessly treat them as a rogue enemy state. I am pretty sure that they would quickly lose any popular support after that - Palestinians are tired of this conflict.

The percentage of the Muslim population in the whole of what most people call "Palestine" has steadily increased since 1969, this is a factual claim.

So did the amount of land occupied by Israeli in Israel-Palestine.

BTW, had France overtly violated the Mandate, hell, had it even decided to drive the Tutsi RPF from Rwanda and give extremist Hutus a free pass, the UN would have done nothing to stop it. Neither would have any of the Powers. The UN Mandate itself depended on French enforcement.

If we did that we would have undermined all future UN actions in Africa because African countries would have feared that we would overthrow their governments in the future.

Anytime we conduct military operations in Africa we are walking on eggs and trying to work with African countries, constantly risking neocolonialism accusations. At least things are better now, smoother: African countries acknowledge that we are not interested in overthrowing local governments, that we stick to a mostly neutral, stabilizing, stance. Thanks to that we now enjoy a strong collaboration from African forces. Which makes sense: while we have a few strategic interests here and there and while there remains some corruption networks, nowadays our interest is mostly for our former colonies to become independent and rich to strengthen the French-speaking market.

I guess we can thank Boko Haram, Aqmi and others: they made African countries love us. The Chinese executives who operate in Africa also reminded some that French people have a more positive and sympathizing attitude than many others towards African cultures. Sometimes the devil you are familiar with is better than others.

Please show that the UN Mandate prohibited the arrest of the Hitu leaders responsible for the genocide who resided in the Zone.

The UN mandate imposed neutrality. How do you think arresting the head of one of both belligerents is neutral?

Not really, since those radiostations were part of the infrastructure used during the genocide for that end. That's not different from saying that French soldiers shouldn't have taken over arms depots owned by the Hutu militias and used during the genocide that were located within the Zone because it would have been regarded as an "invading army".

Precisely: we weren't allowed to seize arms depots. We were not allowed to fight Hutu militias since this would have meant overthrowing the govt. Afaik (I may be wrong), we only used force to secure humanitarian operations and rescue civilians who were immediately threatened.

Here were the exact conflicting terms imposed by the UN:
1) End the civilian slaugthers whenever possible, using force if necessary (mettre fin aux massacres partout où cela sera possible, éventuellement en utilisant la force).

2) Adopt a strictly neutral atittude towards all factions. Insist that France came to end the slaughters but not to fight the FPR nor support the FAR, so that its actions are not interpreted as a help towards governmental troops. (Adopter une attitude de stricte neutralité vis-à-vis des différentes factions en conflit. Insister sur l'idée que l'armée française est venue pour arrêter les massacres mais non pour combattre le FPR ni soutenir les FAR afin que les actions entreprises ne soient pas interprétées comme une aide aux troupes gouvernementales.)

[wat0n]

Your current problem is that almost all Muslims feel like you deserve the worse. If tomorrow your only problem is with fundamentalists, this will be a significant improvement for your regional diplomatic relations.

It would be a big improvement on Israeli regional diplomacy indeed, but even then I very much doubt that non-fundamentalist Muslims would be willing or able to fight fundamentalists on Israel's midst - they have their own to deal with.

Just as importantly, fundamentalists have shown that they possess the arms, skills and willingness to fight Israel and the Arab states whereas the moderate population in Palestine lacks both the arms and skills to fight the fundamentalists.

As for the fundamentalists themselves, Palestinians depend on European humanitarian aid, so should the Hamas persist after signing a fair peace treaty with you we would remorselessly treat them as a rogue enemy state. I am pretty sure that they would quickly lose any popular support after that - Palestinians are tired of this conflict.

Europe already regards Hamas as an enemy, I very much doubt it would stop humanitarian aid for the Palestinians for the same reason you just said - most are tired of the conflict and don't really deserve punishment.

So did the amount of land occupied by Israeli in Israel-Palestine.

You mean settled, right? If so, I'd say that it reached its maximum on 2005. Of course, it should further decrease though for reasons that are even more compelling, from Israel's POV, than those you mentioned. The 2 I'm thinking are:

1) Doing so would reduce frictions between both populations simply because they cannot grab each other's throats if their contact is more limited. Teenagers cannot be kidnapped in the West Bank if they don't reside or go there, after all.

2) The very demographic trend I mentioned is a powerful long-term gain of ending the settlement project. In fact, this is probably the most compelling reason to end it altogether from an Israeli perspective - demographic projections suggest a Jewish majority in the long term within the internationally recognized borders of Israel.

If we did that we would have undermined all future UN actions in Africa because African countries would have feared that we would overthrow their governments in the future.

But UNAMIR's inaction as it was also did the same. I would say that looking like a toothless tiger was by far the worst outcome for the UN. How can you take if seriously after this?

Anytime we conduct military operations in Africa we are walking on eggs and trying to work with African countries, constantly risking neocolonialism accusations. At least things are better now, smoother: African countries acknowledge that we are not interested in overthrowing local governments, that we stick to a mostly neutral, stabilizing, stance. Thanks to that we now enjoy a strong collaboration from African forces. Which makes sense: while we have a few strategic interests here and there and while there remains some corruption networks, nowadays our interest is mostly for our former colonies to become independent and rich to strengthen the French-speaking market.

I guess we can thank Boko Haram, Aqmi and others: they made African countries love us. The Chinese executives who operate in Africa also reminded some that French people have a more positive and sympathizing attitude than many others towards African cultures. Sometimes the devil you are familiar with is better than others.

Indeed, that's correct but inaction also has similar risks. This is a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation.

The UN mandate imposed neutrality. How do you think arresting the head of one of both belligerents is neutral?

The problem is that it is in conflict with the second part of the very Mandate, if you think about it.

Precisely: we weren't allowed to seize arms depots. We were not allowed to fight Hutu militias since this would have meant overthrowing the govt. Afaik (I may be wrong), we only used force to secure humanitarian operations and rescue civilians who were immediately threatened.

Here were the exact conflicting terms imposed by the UN:
1) End the civilian slaugthers whenever possible, using force if necessary (mettre fin aux massacres partout où cela sera possible, éventuellement en utilisant la force).

2) Adopt a strictly neutral atittude towards all factions. Insist that France came to end the slaughters but not to fight the FPR nor support the FAR, so that its actions are not interpreted as a help towards governmental troops. (Adopter une attitude de stricte neutralité vis-à-vis des différentes factions en conflit. Insister sur l'idée que l'armée française est venue pour arrêter les massacres mais non pour combattre le FPR ni soutenir les FAR afin que les actions entreprises ne soient pas interprétées comme une aide aux troupes gouvernementales.)

Yes, but wouldn't seizing those arms fulfill point 1)?

In particular, were they just used to fight the RPF, they would be spared from seizure. But if they were used to target civilians, then they could be seized regardless of the party involved.

[QatzelOk]

If you want to take a model, yes, modern France, or Spain, or Germany, or UK, or about every other Western country are models for Israel. By a great margin.

The countries you name ARE the model. [Cut - Typhoon]

And it appears that Israel is following the exact same tactics as the British Empire did, sending its most violent religious lunatics and corrupt businessmen to... a corner of the earth that Big Money wants leveled so they can control it when the smoke settles.

And like Euros, the Israelis inevitably "discover" that their nemesis are unbelievably evil. This helps them kill them and open up more land for Big Money.

It's like Abrahamic religion was invented as an excuse to kill foreigners for business interest, and Israel is just the most obvious case because of the blatant anachronism (messiahs, holy lands, evil + laser-guided drones) and publicly-accepted racism against non-Jews.

[skinster]

Orange pays €80m to pull brand out of Israel

[wat0n]

It seems Orange will keep operating in Israel under subsidiaries such as Orange Business Services and the cable service provider Viaccess-Orca, along with the start-up accelerator Orange Fab IL (yes, they are openly investing in Israeli start-ups).

All in all, it looks like Orange is dumping Partner rather than Israel - and the former is getting millions of euros as a result.

[The Immortal Goon]

[Cut - Typhoon]

Yes, the Paris Bourse crash of 1882 was all the fault of the Jews and Freemasons, not the Catholic l'Union Générale that, you know, actually crashed.

Let's find a Jew in the government and convict him of a treason we know he didn't commit!

I'm leaving this up to the forum mod to deal with as he feels fit. But for my money, I find your disproven 19th century antisemitism disgusting.

Israel can stand on its own crimes. You don't need to use 19th century European racism to prop up your feelings.

[skinster]

State report: Boycott could cost Israel NIS 40 billion per year

[skinster]

Update, BDS Victory: Orange quits Israel.

[Zionist Nationalist]

oh no

do you know what this means?

nothing

Orange in Israel is operating under an Israeli company it will simply going to change its name and thats it

nobody gives a fuck the Israeli company will receive compensations and move on

[skinster]

Other BDS updates:

U.S. Church Puts 5 Banks From Israel on a Blacklist

Irish building materials group CRH has divested from its 25% stake in the Israeli cement market

Knesset anti-BDS meeting reveals Israeli fear of isolation - See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2016/01/knesset-i ... i93jH.dpuf

[Zionist Nationalist]

as long as there wont be any official country boycott this BDS shit wont work

[skinster]

The movement is only growing and people like you are swimming against the tide.

[Zionist Nationalist]

Yeah well see

[skinster]

Boycott victory: Dutch (yeah I know) municipality excludes G4S from security contract worth €28million

[wat0n]

The municipality said, according to your article, that it was dropped for commercial reasons. No mention of BDS there.

If BDS had been a factor, one would expect that the municipality would have simply mentioned it. Is the BDS movement so eager to show it has power that it has to claim credit every time a company which operates in Israel loses a contract?

[skinster]

Feel free to take from these links what you will, waton.

Human Rights Watch calls for sanctions against Israel over settlements.

[danholo]

This is more interesting than Mr. Barghouti's article:

Occupation, Inc.
How Settlement Businesses Contribute to Israel’s Violations of Palestinian Rights

https://www.hrw.org/node/285045/

Leaving Israel yesterday, I was wondering when sanctions will be imposed. Iran's off the table so a new target needs to be found. Israel is a vibrant place both societally and culturally but ultimately global public opinion will affect decision makers globally. Israel can't justify the occupation no matter how legitimate it might be because of the settlement enterprise.