|
| quote: | 1 Israel Is Illegally Occupying Palestine
Under UN Resolution 242, Israel is required by international law to withdraw from all the territories occupied in 1967, including East Jerusalem. The United Nation's General Assembly has repeatedly condemned Israel's occupation of the territories as illegal (see UN resolutions 338, 1397, and 1402, among others). Israel's continued occupation of Palestine, sanctioned and maintained by the US, is one of the most serious obstructions to a just and lasting peace in the Middle East. |
A stronger argument could be made that the U.S. is illegally occupying the land of the Native Americans. So what? The United Nations has systematically failed to achieve every one of its stated objectives. As an organization, it is an equal failure to the League of Nations. What it says is completely irrelevant. This is an appeal to false authority fallacy.
| quote: |
2 Israel Systematically Violates the Human Rights of Palestinians in the Occupied Territories
Each day, Israeli security forces in the West Bank and Gaza violate articles of the 4th Geneva Convention on Human Rights, an agreement that governs wartime rules of engagement and to which Israel is a signatory. Palestinian homes and agriculture fields are routinely demolished to make way for illegal Israeli settlements. Israeli soldiers regularly arrest and detain--often for years-- Palestinians without due process. According to Amnesty International, members of the Israeli security forces regularly use torture and prolonged incommunicado detention against Palestinians.
|
Israel would not be engaged in these activities were it not for Palestinian terrorism. This argument fails to objectively understand the causality of the situation.
| quote: |
3 Israel is an Apartheid State
Israel has developed an elaborate system of racial discrimination, embedded in its legal system, rivaling Apartheid South Africa's laws. These laws include the Law of Entry, the Law of Return, the Citizenship Law, the Military Service Law, and a host of legally sanctioned, discriminatory rabbinical rulings. Palestinians are denied various welfare benefits, access to many jobs, and the leasing of homes and land controlled by government bodies. Electricity, sewerage, and roads are provided free to Israeli households, whereas many Palestinian communities in Israel, and especially in the Occupied Territories, have existed for decades without adequate services. Laws governing land ownership such as the Law of Acquisition of Absentee Property and the Law for Acquisition of Land blatantly discriminate against Palestinians. Indeed, land ownership in Palestine is more unjust than it ever wasin South Africa; at the height of apartheid, black people nominally `controlled' 13 percent of the land, whereas in Israel the Palestinians control only 2 percent of the land.
Blockades which allow settlers free movement but restrict Palestinians have lost 100,000 workers their jobs. The Israeli government issues identification cards and car number-plates, color coded, which restrict travel for non-Jews. Palestinians in the West Bank are routinely prevented from travelling to the Gaza Strip because they have to travel through `Israeli' territory. No significant industry has been permitted to develop in the West Bank or Gaza. Consequently, Palestinians are concentrated in the lowest paying jobs and form a super-exploited labour force for Israeli capital. The occupied territories import 93% of goods but export a mere 7% of what they produce. Palestinian exports to Western Europe are banned so as not to compete with Israeli exports. Ninety percent of Palestinian workers must travel to Jewish towns for employment.
|
My correspondences with several individuals of Palestinian descent residing as legal citizens of Israel suggest otherwise. But perhaps they're just lying. 
This obvious distortion of facts makes plain that this argument is being presented by an extremist organization with no respect for truth.
| quote: |
4 US Military Aid to Israel Violates US Law
The US Arms Export Control Act (AECA) strictly forbids the government from giving military assistance to any country that violates internationally recognized human rights. The State Department's 2001 human rights report states: "Israeli security units often used excessive force against Palestinian demonstrators including live fire ... impeded the provision of medical assistance to Palestinian civilians by their strict enforcement of internal closures, which reportedly contributed to at least 32 deaths. Israeli security forces harassed and abused Palestinian pedestrians and drivers who were attempting to pass through the more than 130 Israeli- controlled checkpoints ..." Under the AECA, "the President is required to report to Congress promptly upon the receipt of information that a substantial violation of AECA may have occurred." The US government is fully aware of the Israeli army's human rights violations, as the above quote from the State Department shows. The US government has eroded its own credibility as an impartial mediator by continuing to arm Israel without restriction and allowing these weapons to be used against civilian populations in violation of US law.
|
I don't support that legislation, hence I have no reason to ask our government to abide by it.
| quote: |
5 US Military Aid to Israel threatens US Security and Global Stability
US funding of Israel's human rights abuses fuels resentment towards the US. While the rest of the world strongly condemns Israel’s occupation of the Palestinian Territories, our government provides the political, diplomatic and material means for the occupation to continue. Such actions by the US government provoke anti-US sentiment throughout the world, ultimately jeopardizing the safety of people living in the US. The US can build its own security only by gaining the trust and respect of the international community.
|
A classic example of the argument from adverse consequences fallacy. The author constructs a slippery slope of potential causes and effects resulting from U.S. support of Israel, then appeals to the fear of the last effect in the series as a basis for argument. Apparently this author did not believe in the writing principle of saving your best point for last.
| quote: | Originally posted by cougar23
Had the US not intervened, would Kuwaitis bombing Iraq in suicide fashion be consedered so morraly wrong?
|
Yes. Suicide bombing is not a legitimate means of obtaining political redress.
I hope I've made clear to you why the argument presented above are not valid.
Cheers,
Arbiter
|