American imperialism and why so many around the world hate us

[Beachguyj]

 

[Adrock-JD]

The people who hate the US the most are the Afghans, Pakistani, Iranians and Iraqis. Do you think they hate the US because of it's wealth, freedom or power ("hotness"), or do they have legitimate reasons for that (because the US has bullied/assaulted them, "did not play fair")?

I don't think most of them worry about us as much as we would imagine. They have extremists just like we do. Those are the ones who are full of hate. I don't see it as good and bad, black and white, us vs them or vice versa. We're all humans on the same planet when you get right down to it. Humans have an aggressive nature. Conflicts are bound to occur. Most people are basically good and don't want to harm others.

The US is a bit like the Catholic church; helped a lot of people but done some horrible things along the way. I wouldn't condemn the whole lot because of some mistakes by a minority.

I think the people of the Middle East understand that.

 

[bankside]

What you fail to grasp is that legitimacy is irrelevant to the definition of occupation under international law.



I will go to war with you on this point until you get it through your thick skull, even if it takes all spring.



Except I have provided you examples that do not relate to Middle East conflict, e.g. see the illegitimate annexation of Hawaii, yet nobody incorrectly calls it an occupation, because isn't, even though native Hawaiians were and are deprived of sovereignty. Why? Because people do not have a need to impart emotional revisionism on the history of Hawaii.

Well here's to enjoying this eternal spring, then, because with your present arguments you'll be making good sense on this point when hell freezes over.

Your logic would imply that the Palestinian project is actually a secession movement, as in Catalonia or Scotland or Quebec. It is a fantasy to suggest Israel would be ceding its own territory to grant the Palestinian state its land. No one in the international forum (indeed no one outside Bibi's cabinet meetings) would accept that these occupied territories have been annexed in the way you imagine.

The reason is in the definition you quote: the territory has never been "incorporated" into Israel: it is occupied Palestinian land. Land to which honestly the UK has a stronger claim through its spent mandate than Israel.

 

[bankside]

I agree with you completely. But I also agree with the Palestinian cause.

It's been 20 centuries since a State of Israel existed there. That's a long long time for other groups of people to settle.

Think about it this way. If the Native Americans suddenly want all of the Americas back and a great and powerful Alien force is backing them up, do you think it's fair that ALL the people that have been living here for generations be relocated elsewhere?

In a way, both sides of the argument are right. It's just a mess of a situation where both sides have legitimate claim to the area.

If aboriginal people in North America had been deported, ghettoised, alienated and separated from mainstream society in every country into which they were forced to flee, segregated such that their nationality was maintained over the centuries, subject to pogroms, and then finally made the targets of genocide on whichever continent they inhabited, it would be right for the UN to endow them with the tools of statehood as a means of self defence. As a means of preservation and survival.

If this meant adjustments to existing borders within North America, then affected people should be compensated. But the map should change regardless. And if that new country then occupied adjacent land and pretended to annex it, where due to defence or expansionism or whatever reason, that purported annexation should never be conceded by any country.

 

[bankside]

So you have finally understood the definition by the Geneva Convention, fantastic!

You cited the definition in support of your position; it undermined your position. I don't know what else to say.

Dozens of sources in international law, and everyday convention, and common sense, recognize that these are territories which are not part of Israel, but occupied by Israel, and whose claim of annexation should - charitably - be regarded as "disputed" if not dismissed outright as nonsense contrived for domestic political reasons. They are "occupied territories."

For further reading:
http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?p1=3&p2=4&code=mwp&case=131&k=5a&p3=0
http://www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/hrrpt/2001/nea/8262.htm
http://www.ohchr.org/en/countries/menaregion/pages/psindex.aspx

 

[Benvolio]

I think virtually everyone wants a separate Palestinian state, since it is the only way to avoid a Palestinian majority in Israel. Eventually the "return" of former residents will cease to be an issue. And eventually the Palestinians will realize that they want a country more than they want to destroy Israel.

 

[nafhoosier]

I think virtually everyone wants a separate Palestinian state, since it is the only way to avoid a Palestinian majority in Israel. Eventually the "return" of former residents will cease to be an issue. And eventually the Palestinians will realize that they want a country more than they want to destroy Israel.

Great analysis. No matter what happens, both sides are going to have to compromise. The Jews can't have all of their land and neither can the Palestinians. That's part of life.

I would also love to be the executive of a Fortune 500 company and have a million dollar salary overnight. But that's not going to happen.

All in all, despite the fact that I'm liberal and against the Iraq and Afghanistan war, I'm not a terrorist apologist or anti-American lunatic like Cindy Sheehan turned into.

 

[bankside]

Ahh, and, delightfully though I had only recalled the highlights from the media at the time, I've now had the pleasure of reading the Israeli Supreme Court on the question.

http://elyon1.court.gov.il/files_eng/04/560/020/A28/04020560.a28.pdf


These are not annexed territories. They are not part of the sovereign territory of Israel. They ought not to be part of the sovereign territory of Israel. They are annexed only in pretence by any Israeli government so irresponsible and inept as to make such a worthless declaration. And Israel would serve its security interests much more productively by not only withdrawing the claim, but withdrawing the occupation.

This is not about negating self-defence: when Israel is attacked with rockets by Hamas madmen, it should respond by lobbing rockets back over its border by return fire, instead of lobbing theocratic extremist colonists into someone else's territory.

 

[JayHawk]

The Huffington article points out the inevitable and shameful eruption of bigotry whenever "terrorism" is used in the media. Sadly, there will always be a faction that uses any convenient event to reinforce their fears and hatred. That seems fairly oblique to the generalized disparagement of American policies that the OP asserted.

The wrong-headed bigotry in the article does not change the critique of the OP in his well-timed attack on America at the time it was already in mourning for its innocent deaths. The fact that any dissident, or even enemy from without, has legitimate grievances against American policy does not outweigh the reprehensible acts of terrorists.

The criticism of American policy is perfectly valid. The timing of it to coincide with a (possibly domestic) terrorist bombing is insensitive. Everyone doesn't have to experience emotion the same. Everyone doesn't have to observe periods of mourning that have longstanding precedence. But, those of us who do endorse the respect that is due the dead DO have the right to defend the conventions of respect that have typified our society, and to decry those who willfully oppose them.

The thread is disrespectful on the face of it -- and few would argue otherwise from within the borders of this nation.

I respectfully disagree with this. Times like this is exactly when we need to reflect on ourselves and see what we can do better. If some people want to use this opportunity to go "AMERICA FUCK YEAH!" then more power to them.


There are already plenty of people going "AMERICA FUCK YEAH" attitude. I am just one voice asking a question. It's neither disrespectful or unpatriotic.

Hmm lets try it on another crime...

Women is raped....

Man pens an article saying "The bitch had it coming for wearing those juicy fuck me shorts"

Hmmmmmmmmmmm I wonder if that is ok??