Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Hortlund on May 03, 2002, 07:40:14 AM
-
There are way too many people posting stuff without knowing what they talk about on certain subjects. It becomes frustrating for everyone involved.
These are all FACTS
Use these facts to build your own opinions
------------------------------------------------------------
1. During World War I (1914-1918), Turkey (a.k.a. Ottoman Empire) supported Germany. When Germany was defeated, so were the Turks. Control of the southern portion of their empire was "mandated" to France and Britain. The area under British supervision was referred to as "Palestine".
(http://dingo.care-mail.com/pictures/48/487/782/487824553.gif)
-----------------------------
2. In 1923 the British "chopped off" 75% of the proposed Jewish Palestinian homeland to form an Arab Palestinian Nation of "Trans-Jordan", meaning "across the Jordan River".
(http://dingo.care-mail.com/pictures/79/795/548/795484696.gif)
-------------------------------
3. The U.N. Resolution 181 partition plan was to divide the remaining 25% of Palestine into a Jewish Palestinian State and a SECOND Arab Palestinian State (Trans-Jordan being the first) based upon population concentration. The Jews accepted, the Arabs rejected.
On May 14, 1948 the Palestinian Jews declared their own State of Israel. On the next day, Israel was at war with seven Arab armies... Egypt, Trans-Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Yemen. Most of the Arabs living within the boundaries of "Israel" decided to leave their homes for various reasons. Those Arabs who did not run away became today's Israeli Arab citizens. Those who fled became the seeds of the so-called "Palestinian Arab refugees".
(http://dingo.care-mail.com/pictures/59/593/324/593243196.jpg )
--------------------------------------------------
4. The end result of the 1948-49 Israeli War of Independence was a Jewish State slightly larger than that which was proposed by the United Nations two years before. What remained of that almost-created 2nd Arab Palestinian State was gobbled up by Egypt (Gaza Strip) and by Trans-Jordan (the "West Bank" of the Jordan River). At that point, Trans-Jordan became known as just "Jordan" since its borders now extended west of the Jordan River. In the final analysis, the Arabs of Palestine ended up with nearly 75% of the original territory of Palestine.
(http://dingo.care-mail.com/pictures/84/843/300/843005344.gif)
-
You need to re-title your thread to "Crash course in 20th century mid-east history".
-
This is how I understood the History... but why stop there. A this point in History, there isn't much of what is currently under scrutiny. Do you have anything covering the 67 and 73 wars, which brought The West Bank and Gaza Strip under Israeli Occupation?
Just facts mind you, I don't mean to lend any analysis to the situation. That would be a Professional Service, and you'd have to pay me for that lol.
-Sikboy
-
History class with uncle Hortlund -part 2
Ok, here is the rest of the story. I'm going to great lengths here to avoid getting caught in any political viewpoints mind you.
Once again, the FACTS
During the first few months of 1949, direct negotiations were conducted under UN auspices between Israel and each of the invading countries (except Iraq which has refused to negotiate with Israel to date), resulting in armistice agreements which reflected the situation at the end of the fighting. Accordingly, the coastal plain, Galilee and the entire Negev were within Israel's sovereignty, Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) came under Jordanian rule, the Gaza Strip came under Egyptian administration, and the city of Jerusalem was divided, with Jordan controlling the eastern part, including the Old City, and Israel the western sector.
(http://dingo.care-mail.com/pictures/44/440/097/440971923.jpg)
-------------------------------
1956 -The Sinai war
After the 1949 agreement, Israeli and Israel-bound shipping was prevented from passing through the Suez Canal; Egypt blockaded the Straits of Tiran for shipping to or from Israel; incursions into Israel of paramilitary forces from neighboring Arab countries occurred with increasing frequency; and Egypt began militarizing the Sinai peninsula.
In October 1956, Egypt, Syria and Jordan signed a tripartate military alliance. Israel saw this as a direct threat to its security, and attacked Egypt. In the course of an eight-day campaign, the IDF captured the Gaza Strip and the entire Sinai peninsula, halting 10 miles east of the Suez Canal.
A United Nations decision to station a UN Emergency Force (UNEF) along the Egypt-Israel border and Egyptian assurances of free navigation in the Gulf of Eilat led Israel to agree to withdraw in stages (November 1956 - March 1957) from the areas taken a few weeks earlier.
(http://dingo.care-mail.com/pictures/66/664/459/664596560.jpg)
--------------------------------
1967, -The six days war.
After the Sinai war, there was an escalation of Arab paramilitary-organization-raids targeting Israeli non-combatants across the Egyptian and Jordanian borders. Also, Syria began artillery bombardments from the Golan heights against Israeli agricultural settlements in northern Galilee. Egypt, Jordan and Syria begain military build-ups on the borders to Israel. Egypt moved large numbers of troops into the Sinai desert (May 1967), ordered the UN peacekeeping forces (deployed since 1957) out of the area, reimposed the blockade of the Straits of Tiran and entered into a military alliance with Jordan.
Israel perceived this as a direct threat to its security, and on the 5th of June 1967, Israel launched a preemptive strike against Egypt in the south. This was followed by attacks from Jordan and Syria into Israel.
Relative strength, June 1967
Israel
Men: 264.000
Tanks: 800
Aircraft: 350
Arabs (Egypt, Jordan, Syria, and Iraq)
Men: 410,000
Tanks: 2,200
Aircraft: 810
Losses
About 10,000 Egyptians were killed in Sinai and Gaza alone, compared with 300 Israeli casualties on that front. Egypt lost 80 percent of its Russian-supplied military equipment including 800 tanks and 300 aircraft. Jordan suffered 7,000 killed and wounded and the destruction of its entire air force and 80 percent of its armor. Syria lost about 1000 men and two-thirds of its air force.
Israel lost 700 men.
Israel won the war.
In September 1968, Egypt initiated a war of attrition, with sporadic, static actions along the banks of the Suez Canal, which escalated into full-scale, localized fighting, causing heavy casualties on both sides. Hostilities ended in 1970 when Egypt and Israel accepted a renewed cease-fire along the Suez Canal.
(http://dingo.care-mail.com/pictures/50/506/601/506019798.jpg)
-------------------------------------------
1973 -Yom Kippur war
Three years of relative calm along the borders ended on Yom Kippur, when Egypt and Syria launched a coordinated surprise assault against Israel (6 October 1973), with the Egyptian army crossing the Suez Canal and Syrian troops penetrating the Golan Heights.
The forces on the Syrian front:
Israel: 2 armored brigades
Syria: 2 tank armies
Israel was outnumbered nearly 12 to 1 (there were over 1,100 Syrian tanks versus 157 Israeli tanks)
Sinai front:
Along the Suez Canal during the first two or three days of the war, 436 Israelis stood between 80.000 Egyptian troops and Israel.
In the first minute of the attack, the Egyptians launched a concentrated barrage of 10,500 shells on a handful of Israeli fortifications at the rate of 175 shells per second. Egyptian aircraft then bombed the same positions, after which the first wave of 8,000 assault infantrymen stormed across the Suez.
For some flavour, two short stories from both fronts:
An Egyptian commander later recounted how a lone Israeli tank fought off his infantry division for more than half an hour. This solitary tank inflicted heavy casualties on his troops. After repeated assaults, they finally overcame the tank. The Egyptian commander was amazed to find that all of the crew members had all been killed with the exception of one badly wounded soldier, who had continued the fight.
A young lieutenant, a tank commander, found that his tank was the only surviving tank in his company. Instead of retreating he continued to engage the Syrian tanks. He darted in and out among the hills at night, destroying one enemy tank after another. His tank was hit and set afire. Suffering burns on his arms and face, he flung himself off of his burning tank, and together with his crew found another, immobile tank, and continued his war. By the time he was relieved (because of wounds), he had single-handedly destroyed 60 Syrian tanks.
How did the war end?
The UN forced a cease fire when Israeli tanks were advancing on both Cairo and Damascus
Israel won this war too.
Two years of difficult negotiations between Israel and Egypt and between Israel and Syria resulted in disengagement agreements, according to which Israel withdrew from parts of the territories captured during the war.
(http://dingo.care-mail.com/pictures/23/234/479/234791245.jpg)
-----------------------------------
1982 -Lebanon
The international boundary line between Israel and Lebanon has never been challenged by either side. However, when the PLO redeployed itself in southern Lebanon after being expelled from Jordan (1970) and perpetrated repeated attacks against the towns and villages of northern Israel (Galilee), the Israel Defense Forces crossed the border into Lebanon (1982).
In the operation, IDF removed the bulk of the PLO's organizational and military infrastructure from the area. Since then, Israel maintained a small security zone in southern Lebanon adjacent to its northern border "to safeguard its population in Galilee against continued attacks by hostile elements."
(http://dingo.care-mail.com/pictures/57/573/394/573944386.jpg)
-
Or you could start back in the first or second century (I forget which, it's still early)
When the Romans moved the Jews from Israel and spread them throughout their empire and moved in the philistines (SP?)
Or you could go back to the time of Abraham- 2,000 or was it 4,000 BC. (Again it's early and I’m not fully awake) when the problems between the Jews and the Arabs began.
I think one of the main problems is that people who try to help solve this, look at a problem that began many thousands of years ago and say something like "I've looked back 3/4 of a century and considered all the issues in this case..."
I doubt there is much anybody can do on this issue. Even if you get a peace treaty you will have enough radicals on both sides who will violate it then the main-stream on each side will claim the other side is violating the treaty and it will all start again.
And then of course if there ever is a real peace treaty guaranteeing Israel’s safety, that opens up the Revelations thing, but that's a whole other rant
-
IMO it would be both pointless and futile to go back to 100AD and try to draw any conclusions from that. The historical facts simply are too sketchy. In fact, it would be wrong to talk about historical facts, theories would be a better word.
To go back to 2000 BC is simply rediculous.
-
It leaves out a hell of a lot of important facts.
We could go back to the begining of recorded time, before the Jews conquered Israel, then the Babylonians conquered it, then the Jews got it back, then the Macedonians got it, then the Romans, then the Byzantines, then the rabs, then the Crusaders, then the Arabs again, then the Turks.
However, rather than go back 2000 years to when it was last a Jewish country, look at the more recent history.
1897 World Zionist conference meets and decides to set up a Jewish state in Palestine.
1917 Balfour Declaration. British government approves the following declaration:
His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country
(my emphasis)
From 1900 - 1947 there was continued Jewish immigration, and the setting up of Jewish councils etc to run Jewish affairs, seperate from the British administration. There was no attempt to integrate, as Zionism committed itself to a Jewish state.
The first census of the British mandate gave the population of Palestine, not including trans Jordan, as 589,000 muslims, 84,000 Jews, 71,000 Christians, 7,000 others.
By 1942 tht had increased to 995,000 Muslims, 484,000 Jews, 127,000 Christians
At the time of partition, Jews owned 6 - 8% of the land of Palestine, approx 20% of the cultivatable land. The remainder 93% of all land, 80% of cultivatable land, was owned by Arabs.
3. The U.N. Resolution 181 partition plan was to divide the remaining 25% of Palestine into a Jewish Palestinian State and a SECOND Arab Palestinian State (Trans-Jordan being the first) based upon population concentration. The Jews accepted, the Arabs rejected.
On May 14, 1948 the Palestinian Jews declared their own State of Israel. On the next day, Israel was at war with seven Arab armies... Egypt, Trans-Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Yemen. Most of the Arabs living within the boundaries of "Israel" decided to leave their homes for various reasons. Those Arabs who did not run away became today's Israeli Arab citizens. Those who fled became the seeds of the so-called "Palestinian Arab refugees".
You've left out a bit between those two paragraphs.
Prior to the declaration of the state of Israel, the Haganah, the de facto Israeli army, embarked on a campaign to conquer Arab lands to enlarge the size of the land Israel had been granted under partition. It was after this campaign had been underway for several months, with the conquest of Haifa, Jaffa, part of Jerusalem and a large corridor between Israeli lands and Jerusalem, that the Arab armies became involved.
Some background to this offensive by the Haganah:
No Zionist can forgo the smallest portion of the Land of Israel. A Jewish state in part is not an end, but a beginning ..... Our possession is important not only for itself ... through this we increase our power, and every increase in power facilitates getting hold of the country in its entirety. Establishing a state .... will serve as a very potent lever in our historical effort to redeem the whole country
David Ben Gurion
The Partition of Palestine is illegal. It will never be recognized .... Jerusalem was and will for ever be our capital. Eretz Israel will be restored to the people of Israel. All of it. And for Ever.
Menachim Begin, one day after the UN partition vote
In my heart, there was joy mixed with sadness: joy that the nations at last acknowledged that we are a nation with a state, and sadness that we lost half of the country, Judea and Samaria, and , in addition, that we have 400,000 Arabs.
David Ben Gurion
In the area allocated to the Jewish State there are not more than 520,000 Jews and about 350,000 non-Jews, mostly Arabs. Together with the Jews of Jerusalem, the total population of the Jewish State at the time of its establishment, will be about one million, including almost 40% non-Jews. Such a composition does not provide a stable basis for a Jewish State. This fact must be viewed in all its clarity and acuteness. With such a composition, there cannot even be absolute certainty that control will remain in the hands of the Jewish majority .... There can be no stable and strong Jewish state so long as it has a Jewish majority of only 60%
David Ben Gurion
The war will give us the land. The concept of 'ours' and 'not ours' are only concepts for peacetime, and during war they lose all their meaning
David Ben Gurion
Ben Gurion was the leader of the proto-Israeli state at that point, and it's first primeminister.
The thrust of Zionism, since the first settlement in the late 19th century, has been to colonise the land of Israel/Palestine, and drive out the people who live there.
-
Nashwan, who sold the land to the Jews between 1900-1947?
-
Hortlund
thanks for the info
seems the problem is those around Israel never learned the lesson or they have a very short memory...
the other problem is that they can't seem to get past yesteryear and look towards a productive and peaceful future .... easier for some to hate and kill than to love and forgive.
-
Originally posted by Nashwan
It leaves out a hell of a lot of important facts.
We could go back to the begining of recorded time, before the Jews conquered Israel, then the Babylonians conquered it, then the Jews got it back, then the Macedonians got it, then the Romans, then the Byzantines, then the arabs, then the Crusaders, then the Arabs again, then the Turks.
However, rather than go back 2000 years to when it was last a Jewish country, look at the more recent history.
I agree. Because going back too far will only confuse things. And soon you will be crossing a line between "history" and "legend" and that line can be extremely hard to spot sometimes. Besides, arguments can easily become truly weird if someone wants to back up their position with arguments based on "the state of affairs around 500BC according to Herodotus".
1897 World Zionist conference meets and decides to set up a Jewish state in Palestine.
1917 Balfour Declaration. British government approves the following declaration:
His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country
(my emphasis)
From 1900 - 1947 there was continued Jewish immigration, and the setting up of Jewish councils etc to run Jewish affairs, seperate from the British administration. There was no attempt to integrate, as Zionism committed itself to a Jewish state.
The first census of the British mandate gave the population of Palestine, not including trans Jordan, as 589,000 muslims, 84,000 Jews, 71,000 Christians, 7,000 others.
By 1942 tht had increased to 995,000 Muslims, 484,000 Jews, 127,000 Christians
At the time of partition, Jews owned 6 - 8% of the land of Palestine, approx 20% of the cultivatable land. The remainder 93% of all land, 80% of cultivatable land, was owned by Arabs.
Well, to be perfectly honest, I dont see the relevance in this. So you point to a zionist movement, you point to a policy declaration in 1917 (during wwi, before the creation of Trans-Jordan etc)…so?
The exact demographic situation at the time of the partition is really of no interest. We can agree that there were more arabs in palestine at the time, and that these arabs owned more land than the jews. That is not in dispute. Neither is it relevant.
You've left out a bit between those two paragraphs.
Prior to the declaration of the state of Israel, the Haganah, the de facto Israeli army, embarked on a campaign to conquer Arab lands to enlarge the size of the land Israel had been granted under partition. It was after this campaign had been underway for several months, with the conquest of Haifa, Jaffa, part of Jerusalem and a large corridor between Israeli lands and Jerusalem, that the Arab armies became involved.
Before we get into this let me ask two questions.
1) Since there seems to be a difference of opinion regarding the activities of, and the existence of what you choose to call "the de facto Israeli army", I'd like to ask you for your sources.
And
2) Is it your opinion that the arab attack on Israel in 1948 was a defensive move, or a move to counter some Israeli attack? Is that what you are trying to say?
Ben Gurion was the leader of the proto-Israeli state at that point, and it's first primeminister.
The thrust of Zionism, since the first settlement in the late 19th century, has been to colonise the land of Israel/Palestine, and drive out the people who live there.
To save space I did not include all your quotes. Partly because I fail to see their relevance. Are you trying to paint a picture of an aggressive Israel, striving to expand its borders and colonize the west bank? Is that what you are doing?
You are using some quotes from one or two persons, what is your point? I can dig up quotes that will sound just as bad or even worse by US presidents, British prime ministers, or Arab "leaders" but what would the point in that be? Would that change the fact that the US was attacked at Pearl Harbour or that England once owned Canada? What is the relevance of quoting one or two persons like that? I seriously cannot understand what you are trying to prove or say here.
-
Lesson for today....
No matter how hard you try to stick to the facts, there remains a minimum of 2 sides to every story.
Very interesting reading though, thanks Hortlund and Nashwan.
-
Nashwan, who sold the land to the Jews between 1900-1947?
The people who owned the land.
I agree. Because going back too far will only confuse things. And soon you will be crossing a line between "history" and "legend" and that line can be extremely hard to spot sometimes. Besides, arguments can easily become truly weird if someone wants to back up their position with arguments based on "the state of affairs around 500BC according to Herodotus".
I agree as well. However, some people seem to think 2000 year old history justifies modern actions. I don't believe it does, and I don't know of any legal system in the world that operates on that principle.
Before we get into this let me ask two questions.
1) Since there seems to be a difference of opinion regarding the activities of, and the existence of what you choose to call "the de facto Israeli army", I'd like to ask you for your sources.
The bald facts, eg the conquest of Haifa, Jaffa, corridor to Jerusalem etc can be found on the IDF's website. The full details can be found on several Israeli sites detailing the 20th century history of Israel, and in numerous books.
The facts aren't really in dispute, just the intrepretation.
2) Is it your opinion that the arab attack on Israel in 1948 was a defensive move, or a move to counter some Israeli attack? Is that what you are trying to say?
Is it your intrepretation that the Arab attack on Israel was an aggresive move, and that the prior Israeli attack on the Arabs was a defensive move?
I am trying to point out that the common view, as detailed by Hollywood, and various books written from an Israeli point of view, is wrong. The context of both sides actions was that Israel was intent on expanding it's borders, the Arab states intent on either stopping them, or crushing Israel. I suspect the latter.
To save space I did not include all your quotes. Partly because I fail to see their relevance. Are you trying to paint a picture of an aggressive Israel, striving to expand its borders and colonize the west bank? Is that what you are doing?
Yes. The Jews had a country of their own 2000 years ago. The Romans took it from them, and they didn't have a country until 1948.
In the late 19th century, various Jews decided they wanted a country again, and set up taking one by force. Is their any other intrepretation that could be put on it?
You are using some quotes from one or two persons, what is your point? I can dig up quotes that will sound just as bad or even worse by US presidents, British prime ministers, or Arab "leaders" but what would the point in that be?
The history of the world is one of conquest, colonistaion, ethnic cleansing. All countries have done it, it's just times have moved on, and it's not really seen as aceptable to do it anymore, unless the country is Israel.
Those quotes come from two Israeli prime ministers, including the first Israeli prime minister. They are intended to show that Israel is intent on colonising and absorbing the West Bank. I can find others from other Israeli prime ministers, including the current one, if you like.
Would that change the fact that the US was attacked at Pearl Harbour or that England once owned Canada? What is the relevance of quoting one or two persons like that? I seriously cannot understand what you are trying to prove or say here.
I can't understand what you are trying to say either.
My basic point is that taking territory from your neighbours, and ethnically cleansing the population from it, is wrong.
Your point is what, exactly? That anything Israel chooses to do is fine? That if it wants more land it should just take it?
-
And Nashwan, the people who owned the land, were Arabs?
-
Mainly yes. Why, where are you going with this?
-
Originally posted by Nashwan
Mainly yes. Why, where are you going with this?
No where, you already went there for me. :)
-
Originally posted by Nashwan
Is it your intrepretation that the Arab attack on Israel was an aggresive move, and that the prior Israeli attack on the Arabs was a defensive move?
Yes, the arab attack on Israel was an aggressive move, or if you will, a war of aggression.
The “prior Israeli attack”-theory of yours have several flaws. Most notably that Israel did not exist back then, neither did the IDF, so IF, and let me stress that IF again, IF you manage to prove that any such attack occurred the way you want to describe it, then you will still be left with the pesky fact that the attack was NOT carried out by Israel nor the IDF. To blame Israel or the IDF for something that happened before it came into existence would be as unjustified as to blame Germany in 1950 for what happened in Poland in 1939.
In the late 19th century, various Jews decided they wanted a country again, and set up taking one by force. Is their any other intrepretation that could be put on it?
But they did not take it by force, it was given to them.
Those quotes come from two Israeli prime ministers, including the first Israeli prime minister. They are intended to show that Israel is intent on colonising and absorbing the West Bank. I can find others from other Israeli prime ministers, including the current one, if you like.
You have to realize something. “Israel” is not a living entity, and thus cannot have goals or intentions. People inside Israel are living beings, they can have goals and intentions. You seem to have trouble with keeping those two apart.
Oh, and before you say “but it is the Israeli prime minister who holds these dirty thoughts” or something like that. Allow me to point out that Israel is a democracy. The only “western” one in the region too.
My basic point is that taking territory from your neighbours, and ethnically cleansing the population from it, is wrong.
I don't believe you.
I think that you dont like Israel for some reason, and the “oh it is so wrong to take territory from someone and ethnically cleanse it”-argument is just convenient. Because I am willing to bet that you can accept other occasions of ethnical cleansing in history, some more recent than others.
Take the end of wwii, notice anything weird with Germanys eastern borders?
Take territory from neighbors and ethnically cleanse it.
Notice anything weird with Finlands eastern borders?
Take territory from neighbors and ethnically cleanse it.
Take the creation of the USA
Take territory from neighbors and ethnically cleanse it.
Take the Chinese invasion of Tibet
Take territory from neighbors and ethnically cleanse it.
Take Bosnia, or India, or Pakistan, or Somalia, or Ethiopia, or South Africa, or Australia, or Liberia, or Rwanda or...Do you have any idea how long this list can be?
I would be very surprised if you were to say that all these examples of ethnical cleansing are equally wrong, and that in every case the land should be returned to its rightful owners, regardless of when it was taken, by whom and under what circumstances. Somehow I doubt it. But Israel on the other hand...
Your point is what, exactly? That anything Israel chooses to do is fine? That if it wants more land it should just take it?
My point is that there are two sides in the conflict in Israel. On one side you have the only western democracy in the region, filled with people just like you and me. On the other side you have the guys sending in suicide bombers to blow up women and children.
That is really all I need to know.
In this conflict there is a good side and a bad side. For some reason unbeknownst to me you have chosen to side with the bad guys, the ones strapping on explosive vests and heading into playgrounds filled with kids to blow up as many of them as possible. The guys who were cheering on 9-11. The ones who sided with Saddam in 91. The guys who will do just about anything they can to kill Israeli civilians, they will blow up busses, cars, airplanes, boats, houses, shopping malls, grocery stores...they will even blow themselves up....just to kill women and children...
just exactly how sick is that? Think about it.
[edit] I took out a phrasing that might be found offensive, and I apologize for that phrasing.
-
Hortlund I want to thank you for your support of Israel and the truth.
People like You make this world a better place.
-
Take Bosnia, or India, or Pakistan, or Somalia, or Ethiopia, or South Africa, or Australia, or Liberia, or Rwanda or...Do you have any idea how long this list can be?
What ethinic cleansing in Australia?
Tronsky
-
Well done Hortlund, and pictures too! :)
-
Ripsnort, I still don't understand what you mean.
Yes, the arab attack on Israel was an aggressive move, or if you will, a war of aggression
And how would you define Israels actions to expand its borders beyond the area agreed under partition? In case you
want to use the cop-out "Israel didn't exist yet", the Israeli offensive continued after the declaration of the state of
Israel.
The “prior Israeli attack”-theory of yours have several flaws. Most notably that Israel did not exist back then,
neither did the IDF, so IF, and let me stress that IF again, IF you manage to prove that any such attack occurred the
way you want to describe it, then you will still be left with the pesky fact that the attack was NOT carried out by Israel
nor the IDF. To blame Israel or the IDF for something that happened before it came into existence would be as
unjustified as to blame Germany in 1950 for what happened in Poland in 1939.
Or to blame the Palestinians or Arab now for what happened in 1948.
But they did not take it by force, it was given to them.
Some land wasgiven to them, by the UN which did not own it.
ince then, Israel has repeatedly enlarged the area it was given, and defies UN attempts to give it back to the
Palestinians. The UN is to be obeyed when it rules in Israel's favour, ignored when the ruling goes against Israel?
Would you agree that's an acceptable principle to base the rule of law upon?
You have to realize something. “Israel” is not a living entity, and thus cannot have goals or intentions. People
inside Israel are living beings, they can have goals and intentions. You seem to have trouble with keeping those two
apart.
Remember your characterization of all Arabs as "terminators", unwilling to stop until Israel is destroyed? You seem to
be able to project goals and intentions on to a group. If a group can have goals and intentions, so can a country.
Oh, and before you say “but it is the Israeli prime minister who holds these dirty thoughts” or something like
that. Allow me to point out that Israel is a democracy. The only “western” one in the region too.
Israel is very far from being a western democracy.
Full citizenship is based purely on religion. A jew from anywhere is a full citizen of Israel, a Muslim from Tel Aviv isnt.
Nor is a Christian from Jerusalem, or someone who rejects orthodox religion.
The Israeli parliament now has the right to ban candidates or parties that are opposed (even peacefully), to Israel
being a "Jewish democratic" country. ie, campaign for full citizenship for all citizens regrdless of religion and you can
be banned. The ban is not even subject to appeal before the courts, it is purely a matter of judgement by sitting
politicians.
I don't believe you.
I think that you dont like Israel for some reason, and the “oh it is so wrong to take territory from someone and
ethnically cleanse it”-argument is just convenient. Because I am willing to bet that you can accept other occasions of
ethnical cleansing in history, some more recent than others.
Take the end of wwii, notice anything weird with Germanys eastern borders?
Take territory from neighbors and ethnically cleanse it.
No, I condemn the ethnic cleansing of Germans, and the ethnic cleansing Germany did during the war. Do you?
Notice anything weird with Finlands eastern borders?
Take territory from neighbors and ethnically cleanse it.
Very few of Stalin's actions get my support. Do you support it?
Take the creation of the USA
Take territory from neighbors and ethnically cleanse it.
No, that was wrong too. The only justification is that it was normal practice at the time, like slavery and bear-baiting. It
doesn't mean it's acceptable now.
Take the Chinese invasion of Tibet
Take territory from neighbors and ethnically cleanse it.
No, I condemn that as well. Don't you?
Take Bosnia, or India, or Pakistan, or Somalia, or Ethiopia, or South Africa, or Australia, or Liberia, or Rwanda
or...Do you have any idea how long this list can be?
The list can be very long, depending on how fr you go back.
I condemn what happened in Bosnia, and Southafrica, and Australia, and Rwanda. The rest I don't know enough
about. Which of them do you support?
I would be very surprised if you were to say that all these examples of ethnical cleansing are equally wrong,
and that in every case the land should be returned to its rightful owners, regardless of when it was taken, by whom
and under what circumstances. Somehow I doubt it. But Israel on the other hand...
If you look at what I said earlier, you'll see I don't support ancient claims.
I don't support uprooting Israelis from Israel. Israel was created because the Jews needed a homeland, they still do.
Another thing I don't support is Israel continuing to expand its borders in the West Bank at the expense of the Palestinians who live there.
Israel has a right to exit, but so does Palestine. Expanding Israel into the only land available for the Palestinians isnt going to bring peace. For a Palestinian the choices are obvious, fight now for a homeland, or remain a subject of Israeli occupation.
My point is that there are two sides in the conflict in Israel. On one side you have the only western democracy in the region, filled with people just like you and me. On the other side you have the guys sending in suicide bombers to blow up women and children.
An equally valid interpretation is you have two sides: one a religous theocracy intent on expanding it's borders, fighting a dirty war against the people who's territory it's absorbing. On the other you have people occupied by a regional superpower for 30 years, fighting with the only weapons they have have against the enemy that's taking their land and subjugating them. Both are valid, because both are true.
-
quote]
In this conflict there is a good side and a bad side. For some reason unbeknownst to me you have chosen to side with the bad guys, the ones strapping on explosive vests and heading into playgrounds filled with kids to blow up as many of them as possible. The guys who were cheering on 9-11. The ones who sided with Saddam in 91. The guys who will do just about anything they can to kill Israeli civilians, they will blow up busses, cars, airplanes, boats, houses, shopping malls, grocery stores...they will even blow themselves up....just to kill women and children...
just exactly how sick is that? Think about it.
[/quote]
That would be stupid even if it didnt come from someone who tried to justify the Nazi reprisal massacres in France. Coming from you its obscene.
Some of the actions of the "good" side:
Shelling a UN base in Lebanon where civilians had gathered to avoid Israeli shells. 100 civilians dead.
Machinegunning worshipers at a mosque in the West Bank, 29 dead.
Shooting more than 400 children dead in the last 15 years.
Planting a bomb in the Khan Younis refugee camp in Nov 2001 that killed 5 children, aged 6, 11, 11, 13, 14
Blowing up a village in Jordan and shooting the civilians as they fled their homes. 69 dead
Massacreing the inhabitants of Deir Yassin, killing 100 - 200 civilians.
Sealing off a refugee camp in Lebanon and sending their allies in, then watching whilst 2000 Palestinian women and children were murdered.
Here's a little fact for you about terrorism in Israel/West Bank.
Between 1987 and 2001, 4 Israeli children under 13 were murdered by Palestinian terroists within Israel. Another 6 were murdered in the West Bank.
In the same time, 14 Palestinian children under 13 were murdered by Israeli settlers in the West Bank, and 101 were killed by the IDF.
Even if you assume every child under 13 killed by the IDF was justified, in cross-fire or whatever, Jewish extremist settlers still killed more Palestinian children than Palestinians killed Israeli children.
More of the "good guys" in action:
'Ala Hamdan 'Abd al-'Aziz Ahmad, age 10, from as-Sawiya, Nablus district. She died when her appendix burst after IDF soldiers prevented her father from taking her to a hospital in Nablus
Al-'Obeisi infant girl, from Beit Dajan, Nablus district. She died at birth at home after the IDF prohibited her mother from leaving the village to go to the hospital
Khadra Raji Mustafa Shtiwi, age 65, from Qadum, Nablus district, felt ill and was unable to move her left hand. Soldiers at the checkpoint between Dir Sheref and Nablus did not allow her to cross. She was taken along a circuitous route for two hours. She died at the hospital
'Abd a-Rahman Mahmoud Abu-Jam'a, age 79, from Beit Lid, Tulkarm district, suffered from chest pains. He was delayed for an hour at the Tulkarm checkpoint. When he reached the hospital, a physician stated that he had died 30 minutes before arrival.
Israa Barkat Sallem Ahmad, age 11, from a-Sawiya, Nablus district, suffered from brain birth defect. She lost consciousness, and was delayed at the checkpoint near Hawareh, Nablus district, for an hour. After being allowed to pass, she died on the way to the hospital.
'Abdullah 'Atatreh, age 3, from a-Tarem, Jenin district, fell into a water container and lost consciousness. Delayed at checkpoint on his way to the medical clinic in Yab'ad, Jenin district, he was taken to Yab'ad along side roads. He was dead on arrival at the clinic.
Safdi infant, from 'Urif, Nablus district. Stillborn, after his mother, in her ninth month of pregnancy, was delayed at a checkpoint for five hours.
These are from an Israeli human rights site, and aren't included in the list of murdered children I gave above. They're just a sample of the cases.
In the current Intifada, from September 2000 until the end of April 2002 (ie excluding the Israeli re-occupation of areas of the West Bank)
294 Israeli civilians have been killed by Palestinians
146 members of the Israeli security forces have been killed by Palestinians
242 members of the Palestinian security forces have been killed by Israelis
967 Palestinian civilians have been killed by Israelis
There aren't good guys and bad guys, there are two groups of people fighting over land. The Palestinians live on the land, the Israelis want the land, neither side are prepared to give it up.
There can't be peace until there's a compromise, because the Palestinians aren't going to run away again. They know if they do they'll never be able to come back. The Palestinians have nothing to give up in a deal, the compromise has to come from Israel. Until there's a viable Palestinian state, terrorism will go on, it's as simple as that.
Most Israelis know that. That's why the seperation movement has grown so strong suddenly. People want to erect a wall/fence between Israel and the West Bank. It's rejected by the current government because they know it will lead to Palestinian statehood.
It isn't a war about good and evil, it's a war over land. It isn't a war about security, common sense will tell you the best way to stop terrorism in Israel is a strong border between Israel and the Palestinians in the West Bank. Why do you think no such border exists?
-
Originally posted by Nashwan
Some land was given to them, by the UN which did not own it.
Since then, Israel has repeatedly enlarged the area it was given, and defies UN attempts to give it back to the
Palestinians. The UN is to be obeyed when it rules in Israel's favour, ignored when the ruling goes against Israel?
Would you agree that's an acceptable principle to base the rule of law upon?
Come on, is this the best you can do? Did you even bother to read my first two posts in this thread or did you just dive in guns blazing?
The UN did not “give” anyone anything. It was the British. The British owned the land according to all laws ot the time, and it was theirs to give. If you want to squeak at someone, squeak at Britain. Try to read a f#¤% book or something instead of posting stupid toejam like that trying to score cheap points.
And dont come here trying to parade some “rule of law”-arguments with me. I have posted several times before in other threads exactly what the law says regarding Israel, Palestine, and the ownership of the West bank and the Gaza strip. If you want, we can go into the legal aspects of it again, but I doubt very much you’ll take me up on that because
a) you dont have a f/%#¤¤ clue in that area, and
b) it doesnt favor the Palestinian “cause” at all, because all you end up with is a pesky conclusion that Israel has international law on her side in this conflict.
Remember your characterization of all Arabs as "terminators", unwilling to stop until Israel is destroyed? You seem to be able to project goals and intentions on to a group. If a group can have goals and intentions, so can a country.
Do you have any idea how stupid that quote makes you look? Are you actually trying to forward the theory that a country can have goals and intentions? That a country can think?
It would seem you have some trouble understanding how these things work. Hint: Look up the words “prejudice” (might explain my characterization of arabs) “country” and “human” (focus on the differences between the two, especially regarding the difference in ability for the two to form thoughts, have goals and intentions.)
Israel is very far from being a western democracy.
I guess this would be a good time to make sure that you understand the difference between the words “democracy”, “law” and “human rights”. Are you confident that you understand the difference between those concepts?
Full citizenship is based purely on religion. A jew from anywhere is a full citizen of Israel, a Muslim from Tel Aviv isnt.
Nor is a Christian from Jerusalem, or someone who rejects orthodox religion.
And this would be related to the question “is Israel a demcracy” how? Right now you are arguing over the question “who is a citizen of Israel” or “who has the right to become an Israeli citizen”. Probably a very fascinating question, but one that has nothing whatsoever to do with the question “is Israel a democracy”. See above regarding understanding the difference between those complicated concepts. Let me just point out, that a prerequisite for democracy is NOT "everyone inside the borders of the country must be allowed to be a citizen”. What IS a prerequisite for democracy though, is that every citizen must be allowed to vote, and each vote has equal weight. Ponder over this for a couple of minutes, and try to identify the differences between the two…any thoughts?
The Israeli parliament now has the right to ban candidates or parties that are opposed (even peacefully), to Israel
being a "Jewish democratic" country. ie, campaign for full citizenship for all citizens regardless of religion and you can be banned. The ban is not even subject to appeal before the courts, it is purely a matter of judgement by sitting politicians.
Oh, how weird, in Germany, candidates expressing sympathy for the nazis are banned too. Does that make Germany a non-democratic state? Most nations have rules in their constitutions effectively banning some types of parties from making it into their parliaments.
No, I condemn the ethnic cleansing of Germans, and the ethnic cleansing Germany did during the war. Do you?
Very few of Stalin's actions get my support. Do you support it?
(USA)
No, that was wrong too. The only justification is that it was normal practice at the time, like slavery and bear-baiting. It doesn't mean it's acceptable now.
(Tibet)
No, I condemn that as well. Don't you?
The list can be very long, depending on how fr you go back.
I condemn what happened in Bosnia, and Southafrica, and Australia, and Rwanda. The rest I don't know enough
about. Which of them do you support?
Well, I dont think I support any of the ethnical cleansings that took place. But neither do I think that land should be given back to some original owner (with the possible exception of Tibet). Read the 1973 Helsinki protocol. I think that was a good idea. (in case you cant be bothered to search for it, or in case the language is too complicated for you to understand, basically what it says is this: Regardless of how todays borders in Europe came about, lets keep them the way they are now, and move on, instead of squeaking about who owned what land when, and who should give what back to whom)
Israel has a right to exit, but so does Palestine.
Oh yeah? Who decides that and on what grounds? Why do you say something like that? What gives the Palestinians the right to have a country of their own? Who decides that? You? The UN? (and before you burst out in some “but Israel was given land by the UN”-rant. Please read my first post in this thread, and try to understand that it was Great Britain that gave Israel its land, not the UN). Also, what about the Kurds, Northern Ireland, Basques, East Timor, The Faeroes, Quebeck etc etc etc? Who have a right to a country of their own and why?
Expanding Israel into the only land available for the Palestinians isnt going to bring peace. For a Palestinian the choices are obvious, fight now for a homeland, or remain a subject of Israeli occupation.
OR live your life like a normal person, get a job, get a haircut, find a girl to marry, get kids etc etc. The average Palestinian’s choices are just as obvious as the average Irishman's, Quebeckian's, Basque's etc etc etc. If you want independence that bad, win it the right way, the legal way. If you try to win your independence by the way of the sword, be prepared to reap the consequences of your actions.
An equally valid interpretation is you have two sides: one a religous theocracy intent on expanding it's borders, fighting a dirty war against the people who's territory it's absorbing. On the other you have people occupied by a regional superpower for 30 years, fighting with the only weapons they have have against the enemy that's taking their land and subjugating them. Both are valid, because both are true.
Blah blah blah. No both are not true because Israel is a democracy, Israel is not fighting a dirty war, heck, Israel is not fighting a war at all (please look up the definition of what constitutes a “war” before mouthing off), the Palestinians are not occupied.
And you’d better DAMN WELL UNDERSTAND that terrorism is not the only weapons the Pals have against the Israelis. Try for a second, at least TRY to understand my next sentences. If the palestinains would do a “Martin Luther King”, or “Ghandi” on Israel, they would have a country of their own within 5 years. But NO, instead they want to kill off all jews and take all their land. Their weapons of choice are suicide bombers, AK-47s and rocks. They have choosen their path, now they can reap the consequences of their actions.
That would be stupid even if it didnt come from someone who tried to justify the Nazi reprisal massacres in France. Coming from you its obscene.
Please, do show me a quote from me where I tried to justify any Nazi massacre in France. If you cant, then you really should apologize. That is all Im gonna say about that.
-
Some of the actions of the "good" side:
[SNIP]
You really should make different categories. Like one for individuals committing crimes, one for alleged war crimes, one for “collateral damage”, one for self defence, or something like that. When you blurr them all together like that, one might get the impression that it was the IDF who machinegunned mosque-worshippers etc.
Here's a little fact for you about terrorism in Israel/West Bank.
Between 1987 and 2001, 4 Israeli children under 13 were murdered by Palestinian terroists within Israel. Another 6 were murdered in the West Bank.
In the same time, 14 Palestinian children under 13 were murdered by Israeli settlers in the West Bank, and 101 were killed by the IDF.
Even if you assume every child under 13 killed by the IDF was justified, in cross-fire or whatever, Jewish extremist settlers still killed more Palestinian children than Palestinians killed Israeli children.
Point being?
More of the "good guys" in action:
[SNIP]
Yeah, it is really sad.
In the current Intifada, from September 2000 until the end of April 2002 (ie excluding the Israeli re-occupation of areas of the West Bank)
294 Israeli civilians have been killed by Palestinians
146 members of the Israeli security forces have been killed by Palestinians
242 members of the Palestinian security forces have been killed by Israelis
967 Palestinian civilians have been killed by Israelis
Yes, horrible.
What do you think the figures would be if the Palestinians had opted to not start their “Intifada”? What if they just said “Throw rocks at tanks or strap on explosives and kill women and children? Screw that, lets just get on with our lives.” What do you think the body count would have been then?
The problem is that it doesnt work the other way around. The Israelis cant say “Screw this conflict, lets give the Palestinians what they want and lets just live in peace and get on with our lives.” It has been proven time and time again that the arabs will not accept a jewish state in the region. Just as an example, take a look at the Saudi peace proposal. Israel withdraw to the 1967 borders, and in return for that, all arab nations will acknowledge Israel’s right to exist. Exactly how diddlyed is that? Exactly what does that say about their current position regarding Israel? Great bargain chip “If you do as we say, we will let you live”.
There aren't good guys and bad guys, there are two groups of people fighting over land. The Palestinians live on the land, the Israelis want the land, neither side are prepared to give it up.
Again, you have understood things wrong. Israel has the land, the Palestinians want the land. Israel says “No, because every time we gave you some land, you went ahead and attacked us and tried to kill us all”, the Palestinains say “give us our land and begone, else we shall kill your women and children”.
There can't be peace until there's a compromise, because the Palestinians aren't going to run away again. They know if they do they'll never be able to come back. The Palestinians have nothing to give up in a deal, the compromise has to come from Israel. Until there's a viable Palestinian state, terrorism will go on, it's as simple as that.
Which is exactly why we must keep supporting Israel, and help them fight terrorism. And trust me, there can be peace without any compromise. And you have to understand exactly how stupid you look when you say “There cant be peace until there is a compromise, and the compromise has to come from Israel” Exactly what is your interpretation of the word “compromise”?
ANYWAY, as I have tried to point out before, there are too many unsolvable questions. The situation will remain until the Arabs start another war against Israel, then Israel will kick their collective tulips again, and they will cool down for a decade or two.
It isn't a war about security, common sense will tell you the best way to stop terrorism in Israel is a strong border between Israel and the Palestinians in the West Bank. Why do you think no such border exists?
Well, there has to be several strong borders, not just one. Take a look at a map over the region. There has to be several large walls around the Palestinian villages and towns. But the general idea, to build walls against the Palestinians is not without merit.
-
"Take a look at a map over the region. There has to be several large walls around the Palestinian villages and towns."
Yep and who would be gatekeepers on those Ghettoes?
-
I'm going to great lengths here to avoid getting caught in any political viewpoints mind you.
Of course, that is about as impossible of a task as resolving the conflict in the Middle East :)
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Those quotes come from two Israeli prime ministers, including the first Israeli prime minister. They are intended to show that Israel is intent on colonising and absorbing the West Bank. I can find others from other Israeli prime ministers, including the current one, if you like.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You have to realize something. “Israel” is not a living entity, and thus cannot have goals or intentions. People inside Israel are living beings, they can have goals and intentions. You seem to have trouble with keeping those two apart.
Hortlund, I must admit that I'm having trouble following this view. In some manners of context, "" is representative of that country's government. Since a government is made up of people who are responsible for deciding the goals, plans, objectives, resources, etc. of the governed population (i.e. the collective actions of the population, not necessarily the specific actions of the population), and a country can only exist with the intent of a population, then a country can be said to be a living entity, it lives within its population. This in effect "makes up" the "will" of a country. A government may or may not represent or act on the popular opinion of those who populate that country. Indeed, the "opinion" of a country is often fractured among the population, so while the will of a country is only the generalized representation of the population, it is that which matters in terms of the specific actions taken by the governing body, which will in turn affect the subsequent reactions of other populations/governments of other countries. I guess the point is that, in some terms, the "goal of " is indictive of the goal of the government, which in turn is indictive(justly or not, completely or not) of the goals of the governed population as a collective. As such, the goals of a country will change as the collective population opts to change its government.
I would argue that people do not necessarily "live inside" a country, but rather a country exists inside the collective will of a population. It is as much the same reason as why a "country" is said to have a flag, an army, a literacy rate, etc.
-
Come on, is this the best you can do? Did you even bother to read my first two posts in this thread or did you just dive in guns blazing?
You presented the facts from one side. The case for the prosecution, if you like. Would you make a judgement from one side's case?
The UN did not “give” anyone anything. It was the British. The British owned the land according to all laws ot the time, and it was theirs to give.
Completely wrong.
The land was placed under League of Nations mandate following the first world war. Britain was the mandated power, charged with carrying out the Balfour declaration, which I posted earlier. The land was not Britain's.
From the UN's web site:
At the end of the First World War, Palestine was among the several former Ottoman Arab territories which were made mandated territories by the League of Nations. The relevant provisions of the League's Covenant (Article 22) referred to these territories as "certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire [which] have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative assistance and advice by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory".
Doesn't sound like the land "belonged" to Britain, does it?
Britain attempted to carry out the mandate. Two approaches were considered, the first choice was a decentralised single country, home to both Jews and Arabs, with safeguards under the law for each. The Arabs accepted, the Jews rejected it. Zionism called for the establishment of a Jewish state, which wasn't compatible with the decentralised plan.
The second British plan was partition, with a Jewish state and a Palestinian state. The Arabs rejected this, the Jews accepted it.
Both the Arabs and the Jews used terrorism against each other and Britain. The Jews spread it wider, with letter bombs in Britain, a bomb in the British embassy in Rome, and the murder of British soldiers taken as hostages.
In the end, Britain gave up trying to find a solution, and handed the problem over to the UN, which had succeeded the League of Nations.
And dont come here trying to parade some “rule of law”-arguments with me. I have posted several times before in other threads exactly what the law says regarding Israel, Palestine, and the ownership of the West bank and the Gaza strip. If you want, we can go into the legal aspects of it again, but I doubt very much you’ll take me up on that because
a) you dont have a f/%#¤¤ clue in that area, and
b) it doesnt favor the Palestinian “cause” at all, because all you end up with is a pesky conclusion that Israel has international law on her side in this conflict.
UN Resolution 181:
3. Independent Arab and Jewish States and the Special International Regime for the City of Jerusalem, set forth in part III of this plan, shall come into existence in Palestine two months after the evacuation of the armed forces of the mandatory Power has been completed but in any case not later than 1 October 1948. The boundaries of the Arab State, the Jewish State, and the City of Jerusalem shall be as described in parts II and III below.
Before the current mess there was an area of the the Ottoman Empire that was administered by the League of Nations, then the UN.
The UN decreed it should be split up into two states, a Jewish state and an Arab state. The Jewish state went to war and occupied most of the Arab state. How exactly does Israel have international law on it's side in it's occupation of the West Bank?
Remember your characterization of all Arabs as "terminators", unwilling to stop until Israel is destroyed? You seem to be able to project goals and intentions on to a group. If a group can have goals and intentions, so can a country.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you have any idea how stupid that quote makes you look? Are you actually trying to forward the theory that a country can have goals and intentions? That a country can think?
I was merely pointing out the contradictions in your position. You lump together all Arabs in a group, and then assign goals and intentions to that group. How is that different from assigning goals and intentions to a country? If "the Arabs" or "Palestinians" can have goals, so can a country.
It's common practice to ascribe goals to a country.
"First, I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to the earth."
It's also common practice to do somtething yourself, then criticise others for doing it. It's called hypocracy.
Oh, how weird, in Germany, candidates expressing sympathy for the nazis are banned too. Does that make Germany a non-democratic state? Most nations have rules in their constitutions effectively banning some types of parties from making it into their parliaments.
Most countries have laws banning extremist groups from entering parliament. Most countries have those rules administered by an independant body like the judicary to ensure fairness. Few countries regarded as democratic have laws banning parties that call for equality, or have those laws administered by politicians.
Well, I dont think I support any of the ethnical cleansings that took place. But neither do I think that land should be given back to some original owner (with the possible exception of Tibet). Read the 1973 Helsinki protocol. I think that was a good idea. (in case you cant be bothered to search for it, or in case the language is too complicated for you to understand, basically what it says is this: Regardless of how todays borders in Europe came about, lets keep them the way they are now, and move on, instead of squeaking about who owned what land when, and who should give what back to whom)
I agree. However, nearly all the settlements in the West Bank were founded after the Helsinki protocol was agreed. Land siezed that recently should be handed back, I think.
-
Oh yeah? Who decides that and on what grounds? Why do you say something like that? What gives the Palestinians the right to have a country of their own? Who decides that? You? The UN? (and before you burst out in some “but Israel was given land by the UN”-rant. Please read my first post in this thread, and try to understand that it was Great Britain that gave Israel its land, not the UN).
No, it was the UN, not Britain. Read the history. Britain washed its hands of the affair. Britain didn't even vote in the final UN decisions on the matter.
I'd say the UN should decide, or perhaps the population of the area in question. Who decides Israel has a right to exist?
OR live your life like a normal person, get a job, get a haircut, find a girl to marry, get kids etc etc. The average Palestinian’s choices are just as obvious as the average Irishman's, Quebeckian's, Basque's etc etc etc.
Apart from a few differences.
The average Irishman, Quebecois etc doesn't have to survive on 70 litres of water a day (including his crops, industry etc), 30 litres a day below the recomended minimum for health. The average Irishman, Quebecois has a vote, and a stake in a country. The average Irishman, Quebecois etc doesnt have to worry his house will be demolished as a reprisal for someone else's actions, or to make way for a new settlement. The average Irishman, Quebecois etc doesn't have to carry an identity card denoting his religion, which then defines the reduced benefits and legal rights he is allowed.
If you want independence that bad, win it the right way, the legal way. If you try to win your independence by the way of the sword, be prepared to reap the consequences of your actions.
"The right of any community to use force as a means of gaining its political ends is not admitted in the British Commonwealth. Since the beginning of 1945 the Jews have implicitly claimed this right and have (sic) supported by an organized campaign of lawlessness, murder and sabotage their contention that, whatever other interests might be concerned, nothing should be allowed to stand in the way of a Jewish State and free Jewish immigration into Palestine. It is true that large numbers of Jews do not today attempt to defend the crimes that have been committed in the name of these political aspirations. They recognize the damage caused to their good name by these methods in the court of world opinion. Nevertheless, the Jewish community of Palestine still publicly refuses its help to the Administration in suppressing terrorism, on the ground that the Administration's policy is opposed to Jewish interests. The converse of this attitude is clear, and its result, however much the Jewish leaders themselves may not wish it, has been to give active encouragement to the dissidents and freer scope to their activities.
British submission to the UN general assembly."
I get it, you are saying the Israelis deserve what they get for using terrorism to set up their state?
Blah blah blah. No both are not true because Israel is a democracy, Israel is not fighting a dirty war, heck, Israel is not fighting a war at all (please look up the definition of what constitutes a “war” before mouthing off), the Palestinians are not occupied.
What exactly is Israel doing then?
If the Palestinians are not occupied, what is their status? Citizens of Israel? Why haven't they got a vote then?
If not citizens of Israel, citizens of where?
And you’d better DAMN WELL UNDERSTAND that terrorism is not the only weapons the Pals have against the Israelis. Try for a second, at least TRY to understand my next sentences. If the palestinains would do a “Martin Luther King”, or “Ghandi” on Israel, they would have a country of their own within 5 years. But NO, instead they want to kill off all jews and take all their land. Their weapons of choice are suicide bombers, AK-47s and rocks. They have choosen their path, now they can reap the consequences of their actions.
No, they wouldn't. Israel is committed to a Jewish state, encompassing all the lands of ancient Israel, including the West Bank. That doesn't leave room for a Palestinian state. The best the Palestinians could get themselves by peacefull protest is slightly better second class citizenship.
Please, do show me a quote from me where I tried to justify any Nazi massacre in France. If you cant, then you really should apologize. That is all Im gonna say about that.
I seem to recall it's on the Dresden thread.
Point being?
That the end result of the "good guy's" actions seems to be more fatal to innocent bystanders than the "bad guy's" actions.
Yeah, it is really sad.
Yeah, so are suicide bombings.
Yes, horrible.
What do you think the figures would be if the Palestinians had opted to not start their “Intifada”? What if they just said “Throw rocks at tanks or strap on explosives and kill women and children? Screw that, lets just get on with our lives.” What do you think the body count would have been then?
What would the body count have been if the Zionists had said, no the country's already occupied, let's get on with our lives?
The problem is that it doesnt work the other way around. The Israelis cant say “Screw this conflict, lets give the Palestinians what they want and lets just live in peace and get on with our lives.” It has been proven time and time again that the arabs will not accept a jewish state in the region. Just as an example, take a look at the Saudi peace proposal. Israel withdraw to the 1967 borders, and in return for that, all arab nations will acknowledge Israel’s right to exist. Exactly how diddlyed is that? Exactly what does that say about their current position regarding Israel? Great bargain chip “If you do as we say, we will let you live”.
Jordan and Egypt both signed peace treaties with Israel, both have kept them. Egypt refused to sign without getting the Sinai back. When the Sinai was given back, Sadat, who had ridden a wave of Islamic extremism, made peace and cracked down on the extremists.
People like you said Israel shouldn't give up the Sinai, it was vital to Israeli security. Without it Arab armies could be in Tel Aviv in hours. They were wrong.
Look at it from another angle. Would the Palestinians be more or less annoyed if Israeli settlement stopped, especially if settlements were removed? Do Israeli settlements increase Israels security? Hint: the IDF says they are a security burden, not a help.
So, removing settlements would reduce tension, setting up a border fence would help security. And what does Israel do in the face of the security threat? Expand settlements and refuse to put up a fence.
It isn't about secuity, it's about land.
The Palestinians aren't going to settle for occupied status.
Again, you have understood things wrong. Israel has the land, the Palestinians want the land. Israel says “No, because every time we gave you some land, you went ahead and attacked us and tried to kill us all”, the Palestinains say “give us our land and begone, else we shall kill your women and children”.
Israel occupies the land, the Palestinians live on it.
Every time Israel has given land, it has got peace. Name a case where Israel solved a land dispute with a neighbour and then returned to war. There isn't one.
People under occupation will fight back. That's a fact of life around the world.
Which is exactly why we must keep supporting Israel, and help them fight terrorism. And trust me, there can be peace without any compromise. And you have to understand exactly how stupid you look when you say “There cant be peace until there is a compromise, and the compromise has to come from Israel” Exactly what is your interpretation of the word “compromise”?
Compromise? Israel give up it's dream of greater Israel, and let the Palestinians have a piece of land for their own homeland.
It really is the height of arrogance and stupidity to think that the Jews were right to fight for a homeland, and the Palestinians are wrong to fight for a homeland.
ANYWAY, as I have tried to point out before, there are too many unsolvable questions. The situation will remain until the Arabs start another war against Israel, then Israel will kick their collective tulips again, and they will cool down for a decade or two.
The Arabs won't start another war against Israel. Israel has nukes, and the Arabs wont go to wr until they have them as well.
For Israels sake, it had better resolve it's issues with the Arabs before they have nukes as well, because sooner or later they will be used otherwise.
Well, there has to be several strong borders, not just one. Take a look at a map over the region. There has to be several large walls around the Palestinian villages and towns. But the general idea, to build walls against the Palestinians is not without merit.
Ghetos.
What about food etc? If the Palestinians are confined in the towns, how do they grow crops?
Ever hear the criticism of Hitler that he wouldn't listen to reason, wouldn't pull back to create defensible borders?
The IDF have repeatedly asked for some settlements to be abandoned because they don't have enough troops to defend them all.
Ghetos would be worse. They'd piss the Palestinians off even more, and the IDF wouldn't be able to keep them contained.
-
Every time Israel has given land, it has got peace. Name a case where Israel solved a land dispute with a neighbour and then returned to war. There isn't one.
1957: the Sinai was given back to Egypt...1967 war with Egypt.
IDF pulls back from Lebanon...hezbollah terrorist are shelling Israel problably right now.
What would the body count have been if the Zionists had said, no the country's already occupied, let's get on with our lives?
It would be problably a few more millions on the 6million.
Never Again
Get it?????
NEVER AGAIN
-
1957: the Sinai was given back to Egypt...1967 war with Egypt.
Israel attacked Egypt, not the other way around.
IDF pulls back from Lebanon...hezbollah terrorist are shelling Israel problably right now.
Hezbollah are controlled by Syria, which wants the Golan back. That's one of the disputes Israel hasn't solved.
Jordan and Egypt have both made peace with Israel, and keep it. Neither sanction terrorism against Israel from their territory.
The Israeli extremists consider Jordan to be the real Palestine, occupied by Palestinians. Yet these racial terminators have made peace, and stick to it. Seems like an indication the Palestinians are capable of making peace if they are offered a workable deal.
-
Originally posted by -tronski-
What ethinic cleansing in Australia?
Tronsky
umm..the ethnic cleansing that today results in your "National Sorry Day".
Don't they teach you guys why you have such a day?
Nashwan:
I was wondering what happened to you after you stopped replying in the other thread. So, I had a quick look in here...
Seems like Hortund has everything under control...so I'm not gonna waste time writing any responses.
-
Nashwan
Charon
-
@nashwan
Thx for your great job in correcting Hortlunds interpretation of the history.
Most of your infos were very interesting.
WTG and Greetings from Germany.
-
Hezbollah are controlled by Syria, which wants the Golan back. That's one of the disputes Israel hasn't solved.
Jordan and Egypt have both made peace with Israel, and keep it. Neither sanction terrorism against Israel from their territory.
So why aren`t the Hezbollah fighting on the Golan?
Your logic just doesn`t work.
There was a tunnel the IDF just found about a month ago,that was from Egypt to the Gaza strip,and used for smuggling weapons.
There were many terrorist coming trough from Jordan in the past few weeks,most of them were caught.
Set your facts straight!!!
The Israeli extremists consider Jordan to be the real Palestine, occupied by Palestinians. Yet these racial terminators have made peace, and stick to it. Seems like an indication the Palestinians are capable of making peace if they are offered a workable deal.
I have no idea what You`re talking about.
The PLO was kicked out of Jordan.While the population of Jordan is about 90% palestinians,the ruling class isn`t.Yet they`re not engaging in any terrorist activity against them.Why?
Because it`s not the palestinian homeland they fight for,but the termination of Israel.
They can`t accept land that was allready under Muslim rule,to be under foreign power.And they will take no deal in the peaceful way,because they have to win that land back in war.That`s the honorable way..the only way for them.
-
Originally posted by babek-
@nashwan
Thx for your great job in correcting Hortlunds interpretation of the history.
Hmm..yes...you DO realize that Nashwan has not corrected anything of what I have written so far? All he has been trying to do is to shift focus to other aspects of the conflict...or did that escape you? The reason for this is very simple. What I posted in the two first posts in this thread is the TRUTH, only facts, no opinions, no speculations, no irrelevant ramblings. Nashwan dont want to argue over that because he knows I'm right. Instead he tries to shift focus of the discussion to some obscure and irrelevant issues, take a look at his last couple of posts and you will see alot of quotes from some former Israeli prime minister, some debate over ethnical cleansing, and some heartbreaking sob-stories over various victims in this comflict...oh, and not to forget, some insulting personal attacks as well...
Now Babek, please let us all know exactly what Nashwan has "corrected". Cant find anyting?
Well, thanks for trying.
(Oh, and please do take a crack at finding anything wrong with the facts I posted at the top of this thread.)
-
One thing that's odd is how unwiling the Arabs are when it comes down to actually heping the Paestinians with housing etc.
I've got more than a few friends from the middle east - 2 Palestinians, one Iranian, an Iraqi and a Saudi buddy.
For better or worse, they seem to agree: while Arab states agree with the Palestinian struggle, they don't want them on their own teirritory. They're considered troublemakers, unwanted in that sense.
Methinks Arab nations could do a lot more for the Palestinians. Jordan for instance ould begin with returning their land.
We don't see big fighthing there, though.
-
There was a tunnel the IDF just found about a month ago,that was from Egypt to the Gaza strip,and used for smuggling weapons.
There were many terrorist coming trough from Jordan in the past few weeks,most of them were caught.
Set your facts straight!!!
Yes, like drugs and guns are smuggled from America into Canada.
Neither Egypt or Jordan condone, aid or even turn a blind eye to these activities, which are in a small scale.
Because it`s not the palestinian homeland they fight for,but the termination of Israel.
They can`t accept land that was allready under Muslim rule,to be under foreign power.And they will take no deal in the peaceful way,because they have to win that land back in war.That`s the honorable way..the only way for them.
So, Jordan is Palestinian.
The Palestinians won't accept Israel, and work for it's destruction.
Jordan accepts Israel, and doesn't work for it's destruction.
See the contradiction?
So why aren`t the Hezbollah fighting on the Golan?
Your logic just doesn`t work.
Hezbollah are fighting on the Golan.
April 5th Hezbollah attack Israeli positions on the Golan.
April 9th Hezbollah attack Israeli positions in the Shaba farms (which are either part of the Golan or part of Lebanon, depending on whom you believe. Israel and the UN say they are part of the Golan)
Those are just the two most recent. Do a search on the BBC news site.
I forgot the other issue Hezbollah has with Israel, the two hostages Israel has been holding for 12 years to use as bargaining chips to secure the release of Ron Arad.
What is your solution to the security problems in Israel?
Mine is pull out of the West Bank, and establish a strong well defended border between Israel and the Palestinians.
The Israeli government's is continue settlements in the West Bank, make the Palestinians think they will never get a deal no matter what, and refuse to set up a border because it might imply the West Bank isn't going to become part of Israel.
What's your idea Caligula?
-
I belive the palestinian problem is only the surface,and we need to go lot deeper to solve this.They are only tools in greater arab hands.
The whole mentality of most arabs countries need to be changed.
I think overthrowing goverments in the strongest rouge arab countries has to be the first step.Then comes the education of the people,and making them see that the values and the way of life of the west is in fact not a bad thing.They have to made understood,that the prosperity that`s on the west does not come for free,they need to work hard for it.And a world where people work together,and not just accept but cherish the difference in cultures would be a better place for everybody.
I do belive education is the strongest weapon we have,much stronger than any tank or plane.
But unfortunatelly setting up the soil for this to happen,these countries need to be beat severly in war.They have to be brought to their knees,and made understood that they cannot win.
Yes, like drugs and guns are smuggled from America into Canada.
Neither Egypt or Jordan condone, aid or even turn a blind eye to these activities, which are in a small scale.
Please show me any evidence of tunnels used to traffic drugs between the US and Canada.Smuggling a kilo of dope is not comparable to smuggling containers of RPGs.Besides that,I doubt there`s any intention on the drugdealers part to bring down the canadian state,and murder it`s people.
I have been to the border between Israel and Egypt.There`s no way it could have been done without the egyptians knowing about it,or without their approval.
-
What I posted in the two first posts in this thread is the TRUTH, only facts, no opinions, no speculations, no irrelevant ramblings. Nashwan dont want to argue over that because he knows I'm right.
As your a judge, I'll use a legal quote (from the British legal system, anyway)
The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
What you posted was broadly true. It could even be described as nothing but the truth. (Though your assertions that Britain "gave" Israel its land are nothing like the truth.)
However, what you posted was very far from "the whole truth"
If I say this man slashed me with a knife, and I needed 15 stiches, it makes him sound like a criminal. If he fills in the rest of the picture, that he was a surgeon operating on me, he doesn't seem so bad.
Here's your first post redone, till with FACTS, only some different ones thrown in.
1. During World War I (1914-1918), Turkey (a.k.a. Ottoman Empire) supported Germany. When Germany was defeated, so were the Turks. Control of the southern portion of their empire was "mandated" to France and Britain. The area under British supervision was referred to as "Palestine".
Britain had committed itself to setting up a Jewish homeland in Palestine, and the League of Nations charged Britain with carrying out this task. The text of the Mandate repeated that of the Balfour declaration:
"Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country"
2. In 1923 the British "chopped off" 75% of the proposed Jewish Palestinian homeland to form an Arab Palestinian Nation of "Trans-Jordan", meaning "across the Jordan River".
In 1915, before the Balfour declaration and the commitment to a homeland for the Jewish people, Britain had pledged to the Sharif of Mecca that it would, following the war, immediately grant independance to most Arab states that fell under it's control. Specifically excluded were certain territories, including "the whole of Palestine west of the Jordan"
Palestine east of the Jordan, ie modern day Jordan, was not excluded, and was therefore promissed independance.
3. Throughout the 20, 30s and 40s Britain attempted to set up a Jewish homeland. The first plan was for a federal state encompassing Arabs and Jews, with economic and political co-operation between the two. This was rejected by the Jews, accepted by the Arabs.
The second plan was to divide Palestine into two states, one for the Arabs, one for the Jews.
This was accepted by the Jews, rejected by the Arabs. The reasons for the rejection by the Palestinian Arbs were set forth in their submission to the UN:
the question of creation of a Jewish State cannot be taken without two other connected problems; that is, the question of immigration and that of foreign subsidies. A Jewish State would, of course, be master of the immigration into Palestine. It might decide that immigration would be without limits and the economic argument, which would be that it is impossible for a very large number of people to live in a very small territory, would become void if the Jewish State can still reckon with foreign financial support. Therefore, with the doors of the country wide open to immigration, and financial support from outside, the Jewish State would become extremely populated. Therefore, it might not be 1 million, but 2, 3, 4 million, since it would not depend on its own economy or its own produc- tion. As soon as it goes beyond a certain limit in numbers, it is no longer a State where Jews can come and be safe but it becomes a bridgehead against the Arab world. This is what we absolutely want to avoid.
Jewish terrorists became increasingly active during the 40s, carrying out attacks on British troops and administrators, and on British targets outside Israel. Largely because of this, and because no compromise seemed possible, Britain announced it could not fullfil the terms of the mandate, and decided it would pull out. Britain asked the UN to come up with a solution to the problem.
4. The UN decided that partition was the only solution, and drew up borders grnting just over 50% of Palestine to the Jews, the rest to the Arabs.
Britain announced a date for it's withdrawal.
When a large part of the British troops had already left, in late 1947, Jewish groups began a campaign aimed at enlarging the ammount of territory that had been allocated to them. By the time Britain finally left, and before the declaration of independence by Israel, Jewish paramilitary groups had occupied large parts of the terrtory that had been alloted to the Arabs.
Following the declaration of independence, and the months of fighting that had preceeded it, small contingents from several Arab armies became involved. In some cases, it was an offensive, in others, such as the Jordanian army, the forces moved into Arab ares only and didn't launch attacks on areas that had been allocated to the Jews.
5. The end result of the 1948 war was that Israel held on to the lands Jewish paramilitaries had siezed before independence, and ended up occupying large tracts of land that was allocated for Palestinian state. The owners of more than 80% of the land now inside Israel were Palestinian Arabs, and most had fled the fighting. Their land was confiscated by Israel, and they were not allowed to return to their homes. They, 500,000 of them, became refugees.
6. In the final analysis, hundreds of thousands of people were driven from their homes, and disposed of the land and property they owned. Today, even though many can prove ownership of the land and property, they are not allowed to claim it, and are not allowed to claim compensation for it's siezure, in violation of the terms of the UN partition agreement.
-
Originally posted by Nashwan
Completely wrong.
The land was placed under League of Nations mandate following the first world war. Britain was the mandated power, charged with carrying out the Balfour declaration, which I posted earlier. The land was not Britain's.
From the UN's web site:
[SNIP]
Doesn't sound like the land "belonged" to Britain, does it?
In the end, Britain gave up trying to find a solution, and handed the problem over to the UN, which had succeeded the League of Nations.
OK, lets try that again shall we. I said that The UN did not “give” anyone anything. It was the British. The British owned the land according to all laws of the time, and it was theirs to give.
It doesnt matter what it sounds like, it doesnt matter what the UN said, it doesnt matter what the LoN said. There is a difference between politics and international law. You have to realize this Nashwan, because apparently you keep confusing the two, mixing them up. Understand that there is a difference, an important one aswell, otherwise you should stick to being a spit dweeb, instead of being a BBS moron.
The simple fact of the matter is that the British owned and controlled the land (being a colonial power was accepted back then) and the British ceded control over the land. (Legal aspect of it, you see the UN never owned the land, neither did the LoN) After that, The jews declared the state of Israel, this new state was then recognized. The Palestinians did not declare a state of Palestine, and no such state has ever been recognized.
UN Resolution 181:
[SNIP]
Before the current mess there was an area of the the Ottoman Empire that was administered by the League of Nations, then the UN.
The UN decreed it should be split up into two states, a Jewish state and an Arab state. The Jewish state went to war and occupied most of the Arab state. How exactly does Israel have international law on it's side in it's occupation of the West Bank?
You just had to go into that one, didnt you? Well, if you enjoy parading off your ignorance, so be it.
1) UN resolution 181 calls for the creation of two states. Only one was created. Thus the conditions in the resolution was not met, the resolution becomes null and void. But thanks for trying.
2) See what I wrote above regarding the UN or LoN owning any land. Perhaps you should scroll back up and read it again.
3) You have to decide what country owns what territory before you can make bold statements regarding any occupation.
Before we even start, are you basing that statement on the 1975 Helsinki final act of the Conference of Security and Co-operation? Because if you dont, I want you to tell me who decides what country owns what territory. And if you base your statement on the Helsinki final act, where does that leave the Palestinians in their demand for a country of their own?
After you have made up your mind on what territory is occupied/stolen, and from whom? You can go on to the question which law is governing the alleged occupied territory, and if the answer to that question is the occupant, then what conclusions can be drawn from that?
IF you say that the territory is occupied or stolen by Israel, you MUST answer the question "who owned it before it was occupied". Now, lets suppose you answer that question with "Palestine". (Im gonna be real nice here, so instead of diving in on you after you answer that, Im gonna tell you what the problem is). Problem is that there never was an independent country named Palestine. You had a British protectorate, which was divided into two parts "Israel" and "Palestine". The part called "Palestine" was immediately conquered by Egypt and Jordan. The part called "Israel" survived. Everyone basically agrees that the "state" of Palestine never existed, Egypt and Jordan absorbed its territory. In another war 20 yrs later Israel conquered the territory from the new owners. Now I ask you, the West Bank and the Gaza strip... who owned it before Israel conquered it? Jordan, Egypt or "Palestine"?
If you claim that Israel occupies Palestinian territory, then you have effectively created a vaccum, because Palestine does not exist, and it has indeed never existed. That would mean that Israel "occupies" land that doesn't belong to anyone. And in such a case, the territory occupied is considered a part of the occupying country. Clearly you would not want that, so you must find some other way. How about Jordan then? After the 48-war, Jordan occupied the west bank and claimed ownership over the territory. Problem with that line of argument is that nowadays states never recognize aggressive warfare as a legal way to increase your country's territory. And besides, Jordan has stated that the river Jordan is her western border. That would mean that the west bank is abandoned territory, and thus it belongs to the country claiming it by occupation. And again, Israel owns the west bank.
Leaving all that legal complexity aside (its complicated huh…and no fun either), it should be pretty obvious that Israel currently "owns" the west bank. Israeli law is applicable on the territory, it is defended by Israeli armed forces, and no other country claims any legal rights to that territory.
You cant steal something that has no owner. Tough huh?
4) The conflict in Israel today can be described as internal unrest, or a civil war (if you are stretching it) In neither of these cases is international law applicable. That leaves us with Israeli national law, and some general rules of warfare etc. It is not against the rules of war to assassinate valid military targets. Terrorist leaders, members of the Palestine security staff, members of the Palestinian police force are all considered combatants, and thus valid military targets. It is however, against both national law, as well as the general rules of warfare to use suicide bombers to blow up children.
I was merely pointing out the contradictions in your position. You lump together all Arabs in a group, and then assign goals and intentions to that group. How is that different from assigning goals and intentions to a country? If "the Arabs" or "Palestinians" can have goals, so can a country.
Please drop this part of your “argumentation”. Frankly it’s becoming embarrassing.
I say that a country or a nation is not a living entity, and thus it is incapable of independent thought, a prerequisite for forming goals or intentions. If you see things differently, fine, go talk to a psychologist or something.
I agree. However, nearly all the settlements in the West Bank were founded after the Helsinki protocol was agreed. Land siezed that recently should be handed back, I think.
You seem to be incapable of coherent thought. Israel seized the west bank in 1967, agree? Besides, why are we even debating this? You will not find any support for Palestine in international law. Move on.
I'd say the UN should decide, or perhaps the population of the area in question. Who decides Israel has a right to exist?
Well, it is a bad idea and it wont ever happen.
1) the UN has no jurisdiction in domestic issues. Israel-Palestine is a domestic issue.
2) If you let the population have a vote, you’ll end up with hundreds of other minorities who also want to vote about their independence, something their current “owners” generally think is a bad idea. There is a reason why the UN dont have any jurisdiction over domestic issues, its because nations want to govern themselves.
Apart from a few differences.
The average Irishman, Quebecois etc doesn't have to survive on 70 litres of water a day (including his crops, industry etc) [blah blah blah]
My point was that no one is forcing the Palestinians to fight against the Israelis, just as no one is forcing anyone to become a bankrobber, no matter how poor they might be.
[I’m snipping lots of your comments here, you simply dont seem to have anything to say.]
If the Palestinians are not occupied, what is their status? Citizens of Israel? Why haven't they got a vote then?
If not citizens of Israel, citizens of where?
They are not occupied, nor are they citizens of Israel. Have you ever heard of the concept of stateless refugees? They are not citizens anywhere. Though luck.
I seem to recall it's on the Dresden thread.
Quote it or give me an apology.
That the end result of the "good guy's" actions seems to be more fatal to innocent bystanders than the "bad guy's" actions.
If you leave out all the families of terrorist supporters, suicide bombers or rock throwers, how many Palestinian families do you think you have left? How many of these families has also been victims of unprovoked Israeli aggression? I'm not saying that there is no such family. No, accidents do happen, even to the Israeli army. This is unfortunate, but the victims of such attacks and their families are not victims of Israeli aggression, they are victims of an accident.
[Snipped lots if irrelevant comments again, try to stay focused]
Every time Israel has given land, it has got peace. Name a case where Israel solved a land dispute with a neighbour and then returned to war. There isn't one.
Sinai desert 1956-1967.
The Arabs won't start another war against Israel. Israel has nukes, and the Arabs wont go to wr until they have them as well.
Israel had nukes in 1973.
-
The simple fact of the matter is that the British owned and controlled the land (being a colonial power was accepted back then) and the British ceded control over the land. (Legal aspect of it, you see the UN never owned the land, neither did the LoN)
Leglly, Britain never owned the land. Politically, Britain never claimed to own the land. It wasn't a crown colony, or a dominion, or a state within the Empire or Commonwealth.
Britain made no claims on the land legally or politically. No attempts were made to incorporate it into British territory.
Are you saying it was legally British? If so, Britain said it wasn't, the LoN said it wasn't, international treaties Britain signed up to said it wasn't.
Previous owner was the Ottoman Empire. Temporary administrative control passed to Britain, but it was allways intended to be temporary.
The closest term under British law would be power of attorney. It confers responsibilty and power of decision, not ownership. The person with power of attorney is supposed to take decisions if the owner i not competent or present.
Britain did not cede control of the land to Israel. It announced it could not carry out the mandate, and said it would no longer accept the mandate.
"It is with deep regret that my Government recognizes that an acceptable settlement has still not been found. I do not say that in any spirit of criticism. My Government would be the last to minimize the difficulty of the task, as it is the first to appreciate the efforts that have been made. The fact remains that we are obviously confronted with a failure to arrive at a settlement based upon consent. My delegation would have failed in its duty if it had not emphasized from the beginning of the session the consequent need for the General Assembly to consider the situation which is likely to arise upon the removal of the forces which at present ensure law and order in Palestine. Their departure will leave a gap, and it has been the most difficult part of the General Assembly's task to find means of filling this gap ...
"... I am ... instructed to repeat explicitly that the United Kingdom Government cannot allow its troops and administration to be used in order to enforce decisions which are not accepted by both parties in Palestine ..."
British submission to the UN.
Britain did not own the land. Britain did not cede the land. Britain administered the land until 1948, trying to find a compromise solution. Then, as now, the sides would not compromise. Britain announced it's intention to stop administering the land, and asked the UN to find a solution.
The UN decided partition was a solution, but nobody else was prepared to send troops in to administer an orderly handover. As a result, the British pulled out, and the Jews, far stronger than the Arabs militarily, took control of their land and the land allocated to the Arabs.
After that, The jews declared the state of Israel, this new state was then recognized. The Palestinians did not declare a state of Palestine, and no such state has ever been recognized.
Palestine is not recognized by most countries, or the UN. It's the UN which would give it legitimacy. If not the UN, then Palestine is recognized by a large number of countries, and so has equal legitimacy with Israel.
Either way, the UN or most countries, recognize the West Bank as occupied territory, and call on Israel to withdraw from it.
Few countries recognize the West Bank as Israeli territory, even fewer than recognize Palestine.
You just had to go into that one, didnt you? Well, if you enjoy parading off your ignorance, so be it.
I'm not the one climing Britain owned Palestine, or the one claiming Britain established the state of Israel.
1) UN resolution 181 calls for the creation of two states. Only one was created. Thus the conditions in the resolution was not met, the resolution becomes null and void. But thanks for trying.
A UN resolution does not become null and void because it has not yet been carried out.
2) See what I wrote above regarding the UN or LoN owning any land. Perhaps you should scroll back up and read it again.
Perhaps you can read what I said about Britain owning the land.
Before we even start, are you basing that statement on the 1975 Helsinki final act of the Conference of Security and Co-operation? Because if you dont, I want you to tell me who decides what country owns what territory. And if you base your statement on the Helsinki final act, where does that leave the Palestinians in their demand for a country of their own?
Which part?
This one:?
The participating States will respect the equal rights of peoples and their right to self-determination, acting at all times in conformity with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and with the relevant norms of international law, including those relating to territorial integrity of States.
By virtue of the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, all peoples always have the right, in full freedom, to determine, when and as they wish, their internal and external political status, without external interference, and to pursue as they wish their political, economic, social and cultural development.
The Helsinki agreement is irrelevant, whatever you think it says. Helsinki was a conference on security in Europe, it dealt with issues affecting Europe, and Israel was not a signatory.
-
Countries are bound by the international agreements they sign up to. As such, Israel is bound by UN resolutions, such as 1397:
"Affirming a vision of a region where two States, Israel and Palestine, live side by side within secure and recognized borders,
242:
1. Affirms that the fulfilment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles:
(i) Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;
3236:
Recalling its relevant resolutions which affirm the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination,
1. Reaffirms the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people in Palestine, including:
(a) The right to self-determination without external interference;
(b) The right to national independence and sovereignty;
2. Reaffirms also the inalienable right of the Palestinians to return to their homes and property from which they have been displaced and uprooted, and calls for their return;
3. Emphasizes that full respect for and the realization of these inalienable rights of the Palestinian people are indispensable for the solution of the question of Palestine;
Israel is also a signatory of the fourth Geneva convention:
"The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies."
Article 49
However, Israel states that as the Geneva convention has never been ratified by the Knesset, it cannot be enforced in Israeli law.
IF you say that the territory is occupied or stolen by Israel, you MUST answer the question "who owned it before it was occupied". Now, lets suppose you answer that question with "Palestine". (Im gonna be real nice here, so instead of diving in on you after you answer that, Im gonna tell you what the problem is). Problem is that there never was an independent country named Palestine
If you claim that Israel occupies Palestinian territory, then you have effectively created a vaccum, because Palestine does not exist, and it has indeed never existed. That would mean that Israel "occupies" land that doesn't belong to anyone. And in such a case, the territory occupied is considered a part of the occupying country.
Can we agree the Ottoman Empire owned the land until 1918?
During the war, Britain and France signed the Sykes Picot agreement, setting out their responsibilities to the Arab areas soon to liberated from the Ottoman empire. That agreement ws echoed in the charter of the League of Nations, which both signed up to:
To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant. The best method of giving practical effect to this principle is that the tutelage of such peoples should be entrusted to advanced nations who by reason of their resources, their experience or their geographical position can best undertake this responsibility, and who are willing to accept it, and that this tutelage should be exercised by them as Mandatories on behalf of the League. The character of the mandate must differ according to the stage of the development of the people, the geographical situation of the territory, its economic conditions and other similar circumstances. Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone.
Get it yet?
The mandates were to administer the territories whilst they moved to self determination.
Who owns a territory governed by the principle of self determination?
How about Jordan then? After the 48-war, Jordan occupied the west bank and claimed ownership over the territory. Problem with that line of argument is that nowadays states never recognize aggressive warfare as a legal way to increase your country's territory.
Lets get this straight. According to you, nobody owned the West Bank.
Jordan occupied it. But Jordn couldn't own it, because "states never recognize aggressive warfare as a legal way to increase your country's territory"
Fair enough. However:
That would mean that Israel "occupies" land that doesn't belong to anyone. And in such a case, the territory occupied is considered a part of the occupying country.
See the contradiction here?
No one own the West Bank. Jordan occupies it, but cannot own it, because they didn't own it before they occupied it. Israel occupies it, and Israel owns it because no one else owns it.
We're back to hypocrisy again.
Do you use logic like this in court?
The conflict in Israel today can be described as internal unrest, or a civil war (if you are stretching it) In neither of these cases is international law applicable.
It is however, against both national law, as well as the general rules of warfare to use suicide bombers to blow up children
Israel is not bound by internationl rules, the Palestinians are.
Hypocrisy again.
I say that a country or a nation is not a living entity, and thus it is incapable of independent thought, a prerequisite for forming goals or intentions. If you see things differently, fine, go talk to a psychologist or something.
You cannot trust these people, there is no way to achieve peace with these people, and they will not stop...ever. They are like Terminator on steroids, and they are ready to do just about anything (be it suicide bombers or other terrorist actions) to achieve their goal...to rid the world of Israel.
Hortlund
Perhaps indicating that land is not as holy for Israel as you might want to imply? Israel is more than willing to change land for peace
Hortlund
Besides, when the peace deal with Egypt was made, there were no terrorist activity funded and led by Egypt against Israel. Perhaps that might have something to do with things too?
Hortlund
So, it's okay for Hortlund to ascribe goals and actions to countries, anyone else who does it needs to see a shrink.
Hypocrisy
My point was that no one is forcing the Palestinians to fight against the Israelis, just as no one is forcing anyone to become a bankrobber, no matter how poor they might be.
And no one forced Jews to fight the Arabs to set up Israel.
Of course, Jews were right to kill to establish their state, the Palestinians are wrong to kill to establish their state.
Hypocrisy.
If you leave out all the families of terrorist supporters, suicide bombers or rock throwers, how many Palestinian families do you think you have left? How many of these families has also been victims of unprovoked Israeli aggression? I'm not saying that there is no such family. No, accidents do happen, even to the Israeli army. This is unfortunate, but the victims of such attacks and their families are not victims of Israeli aggression, they are victims of an accident.
3 children killed in "accidents" yesterday. Ever heard of negligence? Ever heard of not shooting a child throwing stones? After all, the Merkava is supposed to be the world's best tank. If a 9 year-old with a stone is a threat to it...
Sinai desert 1956-1967.
Yes, another example of Israeli aggression.
Israel had nukes in 1973.
Not openly.
Quote it or give me an apology.
Earlier on this thread you came up with this:
For some reason unbeknownst to me you have chosen to side with the bad guys, the ones strapping on explosive vests and heading into playgrounds filled with kids to blow up as many of them as possible. The guys who were cheering on 9-11. The ones who sided with Saddam in 91. The guys who will do just about anything they can to kill Israeli civilians, they will blow up busses, cars, airplanes, boats, houses, shopping malls, grocery stores...they will even blow themselves up....just to kill women and children...
just exactly how sick is that? Think about it.
Any chance of an apology?
Look at some of your comments:
In this conflict there is a good side and a bad side.
Compare that to this comment in a topic on Nazi war crimes:
I’m simply trying to point out the fact that the world is not black and white. No matter how hard you try to paint it that way.
So, the Israelis are good, the Palestinians evil, but the Nazis are somewhere in the middle?
Of course, considering your next line was:
You wont find that black or white anywhere, only various shades of gray
it could just be hypocrisy again.
To be fair, I think it was just hypocrisy, as backed up by gems like this:
Exactly. The more you dehumanize your opponents, targets, victims, the easier it is to kill, maim or butcher them. That is why we should not try to dehumanize anyone, anyway, anymore (such as by generalizing and oversimplifying for example).
You cannot trust these people, there is no way to achieve peace with these people, and they will not stop...ever. They are like Terminator on steroids, and they are ready to do just about anything (be it suicide bombers or other terrorist actions) to achieve their goal...to rid the world of Israel.
Hortlund
-
Please oh please recognize the fact that you dont have any idea what you are talking about when you enter the legal discussion here. International law is one of the most complex legal areas there is, and it is so very easy to get confused. Also, the line between politics and international law is sometimes very hard to spot. To have someone (like you) dig up various articles from various UN resolutions and then present them as some sort of evidence is really frustrating, and generally a waste of time. Simply because it takes a while to get into the various legal aspects of conflicts like this one. I will answer all your theories this time, but please drop this part of the argumentation and realize your own limitations.
I'm gonna divide my answer into three posts, two concerning the legal aspects of the Israel-Palestine conflict, and one concerning your mud-slinging contest.
Originally posted by Nashwan
Leglly, Britain never owned the land. Politically, Britain never claimed to own the land. It wasn't a crown colony, or a dominion, or a state within the Empire or Commonwealth.
Britain made no claims on the land legally or politically. No attempts were made to incorporate it into British territory.
Are you saying it was legally British? If so, Britain said it wasn't, the LoN said it wasn't, international treaties Britain signed up to said it wasn't.
And again, you miss the point by a mile.
Let me try to put it in plain words for you. Palestine was a British protectorate. In this case (because there are no general rules regarding protectorates) that means that Britain was responsible for both the internal and external affairs of the territory. Are you with me so far?
Let us then look at another feature of international law that is called "sovereignty". Sovereignty over territory means "the right to exercise therein, to the exclusion of any other state, the functions of a state".
Combine the two, and you will reach the conclusion that Britain was the sovereign ruler over the Palestine protectorate. A sovereign ruler or state has certain rights, and certain obligations. It does not matter whether Britain claimed to own the land, it does not matter that it was not a crown colony, it doesnt matter what the League of Nations said. These things do not matter, what does matter is who is the de facto owner over the territory. And that was Britain.
Previous owner was the Ottoman Empire. Temporary administrative control passed to Britain, but it was allways intended to be temporary.
This is irrelevant.
The closest term under British law would be power of attorney. It confers responsibilty and power of decision, not ownership. The person with power of attorney is supposed to take decisions if the owner i not competent or present.
Here you make another classical mistake. It is not possible to draw analogies like that. Power of attorney is one thing, protectorate is another thing. The two are not related, and it you try to draw conclusions from one and apply on the other, you will only end up with faulty conclusions. The law is more complicated than that.
Britain did not cede control of the land to Israel. It announced it could not carry out the mandate, and said it would no longer accept the mandate.
The correct term for this is abandonment. Abandonment of a territory occurs when a state declares that it will no longer exercise authority over a territory, and effectively seize to exercise control over the territory.
What happened after that? Well the territory became terra nullius, territory that does not belong to any state.
And after that? Israel occupied the parts of the former mandate that can be seen in the 5th picture in my original posts. Territory is occupied when it is placed under effective control. The other parts of the former mandate were occupied by Egypt and Trans-Jordan.
Please remember this occupation, because it is important later on when we discuss how a state comes into existence.
"It is with deep regret that my Government recognizes that an acceptable settlement has still not been found. I do not say that in any spirit of criticism. My Government would be the last to minimize the difficulty of the task, as it is the first to appreciate the efforts that have been made. The fact remains that we are obviously confronted with a failure to arrive at a settlement based upon consent. My delegation would have failed in its duty if it had not emphasized from the beginning of the session the consequent need for the General Assembly to consider the situation which is likely to arise upon the removal of the forces which at present ensure law and order in Palestine. Their departure will leave a gap, and it has been the most difficult part of the General Assembly's task to find means of filling this gap ...
"... I am ... instructed to repeat explicitly that the United Kingdom Government cannot allow its troops and administration to be used in order to enforce decisions which are not accepted by both parties in Palestine ..."
British submission to the UN.
All irrelevant.
Britain did not own the land. Britain did not cede the land. Britain administered the land until 1948, trying to find a compromise solution. Then, as now, the sides would not compromise. Britain announced it's intention to stop administering the land, and asked the UN to find a solution.
The UN decided partition was a solution, but nobody else was prepared to send troops in to administer an orderly handover. As a result, the British pulled out, and the Jews, far stronger than the Arabs militarily, took control of their land and the land allocated to the Arabs.
Well, the first part of this quote is wrong, and the second part is not exactly true either. However it is irrelevant.
Palestine is not recognized by most countries, or the UN. It's the UN which would give it legitimacy. If not the UN, then Palestine is recognized by a large number of countries, and so has equal legitimacy with Israel.
Either way, the UN or most countries, recognize the West Bank as occupied territory, and call on Israel to withdraw from it.
Few countries recognize the West Bank as Israeli territory, even fewer than recognize Palestine.
This part of your post brings us to the question "how is a state created", or "what constitutes an independent nation".
We start with the definition of what constitutes a state. A state as a person of international law possess the following qulaifications: It has
1) a permanent population
2) a defined territory
3) a government
We start with 2) a defined territory. The control of territory is the essence of a state. This is the basis of the central notion of "territorial sovereignty". The state must have exclusive competence to take legal and factual measures within that territory and it must be capable of prohibiting other foreign governments from exercising authority in the same area without consent.
On to 1) The criterion of "a permanent population" is connected with that of territory and constitutes the physical basis for the existence of a state. Who belongs to this population is determined by the internal law on nationality.
3) Effective control by a government over territory and population is the third core element of what constitutes a state. There are two aspects following from this control by a government, on internal and one external. Internally, the existence of a government implies the capacity to establish and maintain a legal order in the sense of constitutionals autonomy. Externally it means the ability to act autonomously on the international level without being legally dependant on other states within the international legal order.
On now to the recognition of states and governments in international law.
This is one of the more complex aspects of international law. First a distinction must be made between the recognition of a state and the recognition of a government. The recognition of a state acknowledges that the entity fulfills the criteria of statehood. The recognition of a government implies that the regime in question is in effective control of a state.
When a new state comes into existence, other states are confronted by the problem of deciding whether or not to recognize the new state. Recognition means a willingness to deal with the new state as a member of the international community. Problem is what are the legal consequences of recognition/non-recognition? Generally it can be said that a new state is not an entity in international law until it has secured its general recognition by other states. If the establishment of a government or a state is a breach of international law, the state or government is often regarded as having no legal existence until it is recognized. To explain it in somewhat easier terms, it takes recognition from other states to fulfill critera 3) in the definition of what constitutes a state. Because without the recognition from other states, the "wannabe-state" is not capable of autonomous actions on the international level. There is also a difference between a de facto recognition and a de jure recognition.
So what does all this mean in the Israel-Palestine question?
Basically it means the Palestinians are screwed, because they do not have control over any territory, they have no government (in the legal sense) and they are not recognized by anyone.
Israel on the other hand fulfills all the criteria, AND most states, including the UN recognizes the fact that Israel have control over the west bank, gaza strip and golan heights de facto. That means, that Israel owns these territories. Regardless of what other people want/wish/hope.
-
Britain owned Palestine, or the one claiming Britain established the state of Israel.
See above.
A UN resolution does not become null and void because it has not yet been carried out.
Again, wishful thinking. It has become null and void, because the specific circumstances that existed when the resolution was taken does not exist any more. The resolution was aimed at what should take place with the territory the British abandoned (see above). Since there is no abandoned territory in the region any more, the resolution is null and void.
Perhaps you can read what I said about Britain owning the land.
See above.
[SNIP preamble]
The Helsinki agreement is irrelevant, whatever you think it says. Helsinki was a conference on security in Europe, it dealt with issues affecting Europe, and Israel was not a signatory.
Agreed, but if you look at my post once again there was a question in there too. " if you dont, I want you to tell me who decides what country owns what territory." Hint: the answer is not "the UN".
Countries are bound by the international agreements they sign up to. As such, Israel is bound by UN resolutions,
[SNIP various resolutions]
Well, if Israel is in breach of any UN resolution, then it is up to the UN to make sure that the resolutions are enforced. There are two problems though
1) International law is not applicable on the Israel-Palestine conflict. International law is only applicable in relations between states.
2) The UN has no jurisdiction over internal matters in the member states.
1 & 2 leads to the conclusion that the UN resolutions you have quoted are either irrelevant or null and void. See "difference between politics and law" above.
Israel is also a signatory of the fourth Geneva convention:
"The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies."
Article 49
However, Israel states that as the Geneva convention has never been ratified by the Knesset, it cannot be enforced in Israeli law.
Here you are confusing two types of "occupation". The one in the Geneva convention aims at military occupation in a war (unless I'm sadly misstaken), the Israeli occupation of the west bank is another kind of occupation (the one where you claim something that has been abandoned by occupying it).
Can we agree the Ottoman Empire owned the land until 1918?
During the war, Britain and France signed the Sykes Picot agreement, [SNIP]
Get it yet?
The mandates were to administer the territories whilst they moved to self determination.
Who owns a territory governed by the principle of self determination?
Please oh please understand that all this is irrelevant. IRRELEVANT. It has nothing to do with anything.
What does matter is the fact that Britain owned the territory (from a legal point of view) Britain abandoned the territory, the territory became terra nullius, the Israelis created a new state on this abandoned land. From that moment, Israel is a state.
Lets get this straight. According to you, nobody owned the West Bank.
Jordan occupied it. But Jordn couldn't own it, because "states never recognize aggressive warfare as a legal way to increase your country's territory"
No one own the West Bank. Jordan occupies it, but cannot own it, because they didn't own it before they occupied it. Israel occupies it, and Israel owns it because no one else owns it.
We're back to hypocrisy again.
Do you use logic like this in court?
Once again, perhaps I should have taken the time to explain it all in greater detail before. When Britain abandoned the territory, the territory became terra nullius. Jordan moved in on the west bank and occupied it. At this moment in time, Jordan owns the west bank. After another war, Israel occupies the west bank. In the peace settlement between Israel and Jordan, Jordan abandons the west bank. Suddenly Israel owns the west bank. Please read through this explanation a couple of times until you understand it.
And yes, this is exactly how everyone argues, and a good example of the logic used in a court.
Israel is not bound by internationl rules, the Palestinians are.
Hypocrisy again.
No, you just didn't understand what I wrote. It is the other way around. Israel is bound by international rules. They just aren't applicable on the Israel-Palestine conflict. Why? Because it is not an international conflict. And if international law is not applicable, then Israeli national law is.
-
Originally posted by Nashwan
So, it's okay for Hortlund to ascribe goals and actions to countries, anyone else who does it needs to see a shrink.
Hypocrisy
I say that a country or a nation is not a living entity, and thus it is incapable of independent thought, a prerequisite for forming goals or intentions. If you see things differently, fine, go talk to a psychologist or something.
And no one forced Jews to fight the Arabs to set up Israel.
Of course, Jews were right to kill to establish their state, the Palestinians are wrong to kill to establish their state.
Hypocrisy.
Where in any of my posts have you found the sentence: " Jews were right to kill to establish their state, the Palestinians are wrong to kill to establish their state."?
3 children killed in "accidents" yesterday. Ever heard of negligence? Ever heard of not shooting a child throwing stones? After all, the Merkava is supposed to be the world's best tank. If a 9 year-old with a stone is a threat to it...
Well, actually I think the 9 year-old with a stone is more of a threat to any IDF infantryman. Perhaps the Merkavas were shooting to cover said infantrymen?
Regardless of which, as soon as that 9 year-old has decided to take to the streets and throw rocks at armed soldiers, he will have to face the consequences of his actions. There is a very easy way to avoid the entire situation: Stay at home. And the neglect of the parents is beyond belief. Any parent letting his 9 year-old kid go out in the street to throw rocks at IDF soldiers should not be a parent at all.
I have heard of negligence, have you heard about criminal negligence and its relation to negligence?
You wrote:
Name a case where Israel solved a land dispute with a neighbour and then returned to war. There isn't one.
I replied:
Sinai desert 1956-1967.
You seem to lose focus and reply:
Yes, another example of Israeli aggression.
Which one? Are you gonna say that the 1967 war is an example of Israeli aggression?
We move on:
You wrote:
The Arabs won't start another war against Israel. Israel has nukes, and the Arabs wont go to war until they have them as well.
I replied:
Israel had nukes in 1973.
You reply:
Not openly.
Again, you seem to lose focus.
My point would be that even though Israel has nukes, she will not use nukes unless there is no other option. For Israel, nukes are a defensive weapon.
What do you think would happen if we gave a couple of nukes to Syria, Iraq, or why not to Hezbollah, Hamas and Al Acqusa to make things really interesting?
Another recap:
You wrote:
That would be stupid even if it didnt come from someone who tried to justify the Nazi reprisal massacres in France. Coming from you its obscene.
I replied:
Please, do show me a quote from me where I tried to justify any Nazi massacre in France. If you cant, then you really should apologize. That is all Im gonna say about that.
You:
I seem to recall it's on the Dresden thread.
Me:
Quote it or give me an apology.
You:
Earlier on this thread you came up with this: For some reason unbeknownst to me you have chosen to side with the bad guys, the ones strapping on explosive vests and heading into playgrounds filled with kids to blow up as many of them as possible. The guys who were cheering on 9-11. The ones who sided with Saddam in 91. The guys who will do just about anything they can to kill Israeli civilians, they will blow up busses, cars, airplanes, boats, houses, shopping malls, grocery stores...they will even blow themselves up....just to kill women and children...
just exactly how sick is that? Think about it.
Any chance of an apology?
Exactly what kind of an apology are you looking for here? "I'm sorry that 73% of all Palestinians support suicide bombings?" Or "I'm sorry that I told you the truth about the palestinian terrorists"? What exactly do you find offensive in the post you quoted?
And I'm still waiting for that quote.
Look at some of your comments:
(Me)
In this conflict there is a good side and a bad side.
(You)
Compare that to this comment in a topic on Nazi war crimes:
(Me)
I’m simply trying to point out the fact that the world is not black and white. No matter how hard you try to paint it that way.
(You)
So, the Israelis are good, the Palestinians evil, but the Nazis are somewhere in the middle? Of course, considering your next line was:
(Me)
You wont find that black or white anywhere, only various shades of gray
(You)
it could just be hypocrisy again.
To be fair, I think it was just hypocrisy, as backed up by gems like this:
(Me)
Exactly. The more you dehumanize your opponents, targets, victims, the easier it is to kill, maim or butcher them. That is why we should not try to dehumanize anyone, anyway, anymore (such as by generalizing and oversimplifying for example).
You cannot trust these people, there is no way to achieve peace with these people, and they will not stop...ever. They are like Terminator on steroids, and they are ready to do just about anything (be it suicide bombers or other terrorist actions) to achieve their goal...to rid the world of Israel.
Is there a point to all this in here somewhere?
I am of the opinion that in the Israel-Palestine conflict there is a good and a bad side. Maybe not black and white, but black enough and white enough. The Israelis are the good guys (in case you were wondering, you seem to have problems understanding that).
The quotes you pulled from another thread were when I was debating with someone who was of the opinion that all Germans living in 1934-45 were nazis. So, the nazis would end up on the black side of the scale, the Israelis on the white side, I think you know where the Palestinian terrorists belong. We then take all Germans, Israelis and Palestinians and place them along the scale depending on their actions and their motivations.
The last quote from me was what I think about terrorists. And you are right, I have no sympathy for them whatsoever. And the problem for the Palestinians is that 73% of all Palestinians support the terrorists and their actions. And anyone supporting a terrorist is just as bad as the terrorist himself. I think it was the US president who said that.
-
Let us then look at another feature of international law that is called "sovereignty". Sovereignty over territory means "the right to exercise therein, to the exclusion of any other state, the functions of a state".
Combine the two, and you will reach the conclusion that Britain was the sovereign ruler over the Palestine protectorate. A sovereign ruler or state has certain rights, and certain obligations. It does not matter whether Britain claimed to own the land, it does not matter that it was not a crown colony, it doesnt matter what the League of Nations said. These things do not matter, what does matter is who is the de facto owner over the territory. And that was Britain.
It matters very much what the LoN said.
Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have selected His Britannic Majesty as the Mandatory for Palestine; and
Whereas the mandate in respect of Palestine has been formulated in the following terms and submitted to the Council of the League for approval; and
Whereas His Britannic Majesty has accepted the mandate in respect of Palestine and undertaken to exercise it on behalf of the League of Nations in conformity with the following provisions; and
Whereas by the aforementioned Article 22 (paragraph 8) it is provided that the degree of authority, control or administration to be exercised by the Mandatory, not having been previously agreed upon by the Members of the League, shall be explicitly defined by the Council of the League of Nations;
There followed 20+ articles, all stipulating what could and could not be done by the mandated power, articles such as
Article 5
The Mandatory shall be responsible for seeing that no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way placed under the control of, the Government of any foreign Power.
Britain administered themandated territory, within rules laid out by the LoN. Britain did not own the territory, and was answerable to the LoN for it's actions in carrying out the Mandate.
Sovereign powers are not answerable to anyone for their actions, by defenition.
Britain was not the sovereign power in Palestine, it was the administrator.
Britain recognized the ultimate authority of the LoN in the mandated territory.
The correct term for this is abandonment. Abandonment of a territory occurs when a state declares that it will no longer exercise authority over a territory, and effectively seize to exercise control over the territory.
What happened after that? Well the territory became terra nullius, territory that does not belong to any state.
Then you have abandoned the position Britain ceded the territory to Israel?
If that is the case, the ownership or not of the territory by Britain becomes irrelevant.
We start with 2) a defined territory. The control of territory is the essence of a state. This is the basis of the central notion of "territorial sovereignty". The state must have exclusive competence to take legal and factual measures within that territory and it must be capable of prohibiting other foreign governments from exercising authority in the same area without consent.
Governments in exile have been recognized widely in the past.Nazi Germany held control over most of Europe, but was not recognized by many countries as the sovereign power, owner, whatever.
Nobody, not even the Germans, recognized Holland, Belgium, Norway etc as parts of Germany, or assumed they were no longer states. Some recognized the puppet governments, some recognized the governments in exile.
Control does not imply ownership, ownership does not imply control.
Israel on the other hand fulfills all the criteria, AND most states, including the UN recognizes the fact that Israel have control over the west bank, gaza strip and golan heights de facto. That means, that Israel owns these territories. Regardless of what other people want/wish/hope.
Control is not ownership.
Name the countries that recognize the West Bank as part of Israel.
Here's a few that do not:
The US
The UK
The UN (not a country)
The EU (not a country)
Russia
Israel.
Not even Israel claims the West Bank as part of Israel, legally.
Israel occupied the West Bank, Gaza, the Golan. It annexed the Golan, and parts of Jerusalem, into Israeli territory. It has never claimed the West Bank or Gaza as Israeli territory, and neither they, nor the Golan, are recognized as Israeli territory by other countries.
From the US state department web site:
As a result of the 1967 War, Israel occupied the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, East Jerusalem, and the Golan Heights. The international community does not recognize Israel's sovereignty over any part of the occupied territories
2) The UN has no jurisdiction over internal matters in the member states.
The West Bank and Gaza are not recognized as internal territory of Israel. They are reffered to as occupied territory, even by Israel.
Here you are confusing two types of "occupation". The one in the Geneva convention aims at military occupation in a war (unless I'm sadly misstaken), the Israeli occupation of the west bank is another kind of occupation (the one where you claim something that has been abandoned by occupying it).
Israel has not claimed the west Bank or Gaza.
The ICRC regarded the fourth Geneva convention as applying to the West Bank and Gaza. It believes all those areas not under Palestinian local administration do fall under the terms of the convention. As an opinion, forgive me for trusting the ICRC's legal opinion over yours.
Once again, perhaps I should have taken the time to explain it all in greater detail before. When Britain abandoned the territory, the territory became terra nullius. Jordan moved in on the west bank and occupied it. At this moment in time, Jordan owns the west bank. After another war, Israel occupies the west bank. In the peace settlement between Israel and Jordan, Jordan abandons the west bank. Suddenly Israel owns the west bank. Please read through this explanation a couple of times until you understand it.
Jordan did claim ownership of the West Bank. Few countries recognized it, and Jordan has since withdrawn the claim.
Israel does not claim ownership of the West Bank, refering to the area as "disputed territory".
Your first claim was that Jordan didn't own the territory, because it was taken in war, but Israel does own the territory, because it was taken in war.
If you are now saying Jordan did own it, then the status of the territory can not have been "abandoned" when Israel captured it. The status of the territory is simply part of Jordan occupied by Israel. Please make up your mind, was the West Bank owned by Jordan or not. You are saying yes and no in different parts of your answer.
And if international law is not applicable, then Israeli national law is.
Israel does not apply Israeli national law in the territories. Israeli national law is applied to Israeli citizens in the territories, but Israeli military law is applied to non-citizens in the territories, ie 90% of the population.
I say that a country or a nation is not a living entity, and thus it is incapable of independent thought, a prerequisite for forming goals or intentions. If you see things differently, fine, go talk to a psychologist or something.
Read Ossie's post. Read the quote I gave you from Kennedy.
I could understand your position if you did not use similar phrases yourself. I could understand your position if you shut up when it was pointed out you used similar phrases yourself.
Continuing to suggest someone seek psychiatric help for using similar phrases to ones you use yourself is obviously not hypocrisy, but something else entirely.
Well, actually I think the 9 year-old with a stone is more of a threat to any IDF infantryman. Perhaps the Merkavas were shooting to cover said infantrymen?
I don't think a 9 year old without a gun is a threat to an armed soldier in any way.
Regardless of which, as soon as that 9 year-old has decided to take to the streets and throw rocks at armed soldiers, he will have to face the consequences of his actions. There is a very easy way to avoid the entire situation: Stay at home. And the neglect of the parents is beyond belief. Any parent letting his 9 year-old kid go out in the street to throw rocks at IDF soldiers should not be a parent at all.
Stone throwing by children is a crime. It is not a threat to life.
Shooting criminals in the act, if they do not present a danger, is an act of extra-judicial execution.
The role of law enforcement, in which Israeli soldiers are operating, is to prevent crimes, not punish them.
Any parent must let a 9 year old child out, or else keep them under permament curfew.
I have heard of negligence, have you heard about criminal negligence and its relation to negligence?
Yes. I would say leaving a booby trap bomb in a refugee camp, which then explodes killing five children, is an act of criminal negligence.
-
Which one? Are you gonna say that the 1967 war is an example of Israeli aggression
Israel attacked it's neighbours. Pretence of "pre-emptive strike" doesn't change that fact.
What do you think would happen if we gave a couple of nukes to Syria, Iraq, or why not to Hezbollah, Hamas and Al Acqusa to make things really interesting?
Syria would not use them. Iraq may, Hezbollah, Al Aqsa and Hamas probably would, depending on how many they had. I suspect they would threaten first, in order to try to achieve something.
Syria would not, because the Syrians have a lot to lose.
Iraq may, because Iraq is dominated by one man, Sadam. If Sadam feels he has nothing to lose, he would use them. He did not use chemical weapons during the Gulf war because he had something to lose.
The terrorist groups probably would because they have nothing to lose, and no way of suffering nuclear retaliation. They are already illegal organisations being hunted down.
The more support terrorist groups have, the more likely they are to aquire nuclear weapons. As experts predict it will become easier to aquire nuclear weapons as time goes on, sooner or later they will. Marginalise the terrorist groups and they are less likely to aquire such weapons, and be in less position to use them.
Exactly what kind of an apology are you looking for here? "I'm sorry that 73% of all Palestinians support suicide bombings?" Or "I'm sorry that I told you the truth about the palestinian terrorists"? What exactly do you find offensive in the post you quoted?
You accused me of siding with suicide bombers. With people who deliberately kill children. An apology for that insult will be followed by an apology from me.
I am of the opinion that in the Israel-Palestine conflict there is a good and a bad side. Maybe not black and white, but black enough and white enough. The Israelis are the good guys (in case you were wondering, you seem to have problems understanding that).
I have real issues with this coming from you.
You described the Israelis as good, the Palestinians as evil. In a thread on the Nazis, you said there was no black and white, just shades of grey.
The quotes you pulled from another thread were when I was debating with someone who was of the opinion that all Germans living in 1934-45 were nazis. So, the nazis would end up on the black side of the scale, the Israelis on the white side, I think you know where the Palestinian terrorists belong. We then take all Germans, Israelis and Palestinians and place them along the scale depending on their actions and their motivations.
The last quote from me was what I think about terrorists. And you are right, I have no sympathy for them whatsoever. And the problem for the Palestinians is that 73% of all Palestinians support the terrorists and their actions. And anyone supporting a terrorist is just as bad as the terrorist himself. I think it was the US president who said that.
Again I have problems.
You don't just refer to terrorists in such terms, it is "It is not possible to make deals with the arabs, it is not possible to trust the arabs, you simply cannot."
The Nazis were supported by the vast majority of the German population. Yet there it is shades of grey.
On a thread about the Nazis you had this to say:
Germany was put into a state of economic chaos, with anarchy on the streets as a result of a strong communist para-military presence manifesting itself in these conditions of extreme social instability. Versailles is not just a piece of paper, it is a decades-long vendetta against the Germans displaying ignorance as to historical effects. The Germans were swept into WWI along with everyone else and were made the fall-guy afterwards. If you treat a nation in this manner, drag them through the dirt like this, you can expect a backlash down the road, and we certainly got it.
The phenomenon of an extreme right-wing nationalism arising in Germany after this, I would argue, was inevitable.
The Nazis were inevitable because of the way the Germans were treated.
By any objective measure, the Palestinians have suffered more at the hands of the Israelis than the Germans suffered from Versailles.
Another of your quotes
The security issues. It is not possible to make deals with the arabs, it is not possible to trust the arabs, you simply cannot. These people have their own agenda (no Israel in mid east), and they seem to use any method possible to advance their goals.
You believe German agression was the fault of the Versailles treaty, and presumably when Germany was liberated from it after the war, Germans became "good" again.
Yet you imply Arabs are simply bad, that their actions stem from this "evil" nature, and that changing their conditions for the better will not change them for the better.
And anyone supporting a terrorist is just as bad as the terrorist himself.
In a war, people fight for alot of reasons. Some out of ideology, some out of love or hate, but most people fight simply because they have to. When your country is at war, for whatever reason, you will find yourself fighting in that war, regardless of what you think is right or wrong.
To say that Germany in 1933-45 was "Nazi Germany" and to imply that all Germans fought either because they were nazis, or to preserve nazism is not only both stupid and wrong. It is also insulting to all those men who fought and died -because their country was at war.
Aggressive war is “bad” yeah, so is state sponsored racism. HOWEVER the difference between wars of aggression, racism, and the holocaust are so enormous it feels wrong to talk about them in the same sentence. So yeah, I am saying that nazism didnt show its true face until 1941
On these threads you excuse those who supported the Nazis before 1941, because they didn't know that Hitler planned to murder millions of Jews. You admit they knew the Nazis disliked the Jews, and wanted to deport them all. You don't mention Kristalnacht, but presumably accept that Nazi supporters then weren't adverse to killing a few hundred Jews to get them to leave.
All this is explained away as reaction to Versailles, and doesn't make Nazi supporters in 1941 "bad".
Palestinian terrorists are not worse than Nazis in 1941.
At worst, they talk of deporting the Jews, at best, destroying Israel and living in harmony with the Jews. They too are ready to kill a few hundred Jews to get them to leave.
According to your definition, the Palestinians are, at worst, engaged in a war of aggression, or racism, but not the Holocaust.
Yet you define the Palestinians as worse than the Germans.
The Palestinians have more cause for their actions than the Germans did, and their actions are less extreme than the Germans. How then do you classify them as worse than the Germans?
-
Originally posted by Nashwan
It matters very much what the LoN said.
[SNIP preamble again]
There followed 20+ articles, all stipulating what could and could not be done by the mandated power, articles such as
Article 5
The Mandatory shall be responsible for seeing that no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way placed under the control of, the Government of any foreign Power.
Britain administered the mandated territory, within rules laid out by the LoN. Britain did not own the territory, and was answerable to the LoN for it's actions in carrying out the Mandate.
Sovereign powers are not answerable to anyone for their actions, by defenition.
Britain was not the sovereign power in Palestine, it was the administrator.
Britain recognized the ultimate authority of the LoN in the mandated territory.
Will you please give this line of arguing up? Please? It is obvious that you dont really know what you are talking about. When I post something regarding some aspect of international law, you dash off on the internet and dig up quotes from various treaties or protocols. Realize your own limitations. This is what I work with every day. I know these things.
If you look again at what I wrote, you will note the sentence: These things do not matter, what does matter is who is the de facto owner over the territory. And that was Britain.
Notice how I'm talking about de facto ownership here, not de jure? (de facto= the way things are, de jure= according to the law). I leave you to draw your own conclusions from that.
Now, you can sit here all day and try to conjure up various reasons as to why Britain was not the owner of Palestine, or not the sovereign power but the administrator or whatever. IT DOES NOT MATTER. What DOES MATTER is the fact that the area was under British control, and Britain was the owner (from a LEGAL point of view, and no one really cares about your philosophical approach to the issue).
Then you have abandoned the position Britain ceded the territory to Israel?
If that is the case, the ownership or not of the territory by Britain becomes irrelevant.
Will you please give this line of arguing up? Please? It is obvious that you dont really know what you are talking about. Realize your own limitations.
You cannot abandon something that you don't have.
Governments in exile have been recognized widely in the past.Nazi Germany held control over most of Europe, but was not recognized by many countries as the sovereign power, owner, whatever.
Nobody, not even the Germans, recognized Holland, Belgium, Norway etc as parts of Germany, or assumed they were no longer states. Some recognized the puppet governments, some recognized the governments in exile.
Control does not imply ownership, ownership does not imply control.
Will you please give this line of arguing up? Please? It is obvious that you dont really know what you are talking about. Realize your own limitations.
The requirement of effective control over territory is not always strictly applied; for example a state does not cease to exist when it is temporarily deprived of an effective government. Even when all of its territory is occupied by the enemy in wartime, the state continues to exist, provided that its allies continue the struggle against the enemy.
Control is not ownership.
Name the countries that recognize the West Bank as part of Israel.
Here's a few that do not:
The US
The UK
The UN (not a country)
The EU (not a country)
Russia
Israel.
Not even Israel claims the West Bank as part of Israel, legally.
Will you please give this line of arguing up? Please? It is obvious that you dont really know what you are talking about. Realize your own limitations.
Name the countries that recognize the West bank as under Israeli control, and under de facto ownership.
Israel occupied the West Bank, Gaza, the Golan. It annexed the Golan, and parts of Jerusalem, into Israeli territory. It has never claimed the West Bank or Gaza as Israeli territory, and neither they, nor the Golan, are recognized as Israeli territory by other countries.
From the US state department web site:
As a result of the 1967 War, Israel occupied the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, East Jerusalem, and the Golan Heights. The international community does not recognize Israel's sovereignty over any part of the occupied territories.
Irrelevant.
The West Bank and Gaza are not recognized as internal territory of Israel. They are reffered to as occupied territory, even by Israel.
Irrelevant. It still is not an international conflict.
Israel has not claimed the west Bank or Gaza.
The ICRC regarded the fourth Geneva convention as applying to the West Bank and Gaza. It believes all those areas not under Palestinian local administration do fall under the terms of the convention. As an opinion, forgive me for trusting the ICRC's legal opinion over yours.
Oh, you can trust whoever you want, I still dont think you should trust the internet as a source for complicated legal issues though. You know, I was wrong regarding the Geneva convention (they do not cover occupation at all), I really should have looked it up before posting.
Riddle me this:
What exactly is "the fourth Geneva convention"?
There are five conventions and protocols related to Geneva, they are (in chronological order):
Amelioration of the condition of the wounded on the field of battle
-from 1864
Geneva protocol for the prohibition of the use in war of asphyxiating gas, and for bacteriological methods of warfare
-from 1928
Convention between the United States of America and other powers, relating to prisoners of war
-from 1929
Geneva convention relative to the treatment of prisoners of war
-from 1949
Convention on the prohibition of the development, production and stockpiling of bacteriological and toxin weapons and their destruction
-from 1975
Of these five, two have more than 49 articles.
From the 1929 convention:
Art 49
No prisoner of war may be deprived of his rank by the detaining Power.
Prisoners given disciplinary punishment may not be deprived of the prerogatives attached to their rank. In particular, officers and persons of equivalent status who suffer punishment involving deprivation of liberty shall not be placed in. the same quarters as noncommissioned officers or privates being punished.
From the 1949 convention:
The Detaining Power may utilize the labour of prisoners of war who are physically fit, taking into account their age, sex, rank and physical aptitude, and with a view particularly to maintaining them in a good state of physical and mental health.
Non-commissioned officers who are prisoners of war shall only be required to do supervisory work. Those not so required may ask for other suitable work which shall, so far as possible, be found for them.
If officers or persons of equivalent status ask for suitable work, it shall be found for them, so far as possible, but they may in no circumstances be compelled to work.
Where is your famous article 49:
"The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies." ?
DONT BELIEVE EVERYTHING YOU READ ON THE INTERNET.
Jordan did claim ownership of the West Bank. Few countries recognized it, and Jordan has since withdrawn the claim.
Israel does not claim ownership of the West Bank, refering to the area as "disputed territory".
Your first claim was that Jordan didn't own the territory, because it was taken in war, but Israel does own the territory, because it was taken in war.
If you are now saying Jordan did own it, then the status of the territory can not have been "abandoned" when Israel captured it. The status of the territory is simply part of Jordan occupied by Israel. Please make up your mind, was the West Bank owned by Jordan or not. You are saying yes and no in different parts of your answer.
Read what I wrote one more time.
"When Britain abandoned the territory, the territory became terra nullius. Jordan moved in on the west bank and occupied it. At this moment in time, Jordan owns the west bank. After another war, Israel occupies the west bank. In the peace settlement between Israel and Jordan, Jordan abandons the west bank. Suddenly Israel owns the west bank. Please read through this explanation a couple of times until you understand it."
Israel does not apply Israeli national law in the territories. Israeli national law is applied to Israeli citizens in the territories, but Israeli military law is applied to non-citizens in the territories, ie 90% of the population.
Irrelevant.
-
Argue all you want over ideaology...
Fact is in the real world, might makes right and Israel has demonstrated repeatedly that it can defeat the combined might of all its enemies. Ever hear of the phrase "winner gets the spoils"? If the US wasn't so concerned about Arab oil production and pricing, we wouldn't even be having this discussion since the US would otherwise be backing Israel 100% no matter what it did.
-
Originally posted by Nashwan
Read Ossie's post. Read the quote I gave you from Kennedy.
I could understand your position if you did not use similar phrases yourself. I could understand your position if you shut up when it was pointed out you used similar phrases yourself.
Continuing to suggest someone seek psychiatric help for using similar phrases to ones you use yourself is obviously not hypocrisy, but something else entirely.
I say that a country or a nation is not a living entity, and thus it is incapable of independent thought, a prerequisite for forming goals or intentions. If you see things differently, fine, go talk to a psychologist or something.
I don't think a 9 year old without a gun is a threat to an armed soldier in any way.
How about 100 9 year-olds in the company of another 1 000 Palestinians of various ages, all armed with rocks.
Stone throwing by children is a crime. It is not a threat to life.
Shooting criminals in the act, if they do not present a danger, is an act of extra-judicial execution.
The role of law enforcement, in which Israeli soldiers are operating, is to prevent crimes, not punish them.
Any parent must let a 9 year old child out, or else keep them under permament curfew.
I suspect you know about as much about Israeli law as you do international law. Let me just point out that the situations we are talking about here takes place under the jurisdiction of the Israeli law. I suggest we then leave it to the Israeli judicial system to sort out who is in violation of what law.
And a parent that cannot prevent his 9 yr old kid from going out in the streets to throw rocks at armed soldiers should not be a parent at all.
Yes. I would say leaving a booby trap bomb in a refugee camp, which then explodes killing five children, is an act of criminal negligence.
So now I'm confused. Are you talking about the Palestinians who littered Jenin with booby traps now?
Israel attacked it's neighbours. Pretence of "pre-emptive strike" doesn't change that fact.
No, but it does a world of difference when it comes to who is right and who is wrong.
The more support terrorist groups have, the more likely they are to aquire nuclear weapons. As experts predict it will become easier to aquire nuclear weapons as time goes on, sooner or later they will. Marginalise the terrorist groups and they are less likely to aquire such weapons, and be in less position to use them.
Or remove all the terrorist organisations from the face of the planet by shooting all their members, problem solved.
You accused me of siding with suicide bombers. With people who deliberately kill children. An apology for that insult will be followed by an apology from me.
But you DO side with suicide bombers, with people who deliberately kill children, see that is what the Palestinians do. If you see that as an insult, perhaps you should reconsider your position on the Israel-Palestine conflict.
As for me, I have never tried to justify the Nazi reprisal massacres in France. So when you wrote that, it was a lie. Apparently you cannot find any quote from me where I have said such a thing, and instead of apologizing, you try to shift focus to something completely different.
I wrote:
I am of the opinion that in the Israel-Palestine conflict there is a good and a bad side. Maybe not black and white, but black enough and white enough. The Israelis are the good guys (in case you were wondering, you seem to have problems understanding that).
You replied:
I have real issues with this coming from you.
You described the Israelis as good, the Palestinians as evil. In a thread on the Nazis, you said there was no black and white, just shades of grey.
Yes.
I wrote:
The quotes you pulled from another thread were when I was debating with someone who was of the opinion that all Germans living in 1934-45 were nazis. So, the nazis would end up on the black side of the scale, the Israelis on the white side, I think you know where the Palestinian terrorists belong. We then take all Germans, Israelis and Palestinians and place them along the scale depending on their actions and their motivations.
The last quote from me was what I think about terrorists. And you are right, I have no sympathy for them whatsoever. And the problem for the Palestinians is that 73% of all Palestinians support the terrorists and their actions. And anyone supporting a terrorist is just as bad as the terrorist himself. I think it was the US president who said that.
You replied:
Again I have problems.
You don't just refer to terrorists in such terms, it is "It is not possible to make deals with the arabs, it is not possible to trust the arabs, you simply cannot."
The Nazis were supported by the vast majority of the German population. Yet there it is shades of grey.
Were the nazis supported by the vast majority of the German population? Have I said that?
I wrote:
Germany was put into a state of economic chaos, with anarchy on the streets as a result of a strong communist para-military presence manifesting itself in these conditions of extreme social instability. Versailles is not just a piece of paper, it is a decades-long vendetta against the Germans displaying ignorance as to historical effects. The Germans were swept into WWI along with everyone else and were made the fall-guy afterwards. If you treat a nation in this manner, drag them through the dirt like this, you can expect a backlash down the road, and we certainly got it.
The phenomenon of an extreme right-wing nationalism arising in Germany after this, I would argue, was inevitable.
You replied:
The Nazis were inevitable because of the way the Germans were treated.
By any objective measure, the Palestinians have suffered more at the hands of the Israelis than the Germans suffered from Versailles.
I did not say it was inevitable. As for the Palestinian suffering at Israeli hands, I'm not so sure I agree with your analysis.
I wrote:
The security issues. It is not possible to make deals with the arabs, it is not possible to trust the arabs, you simply cannot. These people have their own agenda (no Israel in mid east), and they seem to use any method possible to advance their goals.
You replied:
You believe German agression was the fault of the Versailles treaty, and presumably when Germany was liberated from it after the war, Germans became "good" again.
Yet you imply Arabs are simply bad, that their actions stem from this "evil" nature, and that changing their conditions for the better will not change them for the better.
Your interpretations of my "implications" are intriguing. Wrong, mostly, but intriguing nevertheless.
I wrote:
And anyone supporting a terrorist is just as bad as the terrorist himself.
In a war, people fight for alot of reasons. Some out of ideology, some out of love or hate, but most people fight simply because they have to. When your country is at war, for whatever reason, you will find yourself fighting in that war, regardless of what you think is right or wrong.
To say that Germany in 1933-45 was "Nazi Germany" and to imply that all Germans fought either because they were nazis, or to preserve nazism is not only both stupid and wrong. It is also insulting to all those men who fought and died -because their country was at war.
Aggressive war is “bad” yeah, so is state sponsored racism. HOWEVER the difference between wars of aggression, racism, and the holocaust are so enormous it feels wrong to talk about them in the same sentence. So yeah, I am saying that nazism didnt show its true face until 1941
You reply:
On these threads you excuse those who supported the Nazis before 1941, because they didn't know that Hitler planned to murder millions of Jews. You admit they knew the Nazis disliked the Jews, and wanted to deport them all. You don't mention Kristalnacht, but presumably accept that Nazi supporters then weren't adverse to killing a few hundred Jews to get them to leave.
All this is explained away as reaction to Versailles, and doesn't make Nazi supporters in 1941 "bad".
Palestinian terrorists are not worse than Nazis in 1941.
At worst, they talk of deporting the Jews, at best, destroying Israel and living in harmony with the Jews. They too are ready to kill a few hundred Jews to get them to leave.
According to your definition, the Palestinians are, at worst, engaged in a war of aggression, or racism, but not the Holocaust.
Yet you define the Palestinians as worse than the Germans.
The Palestinians have more cause for their actions than the Germans did, and their actions are less extreme than the Germans. How then do you classify them as worse than the Germans?
Again, you seem to draw conclusions from my posts that are not backed up by what I have written. Then, based on your own faulty conclusions, you proceed to criticize your own version of what I have never said. You then ask questions around your own faulty conclusions "How then do you classify the Palestinians as worse than the Germans" is an example of such a question.
The situation is absurd. Either ask me questions based on what I have said, or start your own thread where you can make up more stuff to criticize about me.
-
This is what I work with every day. I know these things.
Really? I thought you claimed to be a minor judge in Sweden, not an expert on international law.
If you look again at what I wrote, you will note the sentence: These things do not matter, what does matter is who is the de facto owner over the territory. And that was Britain.
Again, you seem incapable of understnding there is a difference between control, possesion and ownership.
Name the countries that recognize the West bank as under Israeli control, and under de facto ownership
Plenty recognize Israeli control, all recognize it as a temporary measure. None recognize Israeli ownership, not even Israel.
It really is amazing how all these countries, including Israel, have got the law wrong, and only Hortlund has got it right.
What exactly is "the fourth Geneva convention"?
http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/WebCONVART?OpenView
Geneva convention relative to the treatment of prisoners of war
-from 1949
The "Fourth Geneva Convention" refers to the fourth protocol of the 1949 convention
Convention (I) for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field. Geneva, 12 August 1949.
Convention (II) for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea. Geneva, 12 August 1949.
Convention (III) relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.
Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.
You have taken article 49 from the third protocol, refered to as the third Geneva convention
Article 49 from the fourth protocol (usually refered to as the fourth convention)
Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive.
Nevertheless, the Occupying Power may undertake total or partial evacuation of a given area if the security of the population or imperative military reasons so demand. Such evacuations may not involve the displacement of protected persons outside the bounds of the occupied territory except when for material reasons it is impossible to avoid such displacement. Persons thus evacuated shall be transferred back to their homes as soon as hostilities in the area in question have ceased.
The Occupying Power undertaking such transfers or evacuations shall ensure, to the greatest practicable extent, that proper accommodation is provided to receive the protected persons, that the removals are effected in satisfactory conditions of hygiene, health, safety and nutrition, and that members of the same family are not separated.
The Protecting Power shall be informed of any transfers and evacuations as soon as they have taken place.
The Occupying Power shall not detain protected persons in an area particularly exposed to the dangers of war unless the security of the population or imperative military reasons so demand.
The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.
The great international law expert, who's never heard of the Fourth Geneva convention. Forgive me if I think your ignorance in this area signifies ignorance in other areas as well.
Do a search on "Fourth Geneva Convention", and you will find all sorts of people quoting it, such as the US state department, the official Isreli government website, the UN, the ICRC.
So now I'm confused. Are you talking about the Palestinians who littered Jenin with booby traps now?
No, I'm talking about the IDF booby-trap left in the Khan Younis refugee camp in November 2001 that killed 5 children. The one the IDF "investigated", called "an error of judgement" and took no action against anyone for.
Or remove all the terrorist organisations from the face of the planet by shooting all their members, problem solved.
They will of course helpfully carry signs saying "I am a terrorist" to make the job easier. No one will get annoyed at their friends and relatives getting shot, and no one else will join the terrorist groups.
But you DO side with suicide bombers, with people who deliberately kill children, see that is what the Palestinians do. If you see that as an insult, perhaps you should reconsider your position on the Israel-Palestine conflict.
Where have I said I side with suicide bombers, or even with individual Palestinians?
I cannot side with the Palestinians, because a country or a nation or a group is not a living entity, and thus it is incapable of independent thought, a prerequisite for forming goals or intentions. If you see things differently, fine, go talk to a psychologist or something.
So, tell me where I have said I side with suicide bombers, and I will tell you where you have said you side with th Nazis.
Were the nazis supported by the vast majority of the German population? Have I said that?
Yes.
Support for Hitler was massive back in 38-40. But you have to realize and understand that the true horrors of nazism hadnt shown its face yet..
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=46307&highlight=1941
I did not say it was inevitable.
The phenomenon of an extreme right-wing nationalism arising in Germany after this, I would argue, was inevitable
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=46469&highlight=inevitable (about 2/3 of the way down)
Again, you seem to draw conclusions from my posts that are not backed up by what I have written. Then, based on your own faulty conclusions, you proceed to criticize your own version of what I have never said. You then ask questions around your own faulty conclusions "How then do you classify the Palestinians as worse than the Germans" is an example of such a question.
No, Hortlund, until I challenged you on it, you called the Israelis good, the Palestinians evil, but responded about the Nazis that there is no black and white.
You say the Palestinians are evil because they support terrorists, but the Germans were not evil even though "Support for Hitler was massive back in 38-40." ie, even after Mein Kampf, even after Kristl Nacht, even after the confiscation of all Jewish property, even after the Jews had been stripped of citizenship, even after concentration camps had publicly been set up. The only thing missing at this point was the Holocaust.
So what YOU are saying, is that the Germans were not evil to support the Nazis, because they had not yet begun genocide, but the Palestinians are evil to support the terrorists, who haven't carried out genocide either.
-
And a parent that cannot prevent his 9 yr old kid from going out in the streets to throw rocks at armed soldiers should not be a parent at all.
It's not just stone throwing.
Palestinian children are routinely killed when doing nothing at all wrong:
Colonel Dan Hafetz held an investigation Monday into the incident, in which a Palestinian woman and her two children, aged three and four, were killed. It very quickly became clear that the initial version of events issued by the IDF was erroneous, and that the tank had not come under attack.
The investigation revealed that the explosion heard by the members of the crew was caused by a malfunction in the tank's track. The noise made by this created an explosive effect, which led to one of the soldiers sustaining moderate injuries.
In accordance with the regulations in force while operating inside the West Bank, immediately after coming under what they saw as an attack, the soldiers opened fire toward "suspicious areas." The policy is aimed at preventing terrorists from detonating further devices and, according to an IDF spokesman Monday, the policy had proved effective many times in the past.
Soldiers involved in the incident testified they had spotted suspicious characters in a nearby cornfield, despite having only a partial view of the area. Nonetheless, they opened fire with machine guns and light weapons, killing the woman and her two children. The soldiers said they believed the figures were terrorists leaving the scene.
http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=160678&contrassID=1&subContrassID=5&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y
They can be really vicious, these three year-olds.
-
A tragic accident.
But do you really think the soldiers would have opened fire if they knew that the only persons in that field were an innocent mother and her two children?
Of cource not.
And this is actually something that puts the finger exactly on the difference between the IDF and the terrorists. Sometimes the IDF is responsible for innocents being killed. But there is a difference, because the terrorists deliberately try to kill women and children. They specifically target them.
-
Originally posted by Nashwan
Really? I thought you claimed to be a minor judge in Sweden, not an expert on international law.
So do you think judges in Sweden handle the law every day?
Have I ever claimed to be an expert in international law? But I suppose that compared to you I should be considered an expert, everything is relative you know.
ANYWAY, what I was referring to is the fact that I do work with the law every day, and I have pulled my sorry bellybutton through lawschool (5 yrs), I should have picked up something …right?. Now, I'm not sure here, but I suspect that you dont work with the law every day, and I'd be thoroughly surprised if you would claim to have gone through lawschool.
Again, you seem incapable of understnding there is a difference between control, possesion and ownership.
Plenty recognize Israeli control, all recognize it as a temporary measure. None recognize Israeli ownership, not even Israel.
It really is amazing how all these countries, including Israel, have got the law wrong, and only Hortlund has got it right.
This part of the discussion is closed from my point of view. I have explained in detail exactly what the legal aspects of the conflict are. They are not open for debate, they just are. A funny aspect of the law is that it doesnt matter one bit what you think/hope/wish. Either you are too stupid to read and comprehend what I have written, OR you dont want to understand because it doesnt fit your agenda. Either way, continued discussion in this area is as pointless as banging ones head against a brick wall.
The "Fourth Geneva Convention" refers to the fourth protocol of the 1949 convention
The perhaps that is what you should have called it in the first place?
The great international law expert, who's never heard of the Fourth Geneva convention. Forgive me if I think your ignorance in this area signifies ignorance in other areas as well.
I thought we agreed that it was the fourth protocol to the 1949 Geneva convention, and that there is no "fourth Geneva convention"? To you that might not make a difference, but it does to me. If you are gonna quote something, quote it correct.
No, I'm talking about the IDF booby-trap left in the Khan Younis refugee camp in November 2001 that killed 5 children. The one the IDF "investigated", called "an error of judgement" and took no action against anyone for.
See what I wrote in an earlier post regarding letting Israeli law decide over matters under Israeli jurisdiction.
I wrote:
But you DO side with suicide bombers, with people who deliberately kill children, see that is what the Palestinians do. If you see that as an insult, perhaps you should reconsider your position on the Israel-Palestine conflict.
You replied:
Where have I said I side with suicide bombers, or even with individual Palestinians?
[…]
So, tell me where I have said I side with suicide bombers, and I will tell you where you have said you side with th Nazis.
Well, just about every one of your posts in this thread shows you siding with the suicide bombers.
Support for Hitler was massive back in 38-40. But you have to realize and understand that the true horrors of nazism hadnt shown its face yet..
Apparently I did. So whats your point?
I wrote:
I did not say it was inevitable.
You replied:
The phenomenon of an extreme right-wing nationalism arising in Germany after this, I would argue, was inevitable
Yes, so did I say it in the passage you were quoting at the time?
No, Hortlund, until I challenged you on it, you called the Israelis good, the Palestinians evil, but responded about the Nazis that there is no black and white.
You say the Palestinians are evil because they support terrorists, but the Germans were not evil even though "Support for Hitler was massive back in 38-40." ie, even after Mein Kampf, even after Kristl Nacht, even after the confiscation of all Jewish property, even after the Jews had been stripped of citizenship, even after concentration camps had publicly been set up. The only thing missing at this point was the Holocaust.
So what YOU are saying, is that the Germans were not evil to support the Nazis, because they had not yet begun genocide, but the Palestinians are evil to support the terrorists, who haven't carried out genocide either.
Again, no, I have never said that at all. Again, you are drawing your own conclusions from what I have said. I say those conclusions are wrong, you seem to think otherwise. Fine, believe what you want. I will not argue with you over something I know, and you think. It is pointless.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
A tragic accident.
But do you really think the soldiers would have opened fire if they knew that the only persons in that field were an innocent mother and her two children?
Of cource not.
And this is actually something that puts the finger exactly on the difference between the IDF and the terrorists. Sometimes the IDF is responsible for innocents being killed. But there is a difference, because the terrorists deliberately try to kill women and children. They specifically target them.
I second this.
The Israelis can and will be held responsible for "war crimes" in the end, will the Pals? Don't think so ...
-
I thought we agreed that it was the fourth protocol to the 1949 Geneva convention, and that there is no "fourth Geneva convention"? To you that might not make a difference, but it does to me. If you are gonna quote something, quote it correct.
It is called the Fourth Geneva Convention.
Some of the people who call it that:
The UN
The ICRC
The Israeli Government
The US state Department
The British Government.
Do I need to go on?
Well, just about every one of your posts in this thread shows you siding with the suicide bombers.
I am presenting some facts of history you left out. I am presenting details of Israeli abuses. I have not expressed any support for suicide bombers.
I'm still waiting for the apology.
Yes, so did I say it in the passage you were quoting at the time?
Yes
I'll let anyone else who reads this fr draw their own conclusions from your positions on Palestinians and Nazis, and your quotes on both.
-
I have explained in detail exactly what the legal aspects of the conflict are. They are not open for debate, they just are. A funny aspect of the law is that it doesnt matter one bit what you think/hope/wish.
A law must be interpreted. Interpretation is an opinionated action, and is therefore open to debate. Hence one of the fundamental duties of the judiciary (at least in the U.S.): to interpret the laws set forth by the legislature.
-
Originally posted by Ossie
A law must be interpreted. Interpretation is an opinionated action, and is therefore open to debate. Hence one of the fundamental duties of the judiciary (at least in the U.S.): to interpret the laws set forth by the legislature.
Well, do you agree that certain aspects of the law requires more interpretation that others? For example, the question "what is reasonable doubt" is more open to debate than the question "what is drunk driving"
And that some aspects of the law does not really require any interpretation at all, for example if you live and work in Sweden, you must pay taxes.
The stuff I posted about de facto ownership and abandonment etc are of the latter kind. They just are.
-
Well, do you agree that certain aspects of the law requires more interpretation that others? For example, the question "what is reasonable doubt" is more open to debate than the question "what is drunk driving"
And that some aspects of the law does not really require any interpretation at all, for example if you live and work in Sweden, you must pay taxes.
The stuff I posted about de facto ownership and abandonment etc are of the latter kind. They just are.
I do agree that there is a limit to the magnitude of interpretation (hence the need for a judge:) ). However, I would be hesitant to be of mind that anything "just is". As simple as a law may seem to appear on paper, you have variables on either side relating to that which is unforseen (hence the need for lawyers:) ).
It has so far been an interesting debate between yourself and Nashwan (although imo it would be a much better read without some of the personal jabs). Sure as hell beats CNN :D
-
PUNT for Nashwan.
You might want to read my first two posts again...