Can we blame the suicide bombers now?
:bummer:
Israel expands illegal settlements with US nod
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_24-8-2004_pg4_1
We couldnt blame them before...
Hmm - Let's see:
Arab nations gang up and attack Israel
Arabs get butts whipped and Israel captures land
Israel refuses to give up land until Arabs agree to accept Israel's right to exist
Arabs send in boys/girls to kill innocent civlians in buses and cafes in Israel
Yes, Yes. we cannot blame the suicide bombers...
Talwar dude, you started out alright.. but kinda lost track after point #3. Try again.
^^Sorry. you are the one that needs to reconsider.
Israel has and will continue to exist as a nation-state. If the Arab nations decided to accept this fact of life, the Palestininan issue could be settled rapidly.
The settlements are a guarantee for Israel that 1967 does not happen again. Should they be expanding the settlements? Likely not, but if the Arabs think that they can bomb buses and cafes in order to force Israel to vacate, that ain't gonna happen.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Talwar: *
^^Sorry. you are the one that needs to reconsider.
[/QUOTE]
Since I never gave any opinion at all on this matter, so I can't possibly reconsider. :-D
So, are you saying Israel has a "legal" right over the land, or it does not have legal right over the land? Lets figure out this point first, and then go to "pizza parlors", shall we. And lets keep it simple and step-by-step for the benefit of those who are not as sharp as you are. :-)
Faisal:
Let me pipe in here with my two cents. I don't believe that Israel has a "legal" right to the land. However, in the sense I think we mutually mean "legal," the Palestinians don't have a "legal" right to the land either.
Had the 1947 Partition been accepted by all parties, that would have established "legal" rights to land. UN Resolution 242 established the framework for creating "legal" rights to the land calling for negotiated settlement and safe and secure borders. That didn't happen either.
All that said, I personally think building new settlements or expanding existing ones is not only wrong, but also bad and counterproductive policy.
myvoice, your first two paragraphs of legal wizzardry were impressive, though what did they mean? Is the land title-less? Since neither side, according to your legal theory, has a legal right on it, can I claim it?
As to your last paragraph, great. We both are sync'd up on this. Lets stop the madness, now.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Faisal: *
myvoice, your first two paragraphs of legal wizzardry was impressive, though what did it mean? Is the land title-less? Since neither side, according to your legal theory has a legal right on it, can I claim it?
As to your last paragraph, great. We both are sync'd up on this. Lets stop the madness, now.
[/QUOTE]
Sure.... you can try to claim it. You wouldn't be the first party to lay a claim on it. After all, Jordan claimed it for 20 years after the Partition. (Interesting that I don't remember any Palestinian suicide bombers blowing up pizza parlors in Amman back then claiming "illegal occupation.") Syria claimed a historical right to it for a number of years after the Partition as well.
BTW, it's not my legal theory. If there were internationally recognized "legal" borders establishing Israel on the one hand and a Palestinian state on the other, we wouldn't have the mess out there that we do.
While you and I might be sync'd up on this, it's not within our power to stop the madness. The only ones with the power to stop the madness are the people afflicted with the madness. Unfortunately, not enough people have died to make them want to end it.
Talwar 3 is wrong. According to the Geneva convention which Pakistan and India applied in their 1965 war and 1971 war. At peace of ceasing of hostilities all land captured must be returned.
Why do you think everybody refers to them as the occupied territories?
My voice please show me the peice of legislation, domestic or international that outlines Israels current borders. And no Israeli legislation does not count.
A good 30% of israel is built on territory that they have grabbed illegally violating the Geneva convention.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by CM: *
Talwar 3 is wrong. According to the Geneva convention which Pakistan and India applied in their 1965 war and 1971 war. At peace of ceasing of hostilities all land captured must be returned.
Why do you think everybody refers to them as the occupied territories?
[/QUOTE]
Yes. War losers always hide behind Geneva conventions. If you are Israel and a bunch of thugs attack you but you whip their butts, would you graciously return their land or would you make them accept their sins before doing that?
Besides, did Geneva conventions prevent the Arabs from trying to annihilate Israel?
I'm not in favor of settling people on conquered land. That land has to be returned, atleast a big part of it. But when the Arabs refuse to openly say that they accept Israel's right to exist, they will get zilch from Israel.
Egypt saw the light and made peace with Israel. It promptly got back the Sinai back. One hopes other nations and the Palestinians learn from that.
"At peace of ceasing of hostilities all land captured must be returned."
As with Egypt, where settlements were dismantled?
Israel has not "claimed" the land, it is being held pending settlement. The settlements were always a bargaining chip. The Palestinians did not bargain, and they have now almost become a fait accolmpli. The point Myvoice is trying to make is that the entire history of the "border" is so muddied in legalities that it is worthless in the real world to try to fall back on a precise document for guidance. The parties have never been in agreement.
Sit down at the bargaining table, come to an agreement, and live with the agreement. The alternative being the current dysfunctional state of affair, with both parties locked in a death grip.
Wake me when there is a "ceasing of hostilities".
Actually Egypt got most of the sinai back in the second war. There was so very little for israel to give back. Secondly regardless of what is right or wrong. The law is the law. We applied it even thought we fought India to a standstill and your own govt stated you lost. The law is the law. Simple.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Ohioguy: *
"At peace of ceasing of hostilities all land captured must be returned."
As with Egypt, where settlements were dismantled?
Israel has not "claimed" the land, it is being held pending settlement. The settlements were always a bargaining chip. The Palestinians did not bargain, and they have now almost become a fait accolmpli. The point Myvoice is trying to make is that the entire history of the "border" is so muddied in legalities that it is worthless in the real world to try to fall back on a precise document for guidance. The parties have never been in agreement.
Sit down at the bargaining table, come to an agreement, and live with the agreement. The alternative being the current dysfunctional state of affair, with both parties locked in a death grip.
Wake me when there is a "ceasing of hostilities".
[/QUOTE]
Oh sweety, to have a settlement dont you need to be a recognized party to the conflict. Please refresh my memory but when were the Palestinians ever a party to the two wars?
Oh yes it has. Sharon has stated many times in the past that the lands is Israels. What do you think the settlers agree to?
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by CM: *
Talwar 3 is wrong. According to the Geneva convention which Pakistan and India applied in their 1965 war and 1971 war. At peace of ceasing of hostilities all land captured must be returned.
…….
[/QUOTE]
Well well! I wish the whole world could fight like India and Pakistan's "Gentleman wars". You ought to be kidding us by comparing these "wars" to the Biddu madness.
Pakistan and India fought wars (however repulsive and destructive) with certain political objectives with very specific time frame (15 to 20 days). At the end of hostilities fighting parties decided to have Rice Pilaf, exchange POWs, hug hug and kiss kiss.
Biddus have fought wars for shear pleasure of blood and gore with no political oversight. Brothers of Hummus want to pour olive oil and eat their opponent alive. This is a do or die situation that always favors more powerful, more intelligent, and more resourceful side.
Biddus repeated their madmen mistakes in 48,67,73, all the way to present via Oslo, Camp David, and you name it.
For a successful solution to this madness, Arafat must go and be replaced by truly suave Jinnah style political leadership. That is if the Biddus have anyone of Jinnah's caliber. So far they have just produced furry hairballs and the results have been catastrophic for the poor Palestinians and innocent Israelis.
**Palestinians badly need a Jinnah **and not some Yes-Sir-Are-Fat.
"Please refresh my memory but when were the Palestinians ever a party to the two wars?"
Oh twist and spin squirm and wiggle.
How can a country be a "party" to a war, when it is not even a country, but a "territory". Never mind the fact that it has no military, but uses proxies to fight.
How many lawyers can dance on the head of a pin? The solution to this will not be a bunch of Geneva spouting bookworm weenies. Geneva has not solved this, the UN has not solved this. The only thing that will solve this is conflict exhaustion. When both sides are tired of the fight, and choose to wage peace.
Build a big friggin wall, and never speak to each other again. You both have your own countries, mind your own business and quit dragging the rest of the world into a fight.
Exactly. It is not a recognized entity nor government. Thus not a party to the conflict.
"It is not a recognized entity nor government."
Then how can it have a claim on land?
You can't have this arguement both ways.
Ah but that is not an issue. A people can claim a land. The jews are a perfect example. The Jews in world war 2 and before that were not a government nor a legal entity. Yet they claim the land as a race and people.
The Palestinians can do the same, following the precedent set by the Jews.