1 Israeli = 155 Palestinians

youcrazyjesus!

munchester29 wrote: »

If the IRA were to fire 3000 rockets into UK cities and declared their intentions of subjugating, expelling and killing Brits? Yes.

They almost killed the whole British Cabinet. Blew up pubs with no-warning bombs that killed dozens of innocents. They blew up the whole Manchester city centre.

The IRA never did these things though.
Here is what the IRA have actually done, which pales in comparison to the quantity and damage of the Palestinian attacks on Israel:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents_in_the_United_Kingdom

Here are 3 incidents, are they less bad than killing 10 people with 3,000 rockets? A strike rate of 1 in 300.
1974 21 November: The Birmingham pub bombings, 21 killed and 182 injured by Provisional IRA bombs.

1984 12 October: Brighton hotel bombing, 5 killed and several injured in an attempt by the IRA to kill Margaret Thatcher. (almost killed the whole British Cabinet - surely a serious terrorist attack)

1993 April 24: IRA detonate a huge truck bomb in the City of London at Bishopsgate, It killed journalist Ed Henty, injured over 40 people, and causing approximately £1 billion worth of damage, the insurance payments required were so enormous, that Lloyd's of London almost went bankrupt under the strain, and there was a crisis in the London insurance market. (they almost brought down the insurance market)

Serious attacks, equivalent or worse to these rocket attacks. Caused billions in damage and dozens of lives and threatened the whole economy of the UK. The British did not bomb West Belfast in retaliation nor would they have been right to. As Israel is not right in Gaza

So now, Mossad and Shin Bet agree that Hamas wants peace?
All they said was that Israel should talk to the Palestinians. You made a hugh leap of faith with your statement.

No you misinterpreted, I explicitly stated they believe Hamas are worth talking to, that some good, for Israel or Palestinians or both, will come of it. And some Mossad officials DO say Hamas accepts a 2-state solution.

munchester29

The Saint wrote: »

OK. Once again. In an advisory opinion there are no sides. No consent is required to hear the case. You're talking about contentious cases where there are two sides party to a case. This does not apply to advisory opinions where the General Assembly asks the ICJ for legal clarification on a certain issue. What you say in incorrect.

Still , an advisory opinion is not binding ruling.

The Saint wrote: »

You keep saying that Israel has a claim to settlements. You have provided no evidence for this besides what Israel and you say. I've provided authoritative sources that state that Israel has no claim to them under international law. This is clear from Security Council resolutions, General Assembly resolutions and the ICJ ruling. Also Israel submitted evidence to the ICJ in this case.

Now please provide some evidence to show that Israel has any legal claim to any of the settlements. If you can't, concede the point and move on.

Things are never simple when international law is concerned. When real peace negotiations start – everything will be on the table.

“The Israeli-Palestinian Declaration of Principles, signed September 13, 1993, deferred the settlement of the permanent status of Jerusalem to the final stages of negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians”

“Some international law experts, such as Julius Stone and Sir Elihu Lauterpacht, have argued that Israel has sovereignty over East Jerusalem under international law, since Jordan did not have legal sovereignty over the territory, and thus Israel was entitled in an act of self-defense during the Six Day War to "fill the vacuum".”

“It is important to understand that the Security Council did not call on Israel to withdraw from "all the" territories occupied during the 1967 war. This was deliberate. (52) The Soviet representative wanted the inclusion of those words and said that their exclusion meant "that part of these territories can remain in Israeli hands." (84) The Arab states pushed for the word "all" to be included, but this too was rejected. (53) On October 29, 1969, two years after the passage of the resolution, the British Foreign Secretary told the House of Commons the withdrawal envisaged by the resolution would not be from "all the territories." (54) When asked to explain the British position later, Lord Caradon, the British U.N. ambassador in 1967 who drafted resolution 242, said: "It would have been wrong to demand that Israel return to its positions of June 4, 1967, because those positions were undesirable and artificial." (55)

Similarly, Amb. Goldberg explained: "The notable omissions which were not accidental in regard to withdrawal are the words 'the' or 'all' and 'the June 5, 1967 lines' . . . the resolution speaks of withdrawal from occupied territories without defining the extent of withdrawal." (56) Indeed, Amb. Goldberg said that Israel's return of all territories is "incompatible" with 242. (57)”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Jerusalem

http://www.globalpolitician.com/24388-israel-jerusalem

The Saint

munchester29 wrote: »

Still , an advisory opinion is not binding ruling.

Yes but it's the legal opinion of the highest judicial body in the world taking into account all aspects of international law.

munchester29 wrote: »

Things are never simple when international law is concerned. When real peace negotiations start – everything will be on the table.

“The Israeli-Palestinian Declaration of Principles, signed September 13, 1993, deferred the settlement of the permanent status of Jerusalem to the final stages of negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians”

“Some international law experts, such as Julius Stone and Sir Elihu Lauterpacht, have argued that Israel has sovereignty over East Jerusalem under international law, since Jordan did not have legal sovereignty over the territory, and thus Israel was entitled in an act of self-defense during the Six Day War to "fill the vacuum".”

“It is important to understand that the Security Council did not call on Israel to withdraw from "all the" territories occupied during the 1967 war. This was deliberate. (52) The Soviet representative wanted the inclusion of those words and said that their exclusion meant "that part of these territories can remain in Israeli hands." (84) The Arab states pushed for the word "all" to be included, but this too was rejected. (53) On October 29, 1969, two years after the passage of the resolution, the British Foreign Secretary told the House of Commons the withdrawal envisaged by the resolution would not be from "all the territories." (54) When asked to explain the British position later, Lord Caradon, the British U.N. ambassador in 1967 who drafted resolution 242, said: "It would have been wrong to demand that Israel return to its positions of June 4, 1967, because those positions were undesirable and artificial." (55)

Similarly, Amb. Goldberg explained: "The notable omissions which were not accidental in regard to withdrawal are the words 'the' or 'all' and 'the June 5, 1967 lines' . . . the resolution speaks of withdrawal from occupied territories without defining the extent of withdrawal." (56) Indeed, Amb. Goldberg said that Israel's return of all territories is "incompatible" with 242. (57)”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Jerusalem

http://www.globalpolitician.com/24388-israel-jerusalem

What some random people have said is of no consequence to international law. As I stated above the highest judicial body in the world has determined that the settlements are illegal. This was then supported by 150 member states of the UN in a General Assembly resolution. This ruling is based on the whole body of international law including Security Council resolutions and Geneva Conventions. Basing it solely on UN 242 is irrelivant even though the interpretation of UN 242 is contentious. The preamble to UN 242 states "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war". You have not provided any legal evidence besides what some random people say. I'll stick with what the Judges of the ICJ say rather than some random selective people that you cite.

Sand

Serious attacks, equivalent or worse to these rocket attacks. Caused billions in damage and dozens of lives and threatened the whole economy of the UK. The British did not bomb West Belfast in retaliation nor would they have been right to. As Israel is not right in Gaza

The Israelis havent bombed Israeli Arabs either. Whats your point?

Most countries tend to use law enforcement to deal with internal threats, and the military to deal with external. Gaza is controlled by a power hostile to Israel - the same power that is launching the 3000 rocket attacks on Israel. They cant send the cops to investigate, nor can they politely ask Hamas to arrest themselves.

The people of Gaza elected Hamas to represent them. Hamas are representing them by provoking a military intervention by its far, far stronger neighbour. Reap the whirlwind tbh.

When asked to explain the British position later, Lord Caradon, the British U.N. ambassador in 1967 who drafted resolution 242, said: "It would have been wrong to demand that Israel return to its positions of June 4, 1967, because those positions were undesirable and artificial." (55)

What some random people have said

Random? Its the guy who drafted the resolution explaining what the resolution was to convey. If others have later misinterpreted that position thats on them.

The Saint

Sand wrote: »

Random? Its the guy who drafted the resolution explaining what the resolution was to convey. If others have later misinterpreted that position thats on them.

It is also contradictory to the preamble to the resolution. However, I stated that there is ambiguity in the interpretation of the resolution. That is why I stated that taking UN 242 in isolation in determining the legality of the settlements is too narrow.

Sand

It is also contradictory to the preamble to the resolution. However, I stated that there is ambiguity in the interpretation of the resolution. That is why I stated that taking UN 242 in isolation in determining the legality of the settlements is too narrow.

An ambiguity deliberately inserted by its authors so that whilst Israel should withdraw from territory captured in 1967, there was deliberately no requirement to withdraw from all territory so as to allow negotiation on "better" borders than in 1967.

munchester29

The Saint wrote: »

Yes but it's the legal opinion of the highest judicial body in the world taking into account all aspects of international law.

Still only an opinion though, at least for now, and we all know how fast opinions can change when politics are involved..

The Saint wrote: »

What some random people have said is of no consequence to international law. As I stated above the highest judicial body in the world has determined that the settlements are illegal. This was then supported by 150 member states of the UN in a General Assembly resolution. This ruling is based on the whole body of international law including Security Council resolutions and Geneva Conventions. Basing it solely on UN 242 is irrelivant even though the interpretation of UN 242 is contentious. The preamble to UN 242 states "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war". You have not provided any legal evidence besides what some random people say. I'll stick with what the Judges of the ICJ say rather than some random selective people that you cite.

Not only random people – also experts in their field, experts in international law.

As for UN resolutions, Israel will not be the first, and won’t be the last to reject such resolutions. Resolutions in the U.N. General Assembly are largely symbolic and are not legally binding.
Specific examples include the 1948 resolution to partition the state of Israel into two parts, which was rejected by the Arabs, resolutions against Iran (mainly in regards to their nuclear plans), resolutions against China for human rights violations in Burma, etc.
Even Hamas just recently rejected a UN resolution calling for an immediate ceasefire in the war with Israel (Israel rejected it too).

The Saint

Sand wrote: »

An ambiguity deliberately inserted by its authors so that whilst Israel should withdraw from territory captured in 1967, there was deliberately no requirement to withdraw from all territory so as to allow negotiation on "better" borders than in 1967.

That's fine. I'm not arguing that the resolution wasn't deliberately ambiguous. There was also issues with the French draft which they assumed meant all the territories. Anyway, this has nothing to do with my point. My point is that all settlements on any of the land captured in 1967 including East Jerusalem are illegal.

This was ruled on by the ICJ. UN 242 was also superceded by UN 446 which states:

The Security Council,

Having heard the statement of the Permanent Representative of Jordan and other statements made before the Council,

Stressing the urgent need to achieve a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East,

Affirming once more that the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of 12 August 1949 1/ is applicable to the Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem,

1. Determines that the policy and practices of Israel in establishing settlements in the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967 have no legal validity and constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East;

2. Strongly deplores the failure of Israel to abide by Security Council resolutions 237 (1967) of 14 June 1967, 252 (1968) of 21 May 1968 and 298 (1971) of 25 September 1971 and the consensus statement by the President of the Security Council on 11 November 1976 2/ and General Assembly resolutions 2253 (ES-V) and 2254 (ES-V) of 4 and 14 July 1967, 32/5 of 28 October 1977 and 33/113 of 18 December 1978;

3. Calls once more upon Israel, as the occupying Power, to abide scrupulously by the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention, to rescind its previous measures and to desist from taking any action which would result in changing the legal status and geographical nature and materially affecting the demographic composition of the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, and, in particular, not to transfer parts of its own civilian population into the occupied Arab territories;

4. Establishes a Commission consisting of three members of the Security Council, to be appointed by the President of the Council after consultations with the members of the Council, to examine the situation relating to settlements in the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem;

5. Requests the Commission to submit its report to the Security Council by 1 July 1979;

6. Requests the Secretary-General to provide the Commission with the necessary facilities to enable it to carry out its mission.

7. Decides to keep the situation in the occupied territories under constant and close scrutiny and to reconvene in July 1979 to review the situation in the light of the findings of the Commission.

This has been reaffirmed in UN 452, UN 465, UN 267, UN 476 and UN 478.

Oh and Munchester, while the ICJ ruling is not legally binding Security Council resolutions are.

The Saint

See above. UN Security Council resolutions are legally binding. Therefore all settlements built on land captured in 1967 are illegal.

munchester29 wrote: »

Still only an opinion though, at least for now, and we all know how fast opinions can change when politics are involved..





Not only random people – also experts in their field, experts in international law.

As for UN resolutions, Israel will not be the first, and won’t be the last to reject such resolutions. Resolutions in the U.N. General Assembly are largely symbolic and are not legally binding.
Specific examples include the 1948 resolution to partition the state of Israel into two parts, which was rejected by the Arabs, resolutions against Iran (mainly in regards to their nuclear plans), resolutions against China for human rights violations in Burma, etc.
Even Hamas just recently rejected a UN resolution calling for an immediate ceasefire in the war with Israel (Israel rejected it too).

munchester29

The Saint wrote: »

That's fine. I'm not arguing that the resolution wasn't deliberately ambiguous. There was also issues with the French draft which they assumed meant all the territories. Anyway, this has nothing to do with my point. My point is that all settlements on any of the land captured in 1967 including East Jerusalem are illegal.

This was ruled on by the ICJ. UN 242 was also superceded by UN 446 which states:


This has been reaffirmed in UN 452, UN 465, UN 267, UN 476 and UN 478.

Oh and Munchester, while the ICJ ruling is not legally binding Security Council resolutions are.

What you forget to mention is that there are actually around 130 such resolutions against Israel, all of which are Chapter VI resolutions:

“Chapter VI of the United Nations Charter deals with peaceful settlement of disputes. It requires countries with disputes that could lead to war to first of all try to seek solutions through peaceful methods such as negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice." If these methods of alternative dispute resolution fail, then they must refer it to the UN Security Council. Under Article 35, any country is allowed to bring a dispute to the attention of the UN Security Council or the General Assembly. This chapter authorizes the Security Council to issue recommendations but does not give it power to make binding resolutions; those provisions are contained Chapter VII. Chapter VI is analogous to Articles 13-15 of the Covenant of the League of Nations which provide for arbitration and for submission of matters to the Council that are not submitted to arbitration.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chapter_VI_of_the_United_Nations_Charter

The Saint

munchester29 wrote: »

What you forget to mention is that there are actually around 130 such resolutions against Israel, all of which are Chapter VI resolutions:

“Chapter VI of the United Nations Charter deals with peaceful settlement of disputes. It requires countries with disputes that could lead to war to first of all try to seek solutions through peaceful methods such as negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice." If these methods of alternative dispute resolution fail, then they must refer it to the UN Security Council. Under Article 35, any country is allowed to bring a dispute to the attention of the UN Security Council or the General Assembly. This chapter authorizes the Security Council to issue recommendations but does not give it power to make binding resolutions; those provisions are contained Chapter VII. Chapter VI is analogous to Articles 13-15 of the Covenant of the League of Nations which provide for arbitration and for submission of matters to the Council that are not submitted to arbitration.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chapter_VI_of_the_United_Nations_Charter

My bad. Decisions are legally binding under Chapter VII of the charter. So that makes UN 242 redundent also as it was adopted under Chapter VI also so you cannot use that as evidence of Israeli right to the land.

So now what evidence do you have to show Israeli's legal right to the land. I have provided ICJ ruling, General Assembly ruling, Security Council ruling and Geneva Convention information. You've provided some interpretations from some people (even if they did draft the resolution we have established that resolutions under Chapter VI are not legally binding). So I've provided the legal interpretation of three institutions, one of them being the highest judicial body in the world, and you have provided one resolution which says nothing about the settlements. I've provided six subsequent resolutions that state that all settlements are illegal.

concussion

Right-o, seeing as we've gotten around to the formation of Israel and the various wars I've got a few questions. This is just an overview, I'm not going into huge detail so apologies in advance for any mistakes.

1920 - The League of Nations gives Great Britain the mandate for Israel and Transjordan

1923 - The Leage of Nations approves the British approval removal of Transjordan from the Jewish national home. This leaves the modern day Israel plus the Occupied Territories and has no split for Jerusalem.

1947 - Britain hands over to the UN and the partition plan is approved. This results in a smaller amount of territory than the original LoN mandate. From then until the British Mandate finished there was civil war between Jewish and Arab communities

1948 - Israel declares independance the day before the Mandate ends. The next day pretty much all of Israels neighbours invade. During the war Israel takes Gaza and the West Bank (and other bits and pieces). After signing an armictice, Israel pulls out of the majority of both. It has gained some land as a result and is pretty much what the original LoN mandade specified, with the exception of Gaza and the West Bank (and the partition of Jerusalem). The task of creating a Palestine is given to Egypt and Jordan respectively.

1967 - The 6 Day war. Egypt and Jordan have done nothing to develop Palestine. Most of Israels neighbours invade and are beaten. Israel occupies the West Bank, the Golan Heights and the Sinai peninsula as far as the Nile. Ceasefire agreements see Isreal in control of the West Bank

1973 - The Yom Kippur War. Syria and Egypt cross the cease fire lines but are pushed back. As part of cease fire agreements a buffer zone is established and Israel pulls out of the Sinai over a few years. It retains Gaza.

1988 - Jordan gives it's claim to the West Bank to the PLO, an organisation set up to overthrow Israel through armed struggle.


Phew! With all that in mind, some questions.

Why should Israel have to give up the terroritories? Egypt and Jordan never set up a Palestinian state and after, having given it back after the first invasion, Israel decided to keep it after the second one. A countries borders have always been decided by war, why is this different?

Why did Jordan give the West Bank to the PLO, seeing as they were bent on Israels destruction?
How much tension and unrest has been caused by Jordan giving the West Bank to the PLO?

munchester29

The Saint wrote: »

My bad. Decisions are legally binding under Chapter VII of the charter. So that makes UN 242 redundent also as it was adopted under Chapter VI also so you cannot use that as evidence of Israeli right to the land.

So now what evidence do you have to show Israeli's legal right to the land. I have provided ICJ ruling, General Assembly ruling, Security Council ruling and Geneva Convention information. You've provided some interpretations from some people (even if they did draft the resolution we have established that resolutions under Chapter VI are not legally binding). So I've provided the legal interpretation of three institutions, one of them being the highest judicial body in the world, and you have provided one resolution which says nothing about the settlements. I've provided six subsequent resolutions that state that all settlements are illegal.

I’m not arguing the point for Israel here, actually.

My point was that when real peace negotiations come, everything will be on the table – all the land disputes, all the Israeli settlements. Until then, nothing which was ever decided was legally binding.
In real peace negotiations, controlled by the UN, agreed on by The Palestinians and the Israelis – that’s when things will start getting legal.

This is a very complicated situation politically, morally and legally, and many people seem to think that everything is all black and white. I think that a real peace agreement will require both the Israelis and the Palestinians to make some painful adjustments to their future plans/dreams. The sooner everyone involved realizes that, the better.

The Saint

concussion wrote: »

Right-o, seeing as we've gotten around to the formation of Israel and the various wars I've got a few questions. This is just an overview, I'm not going into huge detail so apologies in advance for any mistakes.

1920 - The League of Nations gives Great Britain the mandate for Israel and Transjordan

1923 - The Leage of Nations approves the British approval removal of Transjordan from the Jewish national home. This leaves the modern day Israel plus the Occupied Territories and has no split for Jerusalem.

1947 - Britain hands over to the UN and the partition plan is approved. This results in a smaller amount of territory than the original LoN mandate. From then until the British Mandate finished there was civil war between Jewish and Arab communities

1948 - Israel declares independance the day before the Mandate ends. The next day pretty much all of Israels neighbours invade. During the war Israel takes Gaza and the West Bank (and other bits and pieces). After signing an armictice, Israel pulls out of the majority of both. It has gained some land as a result and is pretty much what the original LoN mandade specified, with the exception of Gaza and the West Bank (and the partition of Jerusalem). The task of creating a Palestine is given to Egypt and Jordan respectively.

1967 - The 6 Day war. Egypt and Jordan have done nothing to develop Palestine. Most of Israels neighbours invade and are beaten. Israel occupies the West Bank, the Golan Heights and the Sinai peninsula as far as the Nile. Ceasefire agreements see Isreal in control of the West Bank

1973 - The Yom Kippur War. Syria and Egypt cross the cease fire lines but are pushed back. As part of cease fire agreements a buffer zone is established and Israel pulls out of the Sinai over a few years. It retains Gaza.

1988 - Jordan gives it's claim to the West Bank to the PLO, an organisation set up to overthrow Israel through armed struggle.

That's all lovely but has nothing to do with what I've said.

concussion wrote: »

Phew! With all that in mind, some questions.

Why should Israel have to give up the terroritories? Egypt and Jordan never set up a Palestinian state and after, having given it back after the first invasion, Israel decided to keep it after the second one. A countries borders have always been decided by war, why is this different?

Why did Jordan give the West Bank to the PLO, seeing as they were bent on Israels destruction?
How much tension and unrest has been caused by Jordan giving the West Bank to the PLO?

Israel should give up the land because they have no right to it under international law. I don't give a monkeys what the Egypt or Jordan did. It has nothing to do with the arguement. What I'm arguing is that Israel has no right to the settlements under international law. What you are arguing is irrelivant.

wes

concussion wrote: »

1948 - Israel declares independance the day before the Mandate ends. The next day pretty much all of Israels neighbours invade. During the war Israel takes Gaza and the West Bank (and other bits and pieces). After signing an armictice, Israel pulls out of the majority of both. It has gained some land as a result and is pretty much what the original LoN mandade specified, with the exception of Gaza and the West Bank (and the partition of Jerusalem). The task of creating a Palestine is given to Egypt and Jordan respectively.

Erm, no they took more than they were due under the partition plan. Your history is full of all kinds of holes and inaccuracies. No mention of Israel war of aggression in 1956 for one. No mention of Israel deliberate policy of ethnic cleansing of Palestinians in 1948. That just a couple of things off the top of my head.

I also, find it hard to believe that people forget, the whole point of Zionism and that is there desire for all of Palestine, which we see today with there various land grabs.

Also, Israel took 78% of Palestine, so what you bizarrely call a little was a lot and they made sure to ensure a Jewish majority by expelling the native Palestinian population.

Also to reiterate, the whole point of Zionism was to take all of Palestine, which is what they have achieved at this point. Always funny that most people ignore that Israel always intended to take everything, as its the whole point of there ideology.

**EDIT**
As for your question, well if Israel wants peace and security, then giving back 22% of what they stole from the Palestinians is apparently the price. Now if Israel desires all of the land, then they will have to live in an eternal state of war, or kill all the Palestinians and hope the Arab/Muslims don't decide to build a bunch of nukes and start World War 3 in revenge.

So there, options are eternal war as a occupying colonial power enforcing apartheid on the Palestinians and denying there human rights, genocide and a third world war or peace. Seems like peace is the sensible option, that is if they truly desire peace and not land.

Also, the actions of other states do not excuse Israel.

**EDIT 2**
Now an honest question to you, do you think the Palestinians have a right to there own state, in 22% of there ancestral homeland stolen from them?

From your question, you seem to think Israel has a right to the whole lot, despite international law. If they do, then what happens to the Palestinians? Ethnic cleansing? Genocide? Apartheid?

wes

munchester29 wrote: »

I’m not arguing the point for Israel here, actually.

My point was that when real peace negotiations come, everything will be on the table – all the land disputes, all the Israeli settlements. Until then, nothing which was ever decided was legally binding.
In real peace negotiations, controlled by the UN, agreed on by The Palestinians and the Israelis – that’s when things will start getting legal.

This is a very complicated situation politically, morally and legally, and many people seem to think that everything is all black and white. I think that a real peace agreement will require both the Israelis and the Palestinians to make some painful adjustments to their future plans/dreams. The sooner everyone involved realizes that, the better.

Yeah, the colonies are still illegal under international law. What you said doesn't change that at all.

Future/Potential peace talks does not change the fact they are according to the ICJ illegal. Future talks may have the 2 sides agree on modified borders true, but currently the colonies are illegal. Israel has no legal claim to there colonies in the present. What may happen in some potential future has no bearing on the now.

The Saint

munchester29 wrote: »

I’m not arguing the point for Israel here, actually.

My point was that when real peace negotiations come, everything will be on the table – all the land disputes, all the Israeli settlements. Until then, nothing which was ever decided was legally binding.
In real peace negotiations, controlled by the UN, agreed on by The Palestinians and the Israelis – that’s when things will start getting legal.

This is a very complicated situation politically, morally and legally, and many people seem to think that everything is all black and white. I think that a real peace agreement will require both the Israelis and the Palestinians to make some painful adjustments to their future plans/dreams. The sooner everyone involved realizes that, the better.

OK, I'm done with this. It is clear you don't want to engage in a serious debate here. You're using petty semantics to dodge the arguement. You want to take a position on something when the ICJ (the highest judical body in the world), 150 members of the UN and numerous security council resolutions say otherwise. You have provided no other autoratative alternatives to this. So you're right and they're wrong?

I'm aware that there probably will be border adjustments in a final agreement probably in line with what was proposed in the Geneva Accords. I'm not arguing against this.

Lemming

munchester29 wrote: »

This is a very complicated situation politically, morally and legally, and many people seem to think that everything is all black and white. I think that a real peace agreement will require both the Israelis and the Palestinians to make some painful adjustments to their future plans/dreams. The sooner everyone involved realizes that, the better.

It is complicated and yet it isn't when you get down to the underlying basis for negotiation. Why?

Negotiation presumes that both sides have something the other side values. The Palestinians don't exactly have much to barter with, except their lives (which doesn't count for very much in the eyes of the Israeli cabinet). Any negotiations would be horribly, horribly one-sided unless the Israeli negotiating team has the vision and foresight to actually see what genuinely needs done by way of Israeli concession as opposed to political expediency.

TBH, I really don't hold any faith in the desire for a tangible and geniune peace by the Israeli government (short of either ethnic cleansing or subjugation which will result in ethnic cleansing anyway as the subjugated population is ordered off their land). I've seen little real initiative save from an assassinated prime minister [Yitzhak Rabin, 1995], killed by one of "his own" for making overtures of peace.

concussion

The Saint wrote: »

That's all lovely but has nothing to do with what I've said.

No, it doesn't - you and munchester have that well covered by now :eek:

The Saint wrote: »

Israel should give up the land because they have no right to it under international law. I don't give a monkeys what the Egypt or Jordan did. It has nothing to do with the arguement. What I'm arguing is that Israel has no right to the settlements under international law. What you are arguing is irrelivant.

I'm not arguing anything, just looking for information.

wes wrote: »

Erm, no they took more than they were due under the partition plan. Your history is full of all kinds of holes and inaccuracies. No mention of Israel war of aggression in 1956 for one. No mention of Israel deliberate policy of ethnic cleansing of Palestinians in 1948. That just a couple of things off the top of my head.

Yes it is, like I said, it was an overview and to excuse my mistakes. Thanks for the info, I have some reading ahead of me

wes wrote: »

**EDIT**
As for your question, well if Israel wants peace and security, then giving back 22% of what they stole from the Palestinians is apparently the price. Now if Israel desires all of the land, then they will have to live in an eternal state of war, or kill all the Palestinians and hope the Arab/Muslims don't decide to build a bunch of nukes and start World War 3 in revenge.

So there, options are eternal war as a occupying colonial power enforcing apartheid on the Palestinians and denying there human rights, genocide and a third world war or peace. Seems like peace is the sensible option, that is if they truly desire peace and not land.

Also, the actions of other states do not excuse Israel.

Those are the options I was thinking of. They could also expel all Palestinians from the Occuptied Territories.
Peace and giving back the West Bank and Gaza could lead to less military funding - are Egypt, Syria, Iran, etc a credible threat to Israel? Recent history shows several wars, how likely is another one if they think Israel is weak?

Conversely, if Palestinians were expelled and the territories absorbed into Israel, how will the rest of the middle east respond to a militarily strong Israel?

wes wrote: »

**EDIT 2**
Now an honest question to you, do you think the Palestinians have a right to there own state, in 22% of there ancestral homeland stolen from them?

I don't have an answer for you and that's through ignorance of the issue.

wes wrote: »

From your question, you seem to think Israel has a right to the whole lot, despite international law. If they do, then what happens to the Palestinians? Ethnic cleansing? Genocide? Apartheid?

I don't think they have a right to the whole area. I wondered what happened to 'the winner takes the spoils' as it were. Look at Alsace, it changed hands 6 times in 400 years as a result of wars

The Saint

concussion wrote: »

Yes it is, like I said, it was an overview and to excuse my mistakes. Thanks for the info, I have some reading ahead of me

Egypt also agreed to a peace agreement with Israel in 1971 but it was rejected by Israel. If Israel had accepted this it is likely that the 1973 war would not have occured since Egypt was the dominant military power on the Arab side.

Nodin

munchester29 wrote: »

The links I found would not have been acceptable by some people here.
Would have loved to see any of the major networks commenting on this, but so far none have.

....well, you might draw your own conclusion from that as regards the trustworthiness of the material.

munchester29 wrote: »

Israel has a claim to some of the settlements (East Jerusalem, for example). Like it or not – it does, or at least feels it does. .

The latter. That goes in the pile with Biblical justification. They've a good case to be allowed free access to holy sites, but thats about it.

Sand wrote:

The Israelis havent bombed Israeli Arabs either. .

They've decided to alienate them further in other ways....

The Central Elections Committee on Monday banned Arab political parties from running in next month's parliamentary elections, drawing accusations of racism by an Arab lawmaker who said he would challenge the decision in the country's Supreme Court.

The ruling, made by the body that oversees the elections, reflected the heightened tensions between Israel's Jewish majority and Arab minority caused by Israel's offensive in the Gaza Strip. Israeli Arabs have held a series of demonstrations against the offensive.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1054867.html

Sand wrote:

Random? Its the guy who drafted the resolution explaining what the resolution was to convey. If others have later misinterpreted that position thats on them.

As later on it becomes quite clear that he's not justifying either the occupation or settlements, I'd suggest you're cherry picking -

Lord Caradon, chief author of the resolution, takes a subtly different slant. His focus seems to be that the lack of a definite article is intended to deny permanence to the "unsatisfactory" pre-1967 border, rather than to allow Israel to retain land taken by force. Such a view would appear to allow for the possibility that the borders could be varied through negotiation:
Knowing as I did the unsatisfactory nature of the 1967 line, I wasn’t prepared to use wording in the Resolution that would have made that line permanent. Nonetheless, it is necessary to say again that the overwhelming principle was the ‘inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war’ and that meant that there could be no justification for the annexation of territory on the Arab side of the 1967 line merely because it had been conquered in the 1967 war. The sensible way to decide permanent ‘secure and recognized’ boundaries would be to set up a Boundary Commission and hear both sides and then to make impartial recommendations for a new frontier line, bearing in mind, of course, the "inadmissibility" principle.[19] The purposes are perfectly clear, the principle is stated in the preamble, the necessity for withdrawal is stated in the operative section. And then the essential phrase which is not sufficiently recognized is that withdrawal should take place to secure and recognized boundaries, and these words were very carefully chosen: they have to be secure and they have to be recognized. They will not be secure unless they are recognized. And that is why one has to work for agreement. This is essential. I would defend absolutely what we did. It was not for us to lay down exactly where the border should be. I know the 1967 border very well. It is not a satisfactory border, it is where troops had to stop in 1948, just where they happened to be that night, that is not a permanent boundary

(my underline above)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resolution_242

Concussion wrote:

A countries borders have always been decided by war, why is this different?

It's no different to Iraqs annexation of Kuwait, except Israel has an ally on the security council.

lwellan dowd

wes wrote: »

Erm, no they took more than they were due under the partition plan. Your history is full of all kinds of holes. No mention of Israel war of aggression in 1956 for one. No mention of Israel deliberate policy of ethnic cleansing of Palestinians in 1948. I find it hard to believe that people forget, the whole point of Zionism and that is there desire for all of Palestine, which we see today with there various land grabs.

Also, Israel took 78% of Palestine, so what you bizarrely call a little was a lot and they made sure to ensure a Jewish majority by expelling the native Palestinian population.

Also, the whole point of Zionism was to take all of Palestine, which is what they have achieved at this point. Always funny that most people ignore that Israel always intended to take everything, as its the whole point of there ideology.

No mention either of how Jordan (ethnic majority Palestinian Arabs)
land-grabbed -I mean annexed the West Bank.

The West Bank was never legally part of Jordan. Under the UN's 1947 partition plan — which the "Jews accepted" and the Arabs rejected — it was to have been part of an independent Arab state in western Palestine. In other parlance the "new Palestinian state". But the Jordanian army invaded and occupied it during the 1948 war. In 1950, Jordan annexed the West Bank.

Only two governments — Great Britain and Pakistan — formally recognized the Jordanian takeover. The rest of the world, including the United States, never did. Even the neighbouring Arab states refused to acknowledge the Jordanian land grab.

Now.......please, let us not go down a rat hole with all the attrocities and persecutions carried out on the local Christians, Jews and minority religions during the Jordanian occupation/land-grab. Instead lets stick to the topic in hand...."Hammas promotion"

concussion

On now on TV3 - Nightly News - 'Is Israel guilty of war crimes?'

wes

lwellan dowd wrote: »

No mention either of how Jordan (ethnic majority Palestinian Arabs)
land-grabbed -I mean annexed the West Bank.

It was implied in concussion post. It wasn't mentioned explicitly. As you can see from my post. I didn't disagree with that.

lwellan dowd wrote: »

The West Bank was never legally part of Jordan. Under the UN's 1947 partition plan — which the "Jews accepted" and the Arabs rejected — it was to have been part of an independent Arab state in western Palestine. In other parlance the "new Palestinian state". But the Jordanian army invaded and occupied it during the 1948 war. In 1950, Jordan annexed the West Bank.

True, enough. I never said otherwise and concussions pretty much implied this.

lwellan dowd wrote: »

Only two governments — Great Britain and Pakistan — formally recognized the Jordanian takeover. The rest of the world, including the United States, never did. Even the neighbouring Arab states refused to acknowledge the Jordanian land grab.

Fair enough. Does this magically excuse Israel doing the same thing? Oh wait it doesn't.

lwellan dowd wrote: »

Now.......please, let us not go down a rat hole with all the attrocities and persecutions carried out on the local Christians, Jews and minority religions during the Jordanian occupation/land-grab. Instead lets stick to the topic in hand...."Hammas promotion"

Once again, the actions of other states does not excuse the actions of the Isreali's. Also, the Jordanian occupation doesn't exist anymore, the Israeli one does, hence the focus.

I didn't bring history into this btw. It was another poster. Also, I am not promoting Hamas and your implication is pretty funny, but nice try in anyways.

darrenh

I know very little about the hole history of the middle east. I have glanced at the history of Jews and it appears they have been run out of everywhere they have been other than the US. My question is honest and not meant to be provocative but... Why are Jews not liked?

nuttz

concussion wrote: »

On now on TV3 - Nightly News - 'Is Israel guilty of war crimes?'

Who is the Israel sympathiser - some UCD lecturer?

Apparently Hamas staged video footage of Israel's use of phosphorus bombs!

The arguments in support of Israel are just getting ridiculous.

TOMASJ

concussion wrote: »

On now on TV3 - Nightly News - 'Is Israel guilty of war crimes?'

The pro Israeli guys on there made right twits of themselves

wes

concussion wrote: »

Yes it is, like I said, it was an overview and to excuse my mistakes. Thanks for the info, I have some reading ahead of me

Apologies are due on my part then. There is a lot of history and claims and counter claims on all sides.

concussion wrote: »

Those are the options I was thinking of. They could also expel all Palestinians from the Occuptied Territories.

Yeah, I taught I mentioned that.

concussion wrote: »

Peace and giving back the West Bank and Gaza could lead to less military funding - are Egypt, Syria, Iran, etc a credible threat to Israel? Recent history shows several wars, how likely is another one if they think Israel is weak?

Egypt and Jordan has made peace. Syria is willing to talk. The Arab league are willing to make peace. Its not 1948 anymore. Peace is possible. If Israel decides it wants land more than peace at this point, they are crazy imho.

concussion wrote: »

Conversely, if Palestinians were expelled and the territories absorbed into Israel, how will the rest of the middle east respond to a militarily strong Israel?

If Israel did that, they would lose all sympathy and support the world over and become a pariah state, that or kick off World War 3.

concussion wrote: »

I don't have an answer for you and that's through ignorance of the issue.

Fair enough.

concussion wrote: »

I don't think they have a right to the whole area. I wondered what happened to 'the winner takes the spoils' as it were. Look at Alsace, it changed hands 6 times in 400 years as a result of wars

We have international law these days. If we expect the Arabs states to accept Israel due to international law, then Israel has to accept a Palestinian state as well. Otherwise, there will be eternal war and that can't be in either sides interests.

wes

darrenh wrote: »

I know very little about the hole history of the middle east. I have glanced at the history of Jews and it appears they have been run out of everywhere they have been other than the US. My question is honest and not meant to be provocative but... Why are Jews not liked?

People hate those who are different.

Look at slavery of black people for instance. Look at the Turkish attempt to wipe out the Armenians. The genocide of the Native Americans. Look at the treatment of the Roma even.

People hate anything they find different sadly.

concussion

TOMASJ wrote: »

The pro Israeli guys on there made right twits of themselves

And ex-DF officer Clonan selectively left out words in the Convention :cool:

Specifically words such as "may", "in" and "endeavor"

You can also "propose" to set up neutralised areas in regions where fighting place. In short, there's no requirement to remove civilians.

(Convention 4, Sections 15 and 17)

He was also quite silly with regard to WP. After first saying it was only for illumination, he went on to say it was illegally used as the fragments could be seen fallling to the ground. As its primary use is as a smoke screen, where does he think the fragments are go - just hang there in the air creating a smokescreen 500 ft off the ground??