Originally posted by whodeyWrong. They gave up the Gaza strip and all that happened was the Palestinians used their new space to fire rockets at Israeli towns and kill Israeli civillians.
Apparently he is of the opinion that the two nation-states can cohabit together in peace and that such a peace can be facilitated by giving up land and money.
Why would'nt it work? I mean, they gave up the Gaza strip and they became friends over night, right?
The point is, that Israel is entitled to hold land captured in a defensive war until the parties they captured that land from become peaceful.
These countries are Jordan (who have already ceded the Westbank anyway), Egypt and Syria. There are no such people as "Palestinians", they are a collection of people from Arab states who moved to Israel in order to try and destroy the Israeli state.
Of the countries mentioned above, none are peaceful. Egypt appears peaceful, but it allows its territory in the Gaza strip to be used to kill Israelis, therefore Israel are under no obligation to forfeit this land and, though they have already done so, are perfectly within their rights to invade it whenever these attacks occur.
This is all in international legal theory, therefore, those who describe Israel as "illegal occupants" (including the corrupt former UN retard Kofi Annan) are speaking out of a hatred for Israel and abject ignorance of international law.
Originally posted by MerkThe land is legitimate Israeli territory anyway, they have always lived there (yes, including 1917-1948, the British protectorate of Palestine was mainly Jewish). The undisputable fact that the Arabs are the aggressors would only remove their right to the land if they had such a right in the first place, which they did not.
Except that the Palistinians were the primary aggressor in the war, which makes that land legitimate Israeli territory.
Originally posted by duecerThis is the fundamental misconception.
You see that a simple look at history shows us that Isreal did not exist prior to WWII . It was formed by decree of Great Britian, and Palestinians whose families had lived there for centuries were displaced. Any solution that excludes the existance of an independant Palestine will fail, as rightly it should.
The fact is that, although when Israel was set up as a modern state it allowed large-scale Jewish immigration (the right of return), the land itself had always been home to JEWS. Therefore, the creation of a Jewish state of Israel did NOT root up an existing Arab state, it gave the Jews autonomy over their own land; and it did NOT displace Palestinian families who had lived there for generations, they were allowed to continue to live there in peace and harmony.
The fact is that it was the Arab states who invaded Israel in 1948, not vice-versa, this is an undisputable fact, therefore the Arabs are the aggressors in this conflict which has been going on at varying intensity ever since.
Originally posted by uzlessNo, your first post explains why you think that the Bible says Israel must exist when Christ returns or else everyone will go to Hell.
uh, i don't think you read my first post on the previous page. The real answer is there.
The Bible does not say this, and it certainly is not the driving force behind American policy in the Mid East, however hard you try to think that it is.
Originally posted by princeoforangeSaying that there are no Palestinians is like saying there are no Protestants in Northern Ireland -- just people who hate Catholics and are there only to kill Catholics.
Wrong. They gave up the Gaza strip and all that happened was the Palestinians used their new space to fire rockets at Israeli towns and kill Israeli civillians.
The point is, that Israel is entitled to hold land captured in a defensive war until the parties they captured that land from become peaceful.
These countries are Jordan (who have alrea ...[text shortened]... fi Annan) are speaking out of a hatred for Israel and abject ignorance of international law.
Maybe we should treat the orangemen the same way we do Palestinians -- force large numbers of them to live in refugee camps in Scotland supported by UN food shipments. Put up checkpoints all over the counties and throw a blocakde around the country to prevent travel or trade. And meanwhile ship in hundreds of thousands of armed Catholic Irish to live in 'settlements'. And then if there is any Protestant violence against them, send in the Irish army to protect the settlements.
And THEN -- crowning glory -- refuse to even TALK about lifting those conditions until the Protestant terrorists become "peaceful". don't worry, we will let you know when you qualify.
That would be much better than a negotiated settlement, now, wouldn't it?
Originally posted by spruce112358I can't really see any parallels between the "Palestinians" and Protestants in Ulster, please point some out.
Saying that there are no Palestinians is like saying there are no Protestants in Northern Ireland -- just people who hate Catholics and are there only to kill Catholics.
Maybe we should treat the orangemen the same way we do Palestinians -- force large numbers of them to live in refugee camps in Scotland supported by UN food shipments. Put up checkpo ...[text shortened]... you qualify.
That would be much better than a negotiated settlement, now, wouldn't it?
Furthermore, your attempt at saying the Israeli's have moved in on Arab land and are oppressing Arabs was pitiful, there are no parallels between your little hate story and the reality in Israel.
Oh, and I think the people of Scotland would be quite capable of dealing with anything the Irish might choose to call an army.
Originally posted by princeoforangeThat's obvious -- if the Jews have always had title to Israel, then the Irish have always had title to Ireland. The Protestants are therefore unlawful, violent, terrorists -- just as you claim the Palestinians are.
I can't really see any parallels between the "Palestinians" and Protestants in Ulster, please point some out.
Furthermore, your attempt at saying the Israeli's have moved in on Arab land and are oppressing Arabs was pitiful, there are no parallels between your little hate story and the reality in Israel.
Oh, and I think the people of Scotland would be quite capable of dealing with anything the Irish might choose to call an army.
Therefore whatever you recommend for the Palestinians, I say exactly the same should be done to the Protestants of Northern Ireland.
Originally posted by spruce112358No, because the Protestants in Ulster do happen to be Irish, as Irish in fact as the Catholics in Ireland (I mean Irish in that they are from Ireland, although Northern Ireland is obviously still part of Britain) where are the parallels?
That's obvious -- if the Jews have always had title to Israel, then the Irish have always had title to Ireland. The Protestants are therefore unlawful, violent, terrorists -- just as you claim the Palestinians are.
Therefore whatever you recommend for the Palestinians, I say exactly the same should be done to the Protestants of Northern Ireland.
1 edit
Originally posted by RedmikeThis IS international law. You've obviously not studied it at all.
Really? You've obviously not got far in international law.
Here's a little link for you.
http://www.netanyahu.org/ararenotenfo.html
[Edit] The bit you are looking for is:
"The international law, how it is practiced now, provides for victim(s) of aggression such a post-conflict arrangement at the expense of defeated aggressor(s) which will insure impossibility of a repetition of new aggression such as: territorial annexations, reparations, limitations on certain industrial and technological activities, and so on."
Originally posted by princeoforangeFrom netanyahu.org. Come on, you can do better than that.
This IS international law. You've obviously not studied it at all.
Here's a little link for you.
http://www.netanyahu.org/ararenotenfo.html
[Edit] The bit you are looking for is:
"The international law, how it is practiced now, provides for victim(s) of aggression such a post-conflict arrangement at the expense of defeated aggressor(s) wh ...[text shortened]... ns, reparations, limitations on certain industrial and technological activities, and so on."