The Road Map. - Page 3 - U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum

Imperator · #31 (**permalink**) 05-14-2008

I agree with your point LBS regards war; and the peace crafted afterwards due to compensation, reperations, borders redrawn etc.

But then theres the question of who made a settlement with israel and who refused.

Frank · #32 (**permalink**) 05-14-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheLastBoyScout

Territory cannot legally be acquired by war itself. But the following Armistices or Treaties provide can provide new legal political borders. That's what happened in this case.

Article 47 of the Fourth Geneva Conventions nullifies any agreement that deprives a protected population of their Convention rights which means that any agreement that allows Israel to annex the lands of protected people, keep settlements or maintain their current wall on said lands is illegal. Israel cannot make a deal that allows them to keep sections of the West Bank or East Jerusalem while the Geneva Conventions apply to those regions even if the Palestinians accept said deal...

However, one party can agree to relinquish occupied territory in return for an end to hostilities which Israel did when it returned the Sinai to Egypt and ceded control of the West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza to Jordan/Egypt in 1949.

Quote:

The Palestinians, not being recognized as a nation-state, largely had their fate decided by Jordan, Egypt, Lebonon, and Syria following the Arab-Israeli War.

Actually their fate was determined by the International Court of Justice on July 9th, 2004; Israel lost that decision.

Quote:

Why do the Palestinians not complain about or attack these 4 Arab countries who, through signing the armistice, basically sold the land out from under the Palestinian people in order to provide benefits and safety for their own countries?

Israel was provoking and attacking Syria as early as 1966; the Six Day War was hardly an unprovoked event...

moon · #33 (**permalink**) 05-15-2008

LBS, I repeat Frank's detailed reference to my earlier message in the hope that you don't raise the same , trampled, argument yet again;

Quote:

Article 47 of the Fourth Geneva Conventions nullifies any agreement that deprives a protected population of their Convention rights which means that any agreement that allows Israel to annex the lands of protected people, keep settlements or maintain their current wall on said lands is illegal.

Bush, in attempting to bribe Abbas into a shameful life of pro-Zionism, is actually attempting to encourage him to break the law. It didn't work with Arafat, it won't work with Abbas.

TheLastBoyScout · #34 (**permalink**) 05-15-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frank

Article 47 of the Fourth Geneva Conventions nullifies any agreement that deprives a protected population of their Convention rights which means that any agreement that allows Israel to annex the lands of protected people, keep settlements or maintain their current wall on said lands is illegal. Israel cannot make a deal that allows them to keep sections of the West Bank or East Jerusalem while the Geneva Conventions apply to those regions even if the Palestinians accept said deal...

However, one party can agree to relinquish occupied territory in return for an end to hostilities which Israel did when it returned the Sinai to Egypt and ceded control of the West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza to Jordan/Egypt in 1949.

Actually their fate was determined by the International Court of Justice on July 9th, 2004; Israel lost that decision.

Israel was provoking and attacking Syria as early as 1966; the Six Day War was hardly an unprovoked event...

Oh? The U.N.'s got the Palestinians' back? Awesome.

What are you bitching about, then? With such a far-reaching, authoritative, and effective organization on the Palestinians' side, how are they living out anything other than a dream scenario?

No one did answer my question: Why is it that no ill Palestinian will is directed at Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, and Jordan for being the signatories on the armistice that handed "Palestinian" land over to Israel?

Does anyone deny that those countries believed that they owned the land up until that point?.... and that they viewed the land as Syrian, Jordanian, Lebanese, and Egyptian land respectively - not Palestinian land?

Frank · #35 (**permalink**) 05-15-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheLastBoyScout

Oh? The U.N.'s got the Palestinians' back? Awesome.

Actually they do not and the UN appointed Special Rapporteurs have criticised the UN for doing nothing substantial about the problem; some whining and crying in a room in Geneva does not little to help any Palestinian.

Quote:

No one did answer my question: Why is it that no ill Palestinian will is directed at Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, and Jordan for being the signatories on the armistice that handed "Palestinian" land over to Israel?

Maybe because those countries have not killed 1,000 or so Palestinian children since 2000?

Si modo · #36 (**permalink**) 05-15-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frank

....

Maybe because those countries have not killed 1,000 or so Palestinian children since 2000?

Let's apply the degrees of separation of guilt to those other countries, as is so willingly done by many with an agenda.

TheLastBoyScout · #37 (**permalink**) 05-15-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frank

some whining and crying in a room in Geneva does not little to help any Palestinian.

Likewise does whining and crying in an internet forum do nothing to help any Palestinian.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frank

Maybe because those countries have not killed 1,000 or so Palestinian children since 2000?

The deaths of Palestinian children in the 21st century offset the Arab countries' betrayal of the Palestinians in the mid-20th century?

maybe there's a short-term memory thing going on there.... I thought the main quarrel (and my question, by the way) was about the land.

Frank · #38 (**permalink**) 05-15-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheLastBoyScout

Likewise does whining and crying in an internet forum do nothing to help any Palestinian.

Educating the masses can change some serious minds; might as well take a shot at it anyway...

Quote:

The deaths of Palestinian children in the 21st century offset the Arab countries' betrayal of the Palestinians in the mid-20th century?

No, it has to do with Israel violently seizing these territories in 1967 and subsequently establishing illegal colonies within those territories. Egypt and Syria never forced Israel to illegally annex large chunks of these territories.

Frank · #39 (**permalink**) 05-15-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Si modo

Let's apply the degrees of separation of guilt to those other countries, as is so willingly done by many with an agenda.

Why should I blame Syria for Israel killing 1,000 or so children?

TheLastBoyScout · #40 (**permalink**) 05-15-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frank

Educating the masses can change some serious minds; might as well take a shot at it anyway...

Few people get their education by reading anonymous rantings on websites. At least I hope that's the case.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frank

Egypt and Syria never forced Israel to illegally annex large chunks of these territories.

Egypt and Syria (and Jordan and Lebanon) merely signed over the land after their attack on Israel was met with overwhelming defeat.

Since that time, Israel has behaved Illegally and seized more land, but the point is that demanding a reversion to the 1948 borders (and giving land that was owned by Egypt, Syria, Jordan and Lebanon to the Palestinians), as Moon proposes, is misplaced, illogical, and unreasonable.

Frank · #41 (**permalink**) 05-15-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheLastBoyScout

Few people get their education by reading anonymous rantings on websites. At least I hope that's the case.

Apparently many Americans get their education on the Israeli/Palestine conflict from biased media news sources so they could not do any worse.

Quote:

Egypt and Syria (and Jordan and Lebanon) merely signed over the land after their attack on Israel was met with overwhelming defeat.

Actually the Israeli's seized the land; the Arab powers had no alternative but to recognise their own defeat in the Six Day War.

Quote:

Since that time, Israel has behaved Illegally and seized more land, but the point is that demanding a reversion to the 1948 borders (and giving land that was owned by Egypt, Syria, Jordan and Lebanon to the Palestinians), as Moon proposes, is misplaced, illogical, and unreasonable.

How so? Under international law Israel is not legally entitled to keep those lands as their own. In addition the Egyptians and Jordanians do not own those lands while the inhabitants of said lands are Palestinians.

Who should get the land?

TheLastBoyScout · #42 (**permalink**) 05-15-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frank

Apparently many Americans get their education on the Israeli/Palestine conflict from biased media news sources so they could not do any worse.

Perhaps.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frank

Actually the Israeli's seized the land; the Arab powers had no alternative but to recognise their own defeat in the Six Day War.

It's true that they had no leverage at that point. But it's also true that they were attempting to be champions of their own cause.... not the Palestinians'.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frank

Who should get the land?

I applaud you for recognizing that who gets the land is open to debate and negotiation. I don't think anyone is clearly entitled to the land.

This is an honest question that the Israelis and the Palestinians need to discuss (without blind pretense) and answer for themselves.

Frank · #43 (**permalink**) 05-15-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheLastBoyScout

I applaud you for recognizing that who gets the land is open to debate and negotiation. I don't think anyone is clearly entitled to the land.

This is not true; Israel has no legal entitlement to keep land obtained by war. The lands they captured were obtained by war hence they are not entitled to keep said lands. We can eliminate Israel from the land grab sweepstakes...

Si modo · #44 (**permalink**) 05-15-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frank

This is not true; Israel has no legal entitlement to keep land obtained by war. The lands they captured were obtained by war hence they are not entitled to keep said lands. We can eliminate Israel from the land grab sweepstakes...

What's the statue of limitations on that legality?

TheLastBoyScout · #45 (**permalink**) 05-15-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frank

This is not true; Israel has no legal entitlement to keep land obtained by war. The lands they captured were obtained by war hence they are not entitled to keep said lands.

Isn't it true that neither Palestinians, nor Israelis have entitlement to the land?

If you take the stance that there is to be no debate or negotiation and merely an outright forfiet of Israeli land, how does this get resolved?

The options are severely limited with that polar stance:

- A Palestinian seizure of the land by force (very low probability)

- An intervention by a third party which forces the hand of Israel (very low probability)

Do you see either of these avenues as viable? If you do, please detail the scenario....

Bookmarks
Digg	del.icio.us	StumbleUpon	Google

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode