And how many rights do Jews have in Arab countries? Um, none. Israel lives in a tough part of the world and they have to do what is right for them to survive. the rest of us can criticize from afar, but the Middle east is one ****ed up area.
Quote:
Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
In the end how is this different to North American or Europe citizenship laws?
Well, Scott, in England we do not have a law that specially prohibits any specific, deliberately named, ethnic group from taking citizenship through marriage. Do you have such a law in America?
Think. Do you? Is there?
Are (say) the Canadians or the Mexicans, your immediate neighbours, especially prohibited from taking citizenship because there is a law that says that Canadians and Mexicans cannot become American citizens through marriage?
Think, Scott. Is there such a law in your country? Because there isn't in England. If there isn't such a law in your country I would like to suggest that THAT'S A PRETTY BLOODY BIG DIFFERENCE BETWEEN NORTH AMERICAN LAW AND ISRAELI LAW.
And how many rights do Jews have in Arab countries? Um, none. Israel lives in a tough part of the world and they have to do what is right for them to survive. the rest of us can criticize from afar, but the Middle east is one ****ed up area.
Although I personally admit that this may very well be the case, it seems to me that we (i.e., the people of the United States) do not directly support these countries militaristically and compatriotically in the same fashion in which we have supported Isræl; which, as I see it, should be a beacon of sorts for democracy in, as you say, a rather oppressive part of the world.
I disbelieve, however, that this particular beacon can remain so with such laws as we are now discussing herewith. Isræl, to my perception, may end up harming its integrity by making itself more hostile to outside influence; by 'stooping' to such things as those with which I should have associated the Taliban (albeit, of course, to not at all nearly such an extent); and by further alienating itself from Jews elsewhere in the world.
That may be true , and I may have felt the same way before, but seeing the douchebags that surround them I dont feel its right to hold Israel up as a beacon anymore, I just prefer to compare them to the neanderthals they are surrounded by......................
Quote:
Originally posted by andrewm
Although I personally admit that this may very well be the case, it seems to me that we (i.e., the people of the United States) do not directly support these countries (module oil exports and such, but that's a different matter) militaristically in the same manner in which we have supported Isræl, which, as I see it, is a beacon of sorts for democracy in, as you say, a troubled part of the world. I, however, disbelieve that this particular beacon can remain so with such laws as we are now discussing herewith. Isræl, to my perception, may end up harming itself by alienating itself from Jews 'abroad' (i.e., not in Isræl), who tend to be more liberal than the highly-orthodox establishment therein.
For the sake of argument. Let's pick a number, any number, and take it from there. How about according to the 1948 partition plan; 30% of Israel now expands beyond the intended UN borders.
Do you agree that Israel now consists of 30% stolen land beyond the original intended UN borders?
(remember we're not even talking about land inside the 48 borders, in Gaza or on the West Bank.)
I can't fully agree, as I have to admit that I have not looked up what exactly what areas are held byIsrael that were not in the '48 mandate. I have enough trust in you that you wouldn't purposely put up wrong numbers, so I will assume that you are right on this figure
How much of this 30 was taken during the various Arab initiated wars and was previously claimed by countries involved in the aggression against Israel? That would seriously mitigate if how strongly I felt that land was stolen or inappropriately held.
Also, as to the conversation going with Sondjata, how does that 30% render all of Israel proper as stolen land? Really doesn't relate to much at all. Even if that land was outright grabed by Israel, it is no no real way the cause of any of the violence in the area. You know full well that the belief of Sondjata and others that Israel has no right to exist and is an abomination to Islam is the root cause of the violence. Not even the PLO denies that claims to Palestinian statehood or property rights are no more than tactics to eliminate Israel as a whole.
How much of this 30 was taken during the various Arab initiated wars and was previously claimed by countries involved in the aggression against Israel? That would seriously mitigate if how strongly I felt that land was stolen or inappropriately held.
The U.N. doesn't allow a country to keep land taken in war, even if it's a war the country didn't initiate.
Israel has admitted that Egypt was not about to attack and went on the offensive simply because they felt they could.
The U.N. doesn't allow a country to keep land taken in war, even if it's a war the country didn't initiate.
Which really wouldn't effect how strongly I felt it was stolen or held in appropriately. The UN saying something doesn't really affect my personal tae on a given situation. A court can rule that a person is gulty or innocent in a case, but my feelings for his or her guilt would be affected by the individual scenario, not what the court says. Look at the OJ case for example.
The UN does allow the victor in a conflict to administer territories involved. BTW, any idea as to the time frame the UN states for relenquishing control over an area taken in conflict?
Which really wouldn't effect how strongly I felt it was stolen or held in appropriately.
Well, I think we're trying to discuss within 'legal' parameters. That's the playing field the respective parties are supposed to be using. That should also effect how you think and feel about the situation if you believe in justice in a legal sense.
Quote:
Originally posted by Tulkas
The UN does allow the victor in a conflict to administer territories involved. BTW, any idea as to the time frame the UN states for relenquishing control over an area taken in conflict?
Not in a case of self-defense.
How long? I don't know, but I don't think they have a statue of limitations on getting the land back.
As a white Australian, I accept that I live on land that was stolen from the Aboriginal population several generations ago. It seems to me that there is some analogy between this situation and the current Israeli/Palestinian problem.
The problem of dealing with the aboriginal ownership of freehold land culminated in the Mabo decision, which overturned the doctrine of terra nullius, i.e. that the land was vacant before the Crown took possession. I recommend that you have a read of this introduction and analysis.
The Mabo decision, as noted in the linked page, simply restores Australia's laws to conformity with the English common law tradition. It is broadly comparable to rulings made in the US, Canada, and NZ.
I wonder: what are the chances of a resolution of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict along these lines, taking perhaps the 1967 borders as the benchmark?
I wonder: what are the chances of a resolution of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict along these lines, taking perhaps the 1967 borders as the benchmark?
I think it's the best solution, but I don't think the international community has the guts to pull it off.
I wonder: what are the chances of a resolution of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict along these lines, taking perhaps the 1967 borders as the benchmark?
Quote:
Originally posted by Harald
Israel would not allow this to happen. Its neighbours would be happy enough.
No they wouldn't. You know they wouldn't, but it makes you feel better to lie and say they would' Most would still willingly fund groups to destroy Israel. But, it's always easier for you to make blanket statement that Israel must be the bad guy is any given situation.
Quote:
Originally posted by bunge
That's what I'm afraid of, and part of why I believe Israel is a bigger problem with the issue.
See above. If harald's post part of why you blame Israel more then that is a pretty weak part. You think the palestinins would accept 1967 borders? And Israel would not? Therefore Israel is a bigger problem? bullshit, cuz palestinians wouldn't take 67 and leave it there and you know it.
See above. If harald's post part of why you blame Israel more then that is a pretty weak part. You think the palestinins would accept 1967 borders? And Israel would not? Therefore Israel is a bigger problem? bullshit, cuz palestinians wouldn't take 67 and leave it there and you know it.
Who is building walls on Palestinian land (the wall Powell complained about)?
Who is putting out tenders for building new settlements, which is at odds with the roadmap?
Who is building walls on Palestinian land (the wall Powell complained about)?
Who was waling across an blwoing up school buses and cafe's, making the wall seem like a viabale option?
Quote:
Originally posted by Harald
Who is putting out tenders for building new settlements, which is at odds with the roadmap?
who is still engaged in terrorist activities, which is at odds with the roadmap?
Who is refusing to implement a single one of the responsibilities in the roadmap?
Who is refusing to arrest terrorists, as laid out in the road map and that Powell complained about?
Quote:
Originally posted by Harald
Who is confiscating land to this day?
Who is kidnapping civilians today?
Quote:
Originally posted by Harald
Do you dispute any of the above?
Do you dispute any of the above?
None of which adds any credibilty to your claim that Israel's neighbours would accept 1968 borders as anything more than a good place from which to attck Israel and eventually destroy her.
None of which adds any credibilty to your claim that Israel's neighbours would accept 1968 borders as anything more than a good place from which to attck Israel and eventually destroy her.
Which of Israel's neighbours wishes to do this?
Abu Mazen's palestine? Syria today?
You. Are. On. Drugs.
Anyway, I knew I shouldn't have mentioned the roadmap. We were talking about territorial issues, and you seem to think that Israel would be sooo cool about 67 but not the Palestinians. But it's Israel that's doing the confiscation and the settling.
So anyway, who of Israel's neighbours want to see it destroyed right now?
take your pick. Where is all that funding for the terrorist coming from?
Quote:
Originally posted by Harald
You. Are. On. Drugs.
not for a very long time actually. You?
Quote:
Originally posted by Harald
Anyway, I knew I shouldn't have mentioned the roadmap. We were talking about territorial issues, and you seem to think that Israel would be sooo cool about 67 but not the Palestinians. But it's Israel that's doing the confiscation and the settling.
Actually, I was simply responding you your assertion of the complete opposite. I never said 1 side would be cool and the other not...only you did. nice attempt to deflect blame though.
Quote:
Originally posted by Harald
So anyway, who of Israel's neighbours want to see it destroyed right now?
Syria still funds hizbollah. PA/PLO/Fatah still launch/support elimination of Israel.
That's what I'm afraid of, and part of why I believe Israel is a bigger problem with the issue.
Look at a map and see what happens to israel in those 1967 borders. I dont blame them for not accepting that, since Israel will be squeezed in the middle and would get too little land mass considering they were the victors in the wars against her.
I personally think the UN should scrap resolution 242 and replace it with a land for peace idea but give up going back to 1967 borders as unrealistic.
Give Gaza to israel and transfer the population to the West bank, draw a border which doesnt cut israel so tight in the middle, make Israel move all settlers out the West Bank, and then you have a viable 2 State solution. Of course this will never happen but it would be sensible in my opinion...................
Comments
Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
In the end how is this different to North American or Europe citizenship laws?
Well, Scott, in England we do not have a law that specially prohibits any specific, deliberately named, ethnic group from taking citizenship through marriage. Do you have such a law in America?
Think. Do you? Is there?
Are (say) the Canadians or the Mexicans, your immediate neighbours, especially prohibited from taking citizenship because there is a law that says that Canadians and Mexicans cannot become American citizens through marriage?
Think, Scott. Is there such a law in your country? Because there isn't in England. If there isn't such a law in your country I would like to suggest that THAT'S A PRETTY BLOODY BIG DIFFERENCE BETWEEN NORTH AMERICAN LAW AND ISRAELI LAW.
AND I'M WRITING IN CAPITALS SO I MUST BE RIGHT.
Originally posted by steve666
And how many rights do Jews have in Arab countries? Um, none. Israel lives in a tough part of the world and they have to do what is right for them to survive. the rest of us can criticize from afar, but the Middle east is one ****ed up area.
Although I personally admit that this may very well be the case, it seems to me that we (i.e., the people of the United States) do not directly support these countries militaristically and compatriotically in the same fashion in which we have supported Isræl; which, as I see it, should be a beacon of sorts for democracy in, as you say, a rather oppressive part of the world.
I disbelieve, however, that this particular beacon can remain so with such laws as we are now discussing herewith. Isræl, to my perception, may end up harming its integrity by making itself more hostile to outside influence; by 'stooping' to such things as those with which I should have associated the Taliban (albeit, of course, to not at all nearly such an extent); and by further alienating itself from Jews elsewhere in the world.
Originally posted by andrewm
Although I personally admit that this may very well be the case, it seems to me that we (i.e., the people of the United States) do not directly support these countries (module oil exports and such, but that's a different matter) militaristically in the same manner in which we have supported Isræl, which, as I see it, is a beacon of sorts for democracy in, as you say, a troubled part of the world. I, however, disbelieve that this particular beacon can remain so with such laws as we are now discussing herewith. Isræl, to my perception, may end up harming itself by alienating itself from Jews 'abroad' (i.e., not in Isræl), who tend to be more liberal than the highly-orthodox establishment therein.
Originally posted by New
For the sake of argument. Let's pick a number, any number, and take it from there. How about according to the 1948 partition plan; 30% of Israel now expands beyond the intended UN borders.
Do you agree that Israel now consists of 30% stolen land beyond the original intended UN borders?
(remember we're not even talking about land inside the 48 borders, in Gaza or on the West Bank.)
I can't fully agree, as I have to admit that I have not looked up what exactly what areas are held byIsrael that were not in the '48 mandate. I have enough trust in you that you wouldn't purposely put up wrong numbers, so I will assume that you are right on this figure
How much of this 30 was taken during the various Arab initiated wars and was previously claimed by countries involved in the aggression against Israel? That would seriously mitigate if how strongly I felt that land was stolen or inappropriately held.
Also, as to the conversation going with Sondjata, how does that 30% render all of Israel proper as stolen land? Really doesn't relate to much at all. Even if that land was outright grabed by Israel, it is no no real way the cause of any of the violence in the area. You know full well that the belief of Sondjata and others that Israel has no right to exist and is an abomination to Islam is the root cause of the violence. Not even the PLO denies that claims to Palestinian statehood or property rights are no more than tactics to eliminate Israel as a whole.
Originally posted by Tulkas
How much of this 30 was taken during the various Arab initiated wars and was previously claimed by countries involved in the aggression against Israel? That would seriously mitigate if how strongly I felt that land was stolen or inappropriately held.
The U.N. doesn't allow a country to keep land taken in war, even if it's a war the country didn't initiate.
Israel has admitted that Egypt was not about to attack and went on the offensive simply because they felt they could.
Originally posted by bunge
The U.N. doesn't allow a country to keep land taken in war, even if it's a war the country didn't initiate.
Which really wouldn't effect how strongly I felt it was stolen or held in appropriately. The UN saying something doesn't really affect my personal tae on a given situation. A court can rule that a person is gulty or innocent in a case, but my feelings for his or her guilt would be affected by the individual scenario, not what the court says. Look at the OJ case for example.
The UN does allow the victor in a conflict to administer territories involved. BTW, any idea as to the time frame the UN states for relenquishing control over an area taken in conflict?
Originally posted by Tulkas
Which really wouldn't effect how strongly I felt it was stolen or held in appropriately.
Well, I think we're trying to discuss within 'legal' parameters. That's the playing field the respective parties are supposed to be using. That should also effect how you think and feel about the situation if you believe in justice in a legal sense.
Originally posted by Tulkas
The UN does allow the victor in a conflict to administer territories involved. BTW, any idea as to the time frame the UN states for relenquishing control over an area taken in conflict?
Not in a case of self-defense.
How long? I don't know, but I don't think they have a statue of limitations on getting the land back.
The problem of dealing with the aboriginal ownership of freehold land culminated in the Mabo decision, which overturned the doctrine of terra nullius, i.e. that the land was vacant before the Crown took possession. I recommend that you have a read of this introduction and analysis.
The Mabo decision, as noted in the linked page, simply restores Australia's laws to conformity with the English common law tradition. It is broadly comparable to rulings made in the US, Canada, and NZ.
I wonder: what are the chances of a resolution of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict along these lines, taking perhaps the 1967 borders as the benchmark?
Originally posted by boy_analog
I wonder: what are the chances of a resolution of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict along these lines, taking perhaps the 1967 borders as the benchmark?
I think it's the best solution, but I don't think the international community has the guts to pull it off.
Originally posted by bunge
I think it's the best solution, but I don't think the international community has the guts to pull it off.
Israel would not allow this to happen. Its neighbours would be happy enough.
Originally posted by Harald
Israel would not allow this to happen. Its neighbours would be happy enough.
That's what I'm afraid of, and part of why I believe Israel is a bigger problem with the issue.
Originally posted by boy_analog
I wonder: what are the chances of a resolution of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict along these lines, taking perhaps the 1967 borders as the benchmark?
Originally posted by Harald
Israel would not allow this to happen. Its neighbours would be happy enough.
No they wouldn't. You know they wouldn't, but it makes you feel better to lie and say they would' Most would still willingly fund groups to destroy Israel. But, it's always easier for you to make blanket statement that Israel must be the bad guy is any given situation.
Originally posted by bunge
That's what I'm afraid of, and part of why I believe Israel is a bigger problem with the issue.
See above. If harald's post part of why you blame Israel more then that is a pretty weak part. You think the palestinins would accept 1967 borders? And Israel would not? Therefore Israel is a bigger problem? bullshit, cuz palestinians wouldn't take 67 and leave it there and you know it.
Originally posted by Tulkas
See above. If harald's post part of why you blame Israel more then that is a pretty weak part. You think the palestinins would accept 1967 borders? And Israel would not? Therefore Israel is a bigger problem? bullshit, cuz palestinians wouldn't take 67 and leave it there and you know it.
Who is building walls on Palestinian land (the wall Powell complained about)?
Who is putting out tenders for building new settlements, which is at odds with the roadmap?
Who is confiscating land to this day?
Do you dispute any of the above?
Originally posted by Harald
Who is building walls on Palestinian land (the wall Powell complained about)?
Who was waling across an blwoing up school buses and cafe's, making the wall seem like a viabale option?
Originally posted by Harald
Who is putting out tenders for building new settlements, which is at odds with the roadmap?
who is still engaged in terrorist activities, which is at odds with the roadmap?
Who is refusing to implement a single one of the responsibilities in the roadmap?
Who is refusing to arrest terrorists, as laid out in the road map and that Powell complained about?
Originally posted by Harald
Who is confiscating land to this day?
Who is kidnapping civilians today?
Originally posted by Harald
Do you dispute any of the above?
Do you dispute any of the above?
None of which adds any credibilty to your claim that Israel's neighbours would accept 1968 borders as anything more than a good place from which to attck Israel and eventually destroy her.
Originally posted by Tulkas
None of which adds any credibilty to your claim that Israel's neighbours would accept 1968 borders as anything more than a good place from which to attck Israel and eventually destroy her.
Which of Israel's neighbours wishes to do this?
Abu Mazen's palestine? Syria today?
You. Are. On. Drugs.
Anyway, I knew I shouldn't have mentioned the roadmap. We were talking about territorial issues, and you seem to think that Israel would be sooo cool about 67 but not the Palestinians. But it's Israel that's doing the confiscation and the settling.
So anyway, who of Israel's neighbours want to see it destroyed right now?
Originally posted by Harald
Which of Israel's neighbours wishes to do this?
Abu Mazen's palestine? Syria today?
take your pick. Where is all that funding for the terrorist coming from?
Originally posted by Harald
You. Are. On. Drugs.
not for a very long time actually. You?
Originally posted by Harald
Anyway, I knew I shouldn't have mentioned the roadmap. We were talking about territorial issues, and you seem to think that Israel would be sooo cool about 67 but not the Palestinians. But it's Israel that's doing the confiscation and the settling.
Actually, I was simply responding you your assertion of the complete opposite. I never said 1 side would be cool and the other not...only you did. nice attempt to deflect blame though.
Originally posted by Harald
So anyway, who of Israel's neighbours want to see it destroyed right now?
Syria still funds hizbollah. PA/PLO/Fatah still launch/support elimination of Israel.
Iran...not nexr door, but close enough.
Originally posted by Tulkas
PA/PLO/Fatah still launch/support elimination of Israel.
The PA launch elemination of Israel?
Originally posted by bunge
That's what I'm afraid of, and part of why I believe Israel is a bigger problem with the issue.
Look at a map and see what happens to israel in those 1967 borders. I dont blame them for not accepting that, since Israel will be squeezed in the middle and would get too little land mass considering they were the victors in the wars against her.
I personally think the UN should scrap resolution 242 and replace it with a land for peace idea but give up going back to 1967 borders as unrealistic.
Give Gaza to israel and transfer the population to the West bank, draw a border which doesnt cut israel so tight in the middle, make Israel move all settlers out the West Bank, and then you have a viable 2 State solution. Of course this will never happen but it would be sensible in my opinion...................
Somehow that remark from Bunge was attributed to me in your post. Could you fix it, please?