Who Shot Mohammed al-Dura? (long) - Page 7

Panag · May 22, 2003, 18:42

Quote:

Originally posted by CyberGnu
Ned

Ethnic cleansing IS illegal...

come over and see for yourself ,.....

we dont clean any one , not even people like you who seems to know better then ourselfs as to what we do , .....

Oerdin · May 22, 2003, 18:43

Quote:

Originally posted by CyberGnu
Ned

Ethnic cleansing IS illegal...

So you are against removing all Jews from the west bank? Good.

Ned · May 22, 2003, 18:46

Quote:

Originally posted by CyberGnu
Ned:
Out of curiosity, what is your stance on Israel's assassination policy? (and for the sake of argument, let's ignore the bluntness of it for the moment).

Bad analogy... Neither side is a 'sheep' here. Israel is the stronger part. The only things the palestinians have are the moral high ground, the law, and the ability to occaisonally pinprick Israel. But even that is more than what a sheep can do to a wolf, is it not?

If one is at war, assassination of enemy commanders is legal. If one is at peace, the enemy "commander" is a simple criminal who must be arrested and given due process before he is executed.

I personally believe that Israel is at war with the terrorists. That is what they believe as well.

Arafat's status is "marginal." I think his condemnation of terrorist acts has gone a long way to saving his own neck.

What is your position, CyberGnu?

GePap · May 22, 2003, 18:48

Ned:

the madate did end, unequivocably. The very fact that the UN voted for partition shows us that british administratiob was done for, in all areas of the mandate. That srael is now the administrator is based on it MILITARY OCCUPATION of the area, just like Egypt was the administrator of Gaza when it occupied the area militarilly.

And as gsmoove said, whether you find it immflamatory or not, settlemts are a violation of the 4th Geneva convention, makign them illgal, just as harming prisoners of war, or aiming for civilians is illegal. Under the UN, the most impoartant notion is self-determination, and this right, the most fundamental right of all, has been denied the citizens of the West bank and Gaza since 1948 (the Jordanians and Egyptians also violated Palestinains rights). Tha right would include the right to decide who can legally mov in or not. Ther eason that occupying powers are not allowed to resettle their own populations within occupied territories is because in doding so they clearly violate the right of self-determination. The same right Israel has to keep out Arabs from migrating into israel isd the one that pals should have, to stop Jews from moving into their lands (the same right the US, and all states, have to regulate emmigration).

Edan · May 22, 2003, 18:48

Quote:

Originally posted by CyberGnu
GePap:

The settlements are illegal because they create ethnically purified zones, and are thus considered ethnic cleansing.

Umm, nationally purified zones, I think you mean to say (although from my recollection, before the intifadah, plenty of Palestinians were working in settlements).

Panag · May 22, 2003, 18:49

Quote:

Originally posted by Edan

Umm, nationally purified zones, I think you mean to say (although from my recollection, before the intifadah, plenty of Palestinians were working in settlements).

hi ,

and how many are still working there today , .....

to many to feed them on my pay , ....

have a nice day

Edan · May 22, 2003, 18:50

Quote:

Originally posted by Oerdin

So you are against removing all Jews from the west bank? Good.

Ned · May 22, 2003, 19:00

Gepap, well the legalities of what happened in 1948 are clearly still in dispute today. Not only did the Arabs not agree to the UN terms, but Israel did not to the extent of its borders, which really were more akin to front lines. To the extent the fighting ended and Israel found itself in possession of territory, the land became part of Israel. This did not happen after the '67 war, but if it did not, why not?

Whose land was that that Israel captured? The last legal administration was the British Mandate that had passed under UN control. The Arab's could not, by taking the land by force of arms, change this. Neither could or can Israel.

The only problem, is, that under the Mandate, the Jews have rights as well. Their right is the right to settle inside the Mandate borders.

GePap · May 22, 2003, 19:09

Ned:
As I told LoTM:, the 1950 armistice line was set as the defacto borders of the state of israel. after all, if not, as i told LoTM, all of the mandate, including places like Tel Aviv and haifa, would still count as dsiputed territory.(armistice lines have a long history of becoming borders)

In 1947 Britian gave up its mandate of Palestine. What more proof is needed that it ended?

Quote:

To the extent the fighting ended and Israel found itself in possession of territory, the land became part of Israel. This did not happen after the '67 war, but if it did not, why not?

Becuase as i said above, the 1950 armistice line the green line gained acceptance as the defacto borders of Israel. The very fact that the UN in 1947 had called for 2 states (as I said Egypt never annexed gaza, and the arab league condemned Jordan for annexing the west bank) is a clear indication that the entire mandate was not meant to be a jewish state, which was bowing to the obvious, since Jews made up 1/3 of the pop. in 1947, and such an outcome would be an utter violation of the right to self-determination given the Palestinians.

Oerdin · May 22, 2003, 19:14

Quote:

Originally posted by GePap
Becuase as i said above, the 1950 armistice line the green line gained acceptance as the defacto borders of Israel. The very fact that the UN in 1947 had called for 2 states (as I said Egypt never annexed gaza, and the arab league condemned Jordan for annexing the west bank) is a clear indication that the entire mandate was not meant to be a jewish state, which was bowing to the obvious, since Jews made up 1/3 of the pop. in 1947, and such an outcome would be an utter violation of the right to self-determination given the Palestinians.

Gepap: So you are saying that borders can be decided by warfare? Am I understanding you correctly?

GePap · May 22, 2003, 19:23

Yes, if at the end of the time of fighting, the two sides come to the table, agree to a cease fire, and create lines of armitice.

Sorry oerdin, but no cute quotes form me on this issue.

Ned · May 22, 2003, 19:49

Quote:

Originally posted by GePap

Becuase as i said above, the 1950 armistice line the green line gained acceptance as the defacto borders of Israel. The very fact that the UN in 1947 had called for 2 states (as I said Egypt never annexed gaza, and the arab league condemned Jordan for annexing the west bank) is a clear indication that the entire mandate was not meant to be a jewish state, which was bowing to the obvious, since Jews made up 1/3 of the pop. in 1947, and such an outcome would be an utter violation of the right to self-determination given the Palestinians.

I think we are simply not communicating here very well. I do not dispute that Israel was created from the Mandate and that its cease fire "borders" are in fact borders. The question is not what is the status of the land within Israel, but the status of the land within the Mandate that is not within Israel.

Clearly, the Brits left in '48. But, when they left, who had responsibity for the administration of the Mandate ouside Israel? Since there was no government there, I suggest it was the UN. In otherwords, the status did not change the day the Brits left. It was still an UN Mandate and whoever found themselve in control had to administer the territory under the authority of the United Nations.

GePap · May 22, 2003, 19:58

Ned:

Quote:

Clearly, the Brits left in '48. But, when they left, who had responsibity for the administration of the Mandate ouside Israel? Since there was no government there, I suggest it was the UN. In otherwords, the status did not change the day the Brits left. It was still an UN Mandate and whoever found themselve in control had to administer the territory under the authority of the United Nations.

The status did change, as Britian got its mandate from the League of Nations, not the United Nations.
It was only becuase it was a UN madate that the UN was able to make it partition plan, utterly ignoring the self-determination of those people living there. And the partition plan called for th creation of 2 states, not one, and for Jerusalme and bethlehem to be administered internationally, which is why the vast majoirty of states will not recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital offically.

Oerdin · May 22, 2003, 20:02

Quote:

Originally posted by GePap
Yes, if at the end of the time of fighting, the two sides come to the table, agree to a cease fire, and create lines of armitice.

Sorry oerdin, but no cute quotes form me on this issue.

So even if one side is totally defeated, a la Germany 1945, and they are forced to sign the new borders then it is ok?

GePap · May 22, 2003, 20:05

Quote:

So even if one side is totally defeated, a la Germany 1945, and they are forced to sign the new borders then it is ok?

Yes, but no state could be utterly defeated and made to disappear, unless the victor makes citizens out of the population of the defeated.

Oerdin · May 22, 2003, 20:07

You realize that by this logic it would be A.O.K. for Israel to take all of the occupied territories it wanted, leave the remander to the PA and expell "enemy nationals" from the area?

GePap · May 22, 2003, 20:15

Actually, no, since expelling foreign nationals would violate the whole "make them citizens" part I stated. It also of course, violates the rights of the people being expelled.

So no, by my logic, you statement does not work.

sorry.

Ned · May 22, 2003, 20:22

Quote:

Originally posted by GePap
Ned:

Quote:

Clearly, the Brits left in '48. But, when they left, who had responsibity for the administration of the Mandate ouside Israel? Since there was no government there, I suggest it was the UN. In otherwords, the status did not change the day the Brits left. It was still an UN Mandate and whoever found themselve in control had to administer the territory under the authority of the United Nations.

The status did change, as Britian got its mandate from the League of Nations, not the United Nations.
It was only becuase it was a UN madate that the UN was able to make it partition plan, utterly ignoring the self-determination of those people living there. And the partition plan called for th creation of 2 states, not one, and for Jerusalme and bethlehem to be administered internationally, which is why the vast majoirty of states will not recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital offically.

Somehow you agree that Palestine was a UN Mandate, but do not agree that terms of the Mandate laid down in 1920 by the League of Nations, continued to apply. The fact that the UK, the administrator in charge, left in 1948 did not change the essentials.

I do understand how you can dispute this.

Oerdin · May 22, 2003, 20:58

Quote:

Originally posted by GePap
Actually, no, since expelling foreign nationals would violate the whole "make them citizens" part I stated. It also of course, violates the rights of the people being expelled.

So no, by my logic, you statement does not work.

sorry.

Gepap: You said if they annexed the entire country, but, if their is a rump state left then it seems it would be allowed. Just like the Soviets and Poles did to Germans in 1945.

gsmoove23 · May 23, 2003, 02:00

Ned,

The UN Mandate ended in 1948, no ifs ands or buts. The partition was the completion of the Mandate, the conclusion and the western world wiped their hands of the mess. Any following government was under no obligation to follow any previous letters, mandates or whatever. The previous League of Nations Mandates referred only to UK administration. What is the problem you're having with this? Don't just believe us, you'll find few if any thinkers on the subject using your logic because it doesn't work.

What should also be mentioned is that Israeli Arabs, full citizens of Israel are not allowed to live in the settlements. It is an inherently racist policy against the Palestinians and the arabs of Israel.

Quote:

gsmoove, calling the settlements illegal under the 4th Geneva Convention is inflammatory because it is extremely biased against Israel. It assumes as fact issues that have not been legally determined.

How would you feel if you were on trial for murder and the prosecutioin, instead of calling you the "accused," called you the "murderer.".

The UNSC is a proper place to deliberate on these issues when dealing with convention issues as their is currently no other institution that could deliberate on the subject. There is no proper court that handles such issues but the UNSC which member states have recognized by signing on to the charter. Furthermore, when the resolutions are voted upon there is a report done and interested parties are given the opportunity to defend their positions.

Again, calling it illegal is not inflammatory if it is true and certainly one should not worry about being inflamatory when the policy is highly inflammatory in its own right.

gsmoove23 · May 23, 2003, 02:06

Quote:

Originally posted by Oerdin

Gepap: You said if they annexed the entire country, but, if their is a rump state left then it seems it would be allowed. Just like the Soviets and Poles did to Germans in 1945.

This is ethnic cleansing as clear as can be and not acceptable. The only instance where it would be acceptable is in order to rectify ethnic cleansing when it has been done and only after a reasonable amount of time (sorry zionists, centuries is too long). Certainly this will work in favor of the earlier more established settlements in the West Bank.

Zevico · May 23, 2003, 02:53

Firelad is 100% right....Palestinian gunmen should get better weapons training!

Sikander · May 23, 2003, 03:33

Quote:

Originally posted by Jaakko

The Galil rifle comes in both 5.56 and 7.62 configurations, so bullet size proves nothing by itself.

IIRC the Galil comes in 5.56 NATO (aka .223 Remington) and 7.62 NATO (aka Winchester .308). The AK's in question (AKM IIRC) come in 7.62 Soviet, which is a carbine round much smaller than the 7.62 NATO. While bullets are named for their diameter, they vary considerably in shape, length and composition as well.

You are correct that some of the Pals have M-16s, but AFAIK none of the Israelis use Soviet weaponry as standard issue. So if the kid was shot by a 7.62 Soviet round, it was either fired by the Pals or by unconventional Israelis units.

Oops, it looks like MtG got there before me!

Sikander · May 23, 2003, 03:34

Quote:

Originally posted by Eli
Thanks shmanks. Show us the money.

Don't you mean keep showing us the money?

Eli · May 23, 2003, 03:54

Quote:

Originally posted by Sikander
Don't you mean keep showing us the money?

That's obvious, i'm talking about the "risk bonus".

Sikander · May 23, 2003, 04:01

Quote:

Originally posted by Eli

That's obvious, i'm talking about the "risk bonus".

You mean the production bonus you get for holding an entire continent in the game Risk? Well clear out those enemy armies in the West Bank and Gaza and we'll see if we can scrounge up a continent bonus for you guys.

Ned · May 23, 2003, 11:31

gsmoove, perhaps we can go about this in a slightly different way. Prior to 1948, all residents of Palestine were citizens of Palestine. After 1948, is it your position that the Jews Palestine lost their Palestinian citizenship?

GePap · May 23, 2003, 11:52

Quote:

Originally posted by Oerdin

Gepap: You said if they annexed the entire country, but, if their is a rump state left then it seems it would be allowed. Just like the Soviets and Poles did to Germans in 1945.

First of all, germany is hardly the "Rump state".

Second: states can renegotiate borders, even under durress. the great tragedy that followed WW2 was not the change in borders but the mass movements of millions out of their homes and property. Borders can change all they want, but that mass movement of people i do not think is morally acceptable. And the reason that peoples are forced to move is this notion of "national" self-determination. I have no porbem wth the self-detrmination part, but I have huge porblems with the "national" part, and want nothing of it.

Panag · May 23, 2003, 11:54

Quote:

Originally posted by Ned
gsmoove, perhaps we can go about this in a slightly different way. Prior to 1948, all residents of Palestine were citizens of Palestine. After 1948, is it your position that the Jews Palestine lost their Palestinian citizenship?

hi ,

and what to do then to all the other none Jews who where living there , or who are living there , .....

intresting how some people who know everything there is to know about us tend to forget them , ....

"palestine" sjee , them romans turn around in ground , they would never have thought that the name they gave to a piece of land would be the conflict so many years later , .....

allas , gsmoove you forget one thing "palestine" runs from libanon over syria , jordan Israel and ends on todays suez canal , ....

care to explain that to those gov if ya give it back , ....

have a nice day

GePap · May 23, 2003, 11:55

Quote:

Originally posted by Ned
gsmoove, perhaps we can go about this in a slightly different way. Prior to 1948, all residents of Palestine were citizens of Palestine. After 1948, is it your position that the Jews Palestine lost their Palestinian citizenship?

Ned, there was no Palestine. There was a Mandate of Palestine. When the partition plan was announced, but more importantly when the Jews decalered the new state of Israel, they were stating that they were not Palestinians, but Israelis. they gave up the notion of being Palestinians. Do th settlers call themselves Jewish Palestinians? or Israelis?

Now, personally, I think the partition was a terrible plan and idea, but it creates the new legal definitoons we must work under.