Did Arafat not accept Israel’s right to exist at the declaration of principles in 1993? The thing is that Israel has no rights to the occupied territories, it has already forced the Palestinians into tiny areas menaing that the occupied territories are one ogf the most densely populated regions in the world.how can you justify that people are living there are under a brutal regime that allows torture arbitary arrest etc.?
Israel DOES have rights to the occupied territories. They occupy them because they WON. They didn’t conquer the occupied territories, they won them from countries who attacked them because they were Jewish.
That statement is a blatant lie, sir.
And again, the “tortures” (cite?) and “arbitrary arrests” (again, cite?) can end tomorrow as well, if the Palestinians would just agree that Israel is a nation and will continue to be one, and quit the attacks.
I hope more people will start realizing you are correct.
Tell that to the 4 million Palestinians who don’t want to be ethnically cleansed. **
Face it, they are occupiers. They are a foreign power who have taken control of the land and (among other things) are settling their citizens on it.
Yes, they are occupiers. Of lands that are theirs, as they won them from their attackers.
Face it.
Why can’t you people get that through your heads?
Airman Doors, if the lands are theirs, then they must formally annex them, and the people on them must be declared citizens of Israel. Naturally, this isn’t going to happen because then Israel would be a majority Arab state. So they are still merely an occupying force, in order that the Palestinians don’t get the same rights as Israelis.
Life for the average, peaceful Palestinian, is shit. Partly the fault of the Palestinian leadership, but also partly at the hands of Israel’s occupation.
What do you suggest happens to the Palestinians? Ethnic cleansing?
What do I suggest? I suggest they stop flirkin’ bombing innocent people, cave in a little, and the land will be theirs. Until then, they’ll have to continue to live with the searches and arrests that Israel feels they must do to protect themselves.
For the third time: It could all end tomorrow. It’s the Palestinians that don’t want it to end, from what I see.
Gee. I guess Israel is being dishonest when it describes UNSC Resolution 242 as the “cornerstone of Middle East diplomatic efforts.” And as we all know, the first provision of that resolution is that Israel should return to its pre-1967 borders.
It is incredible to think that in a day an age when most of the world accepts the desirability of the principle of political self-determination, that some still seek to legitimize territorial conquest.
I’m sorry, but this is a very hard line extremist stand to take, do you really beleive this? The West Bank and Gaza are not Israeli land, the people who live there (minus the settlers) are not Israelis, and they have no rights as Israelis.
Oh, the Palestinians recognize Israel’s right to exist? Well, whoop-de-fucking-do. Israel exists, and whewther or not they recognize this fact has no relevence whatsoever. They think we owe them something for opening their eyes? Give me a break. You can’t concede something you don’t have.
How about this, M.C.: I recognize your right to exist, fully and unreservedly. Now give me money.
BTW, the reason the Territories are so crowded is that the Palestinians have the natural growth rate of any population on the planet - an average of seven children per family, I believe.
I’m not gonna get into the whole “who was there first” debate. what I do know is this, Israel has changed leaders many times in an effort to establish peace. Ehud Barak is a good example of that. The Palastinians have made how many leadership changes? (rhetorical):dubious: Just by the NUMEROUS opportunities Arafat has had to make peace, control the extremists and failed, he has shown he needs to be taken out of office.
I do accept the desirablity of political self-determination. For the 4th time, all that is required is the cessation of terrorist attacks upon Israel. That’s it. I don’t recall Israel asking for anything else.
And yes, I do believe it. Israel WON. The other countries lost, and the loss of territory as a buffer is a result. Or should Israel have said “Gee, thanks for attacking us for the 4th time in 25 years and killing a substantial number of our citizens because you hate us. Here’s your land back, no strings attached, so that there’s no hard feelings when you attack us again”?
Since we seem to have gotten incredibly far afield as to the OP -
I believe that any attempt to remove Arafat is going to result in his martyrdom and increase the level of tension in the Middle East. The result will be felt not only in Israel and the Occupied Territories, but across the globe.
To my understanding, the central issue that gave rise to the terrorist attacks by Bin Laden, et. al was the appearance of US support for Israel come hell or highwater. Fair or not, the impression is that Israel won’t make a move without the approval (tacit or overt) of the US, and any attempt by the Israelis to remove Arafat is going to reflect back on the US.
If a move is made against Arafat the number of dead in American dead in Iraq is going to go through the roof (as will the cost of a gallon of gasoline).
Great. So I suppose Iraq is “ours,” too.
For the moment, yes it is. When we give it back to the Iraqi people after reconstruction, it won’t be ours anymore.
There is, however, a big difference. Iraq never sat on our borders and attacked us four times in 25 years. They may have been a threat, but nothing like the countries surrounding Israel are to their territorial integrity and way of life.
Just as we are under no obligation to give Iraq back, Israel isn’t obligated to give back the occupied territories. That we will give Iraq back doesn’t mean that Israel has no right to address their legitimate security concerns and get concessions from their attackers of the last 55 years. For the fifth time (and I’ll repeat this until you people acknowledge it), all the Palestinians have to do is stop the suicide bombings. That will address the security concerns. The concession will be the Right of Return. After that, peace at last, until the next time Israel’s neigbors massively attack, anyway.
You have a terrifying view of international law.
If a country invades another, they now own it?!
You even posted ‘we are under no obligation to give Iraq back’!
Unbelievable.
According to you, the US can rule Iraq as long as it likes.
So China can stay in Tibet forever?
And if the Arabs destroy Israel, you will be agreeing, because they will be the ‘legal owners’?!
Iraq not a threat to US, huh? Surely some mistake. :rolleyes:
What are you trying to say - Israel is entitled to invade and hold Arab territory, but the Arabs aren’t entitled to invade themselves?
Ah, the genius of it.
Or to put it another way:
“That we will give Iraq back doesn’t mean that Arab countries have no right to address their legitimate security concerns and get concessions from their attackers of the last few decades.”
Perhaps all the Israelis have to do is stop illegal settlements, try Sharon for war crimes and obey UN resolutions.
You are massively oversimplifying a lengthy historical conflict.
Airman Doors, with due respect two of the four wars fought between Israel and its neighbors from 1948-73 were initiated not with massive attacks on Israel but with massive preemptive surprise attacks by Israel. A fully legitimate preemptive attack in 1967, somewhat less completely so in 1956 but still with legitimacy, but they were started with massive attacks by Israel. The occupied territories are no longer a buffer between Israel and hostile neighbors, Egypt and Jordan have signed peace accords with Israel and Egypt got back the Sinai as compensation in 1979. I can’t see Israel ever giving into the Right of Return in anything more than a minimal token fashion, to do so in a complete manner would turn the demographics of Israel on its head.
Airman Doors, USAF
That’s it, huh? That whole Jerusalem thing and the countless settlements will just magically work themselves out, right? Or were they just figments of our collective imagination and not really an issue at all? :rolleyes:
Since your memory doesn’t seem to span back far enough, I’d like to remind you that ALL those “terrorists” had agreed to a ceasefire and had ceased all attacks. It was Israel’s brilliant idea that they were going to rely on their tactic of extra-judicial killing which provoked the groups to abandon the ceasefire. Yet, during that time Israel did nothing toward its obligation of the roadmap.
I understand that most Americans have come under the same mindset as their Israeli brethern in regards to the international law that they are signatories to. But that doesn’t change the fact that just beause your tanks are parked there doesn’t mean the land belongs to you. Regardless of how pissed off Americans or Israelis may be, the laws they bound by still apply, even if you chose to be selective about when they apply.
smiling bandit
That is absolutely vile. But then again, I’m not expecting much brilliance from a redneck from Tennessee.
If ever you Americans wonder again “why do they hate us so much” look no further than the examples of fine Americans represented in this thread.
With all due respect, international law clearly states that a nation is not allowed to occupy and keep a territory seized during an offensive war. They have to redraw.
Further more, international law clearly states that a nation seizeing territory in a defensive war may keep such territory only if they annex it. Annexing it would mean for the occupying nation to give the people in the occupied territory citizenship and rights equal to their own citizens.
So anyhow you look at it, whether you believe Israel fought an offensive or defensive war in 1967, Israel is violating international law. Either by waging an offensive war, or failing to annex the territories after a defensive war. In fact, Israel did annex the Golan Heights and East J, but deceided against annexing the West Bank and Gaza.
Who “won” or “lost” has nothing to do with it, in the eyes of international law.
Israel waged an offensive war in 1967, and this is acknowledged by UN resolutions. I’m aware of that some people choose to refer to the 6-Day-War as the 7-Day-War, giving the impression that Isreal was attaked first, but rewriting history doesn’t make history any more correct.
Fine, fine, fine, I acknowledge that you’ve repeated that same thing more than I care to have heard it already.
That doesn’t make it right.
It takes two to tango. Palestinians clearly must do more before a peace agreement will be possible, but hey, guess what - SO MUST THE ISRAELIS. As has been suggested elsewhere on this thread, stopping or rolling back settlements is an excellent way to start.
If you continue to repost your idea, perhaps others will be so kind to suggest that an alternate solution to the ME problem is to have Israel announce total capitulation and complete withdrawal from the OT. Everything should just take care of itself after that. :rolleyes:
Hey, if its good for the goose, its good for the gander.