Syria, Jordan, and Egypt don’t want to incorporate the Palestinians and their territory into their own states. This is also why there are still Palestinian refugee camps in other surrounding countries such as Lebanon, Syria, and Jordan, since none of these countries wants to make them citizens. Jordan annexed the West Bank following the creation of Israel to make sure some muslim government had a claim on it so that Israel wouldn’t simply absorb it since there was no Palestinian government still functioning. Jordan effectively abandoned it and its claim after the 1967 war and formally abandoned its claim later.
Palestine was governed as a separate entity from the surrounding countries by the British following the collapse of the Ottoman empire after WWI, so it is not surprising that a Palestinian nationality developed somewhat distinct from neighboring countries.
The Jordanian and the Egyptian armies hardly ran, they failed badly through extremely bad generaliship, but they did not run.
The treatment of the territories after they are taken are the full and the unique responsibility of the state or the entity that conquers them and then kee
Amusing excuse - and strange ‘buffer’ … that generates its own security problem internal to it.
Even funnier, the excuses the Right in the USA makes - the Allies in the case in fact was uniquely the Soviet Union of Stalin and its puppet Communist governments made to agree with Stalin Diktat.
The They is a specific they - you are making the specific excuse using the crimes of Stalin as your model and the Soviet military occuptions… but I guess you coud not quite bring yourself to admit that and had to write “Allies”…
Funny, then ***Stalin becomes your moral model. ***
How weird is the political compass that spins and spins in its search for pretexts.
(and even weirder to use some of the very actions that helped provoke the Fourth Geneva Convention as the justification / excuse)
Since they have made peace indeed 40 years ago.
But in the excuse making in this context, the pretension is that we still are living in the 1973 era.
Please note that this is inaccurate: the Palestinians of Jordan, who are in fact a majority of the population, are mostly in fact** Jordanian Citizens ** and generally it is the 1967 generation that has notthe Jordanian citizenship, for the political reasons.
In any case, since now Adaher seems to be clear his line of argument of the OP (barely hidden in the supposed question), he is shifting as rapidly as he can his goal posts…
What enemies ? And what is, say, the Gaza strip a buffer against ? Sea rise from global warming ?
Not *much *smaller. Yes, Stalin chunked out eastern Prussia, Pomerani and Silesia to graft it to Poland. And of course we took back Alsace-Lorraine because goddammit that was ours in the first place.
But here’s the thing, as **Ramira **underlined : that was Stalin. I don’t know if you’re aware, but he’s generally agreed to not have been the greatest, most humane, most peacelike of dudes ;).
[QUOTE=Human Action]
And doesn’t building settlements defeat the purpose of a buffer state? If the buffer is full of your own citizens, it’s not a buffer.
Oh, and saying that Egypt and Jordan “won’t make peace” is absurd.
[/QUOTE]
I believe he’s talking about the Palestinians there, not Egypt and Jordan.
[QUOTE=ganthet]
Anything involving Russia, such as the Georgian war and Russia’s recognition of breakaway parts of Georgia, or what is happening in Ukraine, would have been vetoed by Russia.
[/QUOTE]
Pretty much this is the answer to the OPs question. There really isn’t ‘international law’…it’s more like the pirate code, though you can only ask for a parlay if you are in the club. If you are one of the 5 members of the UNSC you can always simply veto any binding (or non-binding) resolution you don’t like or that brings up stuff like your attempt to annex countries or build new islands to claim large swaths of territory…or invade countries you don’t like and overthrow their governments. Then you can, without any irony at all, vote to censure other countries who aren’t in the club for doing similar stuff.
What does ‘international law’ say about conquered lands? A lot…and nothing binding. Basically, it depends in the end on who’s gore you oxed, and whether the country oxed (who has a seat at the big table) can or wants to simply take measures on it’s own, and whether countries who weren’t oxed but are in the club want to bother blocking you through their veto or will just abstain…and what those countries want to do with the lands they take or make. Israel probably could have annexed the west bank when Jordan gave up it’s claim but chose not to at that time. Instead, this thing has dragged on for decades with no resolution in sight and with Israel basically attempting a slow annexation by settlement…which has kept this whole thing on a long, slow boil and is really the worst of all worlds.
The underlying issue though is the UNSC and the toothless nature of the UN and it’s inability to do anything substantial to enforce it’s myriad resolutions, acts or censure without the backing of those same members, many of which vote not for the issue but to block the other side or because of their own agenda that has nothing to do with the vote at hand.
I didn’t say it makes sense, but I’m pretty sure that’s what he was getting at. Seemed clear to me. I suppose, thinking about it, wanting to force out the Palestinians from those regions could make sense from an internal security perspective, and would provide a ‘buffer’ to the core regions of Israel (i.e. it would focus Palestinian anger and the repeated cycle of revenge attacks on the settlers and settlement regions, pushing those things further from the core regions…or something).
ETA: Pretty cold calculation, of course, and hard on the settlers…as well as the Palestinians. And not likely to result in an long term peace. But then, what will at this point? It’s unclear to me that if the Israelis could give up those settlements and move every settler out of there (which politically they can’t) that this would bring peace either.
Can the security buffer for your civilian population really be…your civilian population? Maybe there’s another term for that (bait?), but’s not “buffer” as I understand the term in geopolitics.
I suppose if one were that calculating it could be. In Israel, the settlers aren’t, IIRC, universally loved in the core regions, either, so I could see that…sort of, assuming my notoriously faulty memory of this is correct. It is certainly true that Israel has hoped to use these settlements to eventually give it a de-facto control and annexation of the west bank region (as well as Jerusalem which I think is a much higher priority and much less of a negotiation point for Israel).
No, it’s not a ‘buffer state’ as is generally understood. And I’ll let adaher respond from here on out, since that was just my guess as to what was being said. Maybe he meant something completely different and did mean a buffer state between Israel and Jordan for some reason…