Nutjobs Ranting About Politics.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I didn't say "go back to" the 1967 borders, I said "not build a wall on the other side of" the 1967 borders. Without a negotiated settlement, it's not their land.

In a legitimate unsettled occupation, I'd suggest that, within reason, it is their land until they negotiate it away.

If the Palestinians can go even just a few months as a civil society, with the rule of law and all (while the Israeli's sit on the other side of the wall), then I'll gladly support the Palestinians' push for their land back. However, until they are even willing to negotiate, I think its pretty much Israel's to do what it wants with, within reason.

That said, I think the settlements themselves are a no-brainer. Israel should evacuate, within reason (i.e., not greater Jerusalem, but just about everything else), all civilian settlements. Negotiation or not, its been dangerous to Israelis troops and and it is an ugly hand to play in a negotiation. Occupation is legitimate, resettlement of civilians onto enemy land is not.

Which is not to say that the land has been stolen, though I'd guess that some settlements have been built on land confiscated by the Israeli gov't, which is ugly.

All in all, I think Israel gets to do what it needs to do militarily, and the wall is part of what it needs to do. So far, the decrease in deadly bombings has been marked, and its not even finished.

Hello

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
In a legitimate unsettled occupation, I'd suggest that, within reason, it is their land until they negotiate it away.

If the Palestinians can go even just a few months as a civil society, with the rule of law and all (while the Israeli's sit on the other side of the wall), then I'll gladly support the Palestinians' push for their land back. However, until they are even willing to negotiate, I think its pretty much Israel's to do what it wants with, within reason.

That said, I think the settlements themselves are a no-brainer. Israel should evacuate, within reason (i.e., not greater Jerusalem, but just about everything else), all civilian settlements. Negotiation or not, its been dangerous to Israelis troops and and it is an ugly hand to play in a negotiation. Occupation is legitimate, resettlement of civilians onto enemy land is not.

Which is not to say that the land has been stolen, though I'd guess that some settlements have been built on land confiscated by the Israeli gov't, which is ugly.

All in all, I think Israel gets to do what it needs to do militarily, and the wall is part of what it needs to do. So far, the decrease in deadly bombings has been marked, and its not even finished.

Hello

Honest question: is it customary for a nation that was attacked on several occassions to give back land it obtained in a war? Or is it more typical for the victor to keep the spoils?

I suspect the latter, which raises the question of why the Israelis are expected to give back anything.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Skeks in the city
Israel did negotiate settlement with the enemy countries in the war. But that's besides the point, the Palestinians won't stop terrorist actions against Israelis in until they get land inside the 1967 borders and get a right to return to Israel proper. Neither of those things will happen any time soon.

Your "beside the point" is itself beside the point. In litigation (i.e., YMMV) we recognize the difference between what the other side will voluntarily pay, and what a jury is likely to award. We don't automatically deem "reasonable" the amount the opponent will pay, but we also don't think the unreasonableness of the other side's damage theory renders our own automatically correct. Everybody uses what the judge and jury will think is reasonable as the touchstone.

It doesn't particularly matter to this discussion what the Palestinians want. If Israel cared about that enough to change, it wouldn't need a wall at all. What matters to border-drawing is international recognition of the border's legitimacy. Whomever loses the battle for international recognition of its borders, loses the land. Force is only one component of the equation.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Honest question: is it customary for a nation that was attacked on several occassions to give back land it obtained in a war? Or is it more typical for the victor to keep the spoils?

I suspect the latter, which raises the question of why the Israelis are expected to give back anything.

I think the answer is that wars usually have a negotiated resolution by which these things are agreed to. Where this doesn't happen, you may have unsettled borders that result in tensions for decades. For example, consider the Kuriles. I believe international law condemns the unilateral revision of borders, though I'm no expert.

Israel's problem, among others, is that it cannot reach a settlement with Palestinians, and so a state of something like war persists.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I think the answer is that wars usually have a negotiated resolution by which these things are agreed to. Where this doesn't happen, you may have unsettled borders that result in tensions for decades. For example, consider the Kuriles.

Ah yes, the Kuriles. It's so much clearer now.

(up too late)

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Honest question: is it customary for a nation that was attacked on several occassions to give back land it obtained in a war? Or is it more typical for the victor to keep the spoils?

I suspect the latter, which raises the question of why the Israelis are expected to give back anything.

Well, like all other world events that are relevant, I'd look to Poland for answers. I'm not positive, but I think Silesia has belonged to something like 4 different still-existing nations in the last 100 years. It would be very interesting to see how Poland's borders have shifted over time. Anyone got time to google it?

Specifically, in the present state, I wonder if Poland has any of Germany's pre-WWII land.

At the end of the day (end of the cold war), whatever borders there are in Europe were negotiated. Hell, even Israel's pre-1967 (presumably-permanent) borders are not necessarily the original mandate, but that seems like a moot point mostly after Jordan and Egypt acknowledged all but Gaza and the West Bank.

But Poland's shifting borders are probably a good place to look first.

Hello

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I think the answer is that wars usually have a negotiated resolution by which these things are agreed to. Where this doesn't happen, you may have unsettled borders that result in tensions for decades. For example, consider the Kuriles. I believe international law condemns the unilateral revision of borders, though I'm no expert.

Israel's problem, among others, is that it cannot reach a settlement with Palestinians, and so a state of something like war persists.

I don't accept that. Wars typically end because one side surrenders, and the victor accepts that surrender in exchange for concessions or they keep fighting.

I submit that Israel's "problem" is that it is a jewish state.

[the Spartan]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop


Israel's problem, among others, is that it cannot reach a settlement with Palestinians, and so a state of something like war persists.

2. Its deplorable that these fucking Israelis have been so obstructionist to a negotiated settlement for so long. Especially given that its their presence in the Middle east and their aggressive actions have caused all of the problems. Meanwhile the settlement-happy Arabs, they of that religion of peace and tolerance, continue to offer the unilateral olive branch, only to get it smacked down by the facist likes of Sharon. One can only hope that an internationalist, like future Pres. JFKerry, can build on the great efforts that former Pres. Clinton made to secure an Arab peace and force the Israelis to be reasonable and give up their security zone so the Arabs can have thqt more effective launching pad to drive the Israelis into the sea, as has been their stated goal. A much easier, cleaner resolution of the problem with finality.

Apropos of that, am I the only person who thinks that Arafat should receive a Lifetime Acheivement Award from the Nobel Committee?

[the Spartan]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I don't accept that. Wars typically end because one side surrenders, and the victor accepts that surrender in exchange for concessions or they keep fighting.

I submit that Israel's "problem" is that it is a jewish state.

2. The day that the land of Israel is governed under a oppressive misogynistic Arab-style dictatorship of peace and tolerance will be the day that the current troublemakers in Israel are no longer a problem.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by the Spartan
2. Its deplorable that these fucking Israelis have been so obstructionist to a negotiated settlement for so long. Especially given that its their presence in the Middle east and their aggressive actions have caused all of the problems. Meanwhile the settlement-happy Arabs, they of that religion of peace and tolerance, continue to offer the unilateral olive branch, only to get it smacked down by the facist likes of Sharon. One can only hope that an internationalist, like future Pres. JFKerry, can build on the great efforts that former Pres. Clinton made to secure an Arab peace and force the Israelis to be reasonable and give up their security zone so the Arabs can have thqt more effective launching pad to drive the Israelis into the sea, as has been their stated goal. A much easier, cleaner resolution of the problem with finality.

Apropos of that, am I the only person who thinks that Arafat should receive a Lifetime Acheivement Award from the Nobel Committee?

I thought I worded what I said pretty neutrally to avoid blaming either Israel or the Palestinians for their mutual failure to reach a settlement, but I did expect that folks like you would read into it all sorts of things I didn't say. Bravo.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I don't accept that. Wars typically end because one side surrenders, and the victor accepts that surrender in exchange for concessions or they keep fighting.

What is happening between Israel and the Palestinians isn't a war. If it were, Israel's military should be embarrassed for not having won it already.

I submit that Israel's "problem" is that it is a jewish state.

No, Israel's problem is that the frustration of the Palestinians who don't strap bombs to their kids is equal to the ones who do, and the international community feels sympathy toward them as the victims of an ugly mess that was created by the vestiges of colonial power in the Middle East. Nor is it Israel's fault for having been created in the first place. Nations occupy space.

If there were any nation in the world capable of occupying, say, New Mexico and evicting its residents under the banner of international accords, you would probably feel differently about it.

[dtb]

I think I heard on the radio last night (but I may have been dreaming) that the 9-11 commission report states that video from Dulles Airport on 9-11 shows 4 of the 5 hijackers on Flight 77 (I think that was the number) set off the metal detectors in the airport, and were then subject to a more "thorough" search, which revealed nothing -- so they were permitted to board the plane.

Am I making this up?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by dtb
I think I heard on the radio last night (but I may have been dreaming) that the 9-11 commission report states that video from Dulles Airport on 9-11 shows 4 of the 5 hijackers on Flight 77 (I think that was the number) set off the metal detectors in the airport, and were then subject to a more "thorough" search, which revealed nothing -- so they were permitted to board the plane.

Am I making this up?

No.

[the Spartan]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I thought I worded what I said blaming Israel for the failure to reach a settlement,

2. Bravo!

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
folks like you

You racist fucker!:bang: :die: :uzi2: :td:

[the Spartan]

Originally posted by dtb
I think I heard on the radio last night (but I may have been dreaming) that the 9-11 commission report states that video from Dulles Airport on 9-11 shows 4 of the 5 hijackers on Flight 77 (I think that was the number) set off the metal detectors in the airport, and were then subject to a more "thorough" search, which revealed nothing -- so they were permitted to board the plane.

Am I making this up?

No, but you are forgetting about the part of how the video clearly shows that W was filling in for the regular security personnel that day and he was the one who waived them through. Shocking!