myata

Rue, you made a number of interesting statements but without some kind of proof they only remain your saying that. I'm willing to change the related point in my round up of the situation to the extent that expulsion of ethnic population happened not only in the newly created state of Israel, but also in the neighbouring states. There's however a big difference between the two: one was deliberately conducted (as a policy) to ensure control by certain ethinic group. In todays language it's called ethnic cleansing and, as far as I understand, is considered a crime against humanity. Regarding the other, I'm not aware of anything other than acts of retaliation and revenge, especially anything pointing to state sponsored policy of expulsion. I you know otherwise, please share your sources of information. In any case, these events were triggered by unilateral and not entirely legitimate way the new state was created. I believe that acknowledging it now, along with offering reasonable compensation to those directly affected, would go some way toward bringing some belated sense of justice to the region. Without it (i.e., position of justice) achieving long lasting stability in the region will be a pipe dream for the long years to come.

Good information, thanks. At least I can see the logic. However, if I recall it correctly, there were many more participants in the "coalition of the willing" than those "assisting the government of Kuwait". The two just don't appear to be one and the same thing. How was that addressed?

Also, I wonder if it's at all fair to label the situation as "the last mistake/gamble/etc of Saddam"? Recalling the way Bush and Blair were hell bent on going in, I wonder if anything he did, short of resigning all powers and crawling in chains to meet the liberators, would have changed the outcome. It looked more like the duo were simply playing the cat and mouse game (with the old SC resolution in hand) trying to corner him into breaking one of the conditions. The way I remember it, serious violations popped out almost daily, from the famous mobile laboratories to rusty missiles which were out of range by a few miles to access to Saddam's palaces to the scientists which had to be interrogated one on one (accepted) to the scientists which had to be interrogated outside of the country. In my view it just happened (sheer chance) to be the last one, on which BB decided to pull the plug.

Good question, and here's something else I didn't quite understand in the whole affair: even assuming that the initial resolution did in fact authorise use of force in case of incompliance (big IF), does it automatically follow that any country can take it upon themselves to enforce it, without a mandate from the UN? In the regular practice of justice, a judicial order (for search, arrest, etc) is issued to the specific authority (police), not every citizen. How does it play internationally though?

Let's go back to the basic facts then; in my understanding (without spending an equivalent of a PhD research) they are more or less like this: 1. Before British take over control of the territories, Jewish population was in significant minority (specifically, around 10%). 2. While under British control, population in question grew multi-fold due to uncontrolled immigration from outside. 3. Certain groups among the population in question started campaign of terror followed by open armed confrontation which eventually resulted in withdrawal of British control and unilateral proclamation of the new state. 4. The new state had forcefully expelled large number or even majority of the original ethnic population of the territories on which the new state was created. 5. International body controlled by Western powers recognized the new state and partitioned the territories. 6. Multiple armed conflicts, cycles of violence ensuited from the struggle for the territories. Feel free to add to, or modify any of the points above as long as good standing reference is provided. We should be able to settle on what actually happened with the wealth of information available today.

Just out of curiousity, is it intended to be a "yes, me too" show of support thread or an exercise in asking loaded questions perhaps for a future opinion poll?

How about an experiment: perhaps, we could work out some kind of an agreement about what the principles of resolving this conflict could be, if only withing this board and thread? If anything, it should give us an idea how much of a challenge it actually is on the ground, where real lives and interests are wested. Only two criteria: 1) the agreement should be practical (i.e. technically possible and financially feasible); and 2) must be accepted unanimously (by posters in this thread).

But you agree with Saddam and the like being prosecuted for such? Difficult situation. Not to worry, the help is at hand: we should invoke the knowledge of truth (and the bearers thereof) to make the decision who should be prosecuted. Some could say, that was the work of shamans in prehistoric times, but what to they know?

From the responses on this topic so far, it sounds like a fair resolution can/should be sought in the "two states" solution, around these main lines: 1. Recognition of the "issues" with creation of Israel; 2. Fair compensation to all directly affected by p.1 (by involved Western powers, Israel and the UN); 3. Delineation of borders based on internationally recognized lines like 1948 or 1967 (not because of their obvious fairness, but for the lack of better precedent); or mutually agreed modifications of the above; 4. Mutual recognition of the two states; 5. Guarantees of security for both states by international community (possibly and likely with international supervision of borders in the first years); Any problems with that?

Sorry, Rue, much of what you're saying is confusing, has no factual backing and honestly not worth argument. If you want to believe what you believe, no one can persuade you otherwise. I have little hope for the region though, while people like yourself are sticking to their entrenched positions. Admitting the truth, however unpleasant it may be, will be the first, and btw the easiest, step on the long way to the resolution, if it's ever going to happen.

OK, you can sort it out, with the virgins.

That of course can be said about any court or justice which is possible on this Earth. In plain words it means "we americans should be above justice, no matter what we do". Instead, worthy individuals like maybe, G.Bush / T.Blair / or maybe even your self ? should be consulted as to who exactly belongs in these courts.

No I mean those who actually did blow up entire cities. They (BinLadens) still have a long way to go to catch up though.

Example: I opt out of the pension scheme. I keep my CPP contributions and invest them wisely (or spend them if it matters). Come 65, I see my investments busted and I have to live on something. How can I opt back in?

That of course doesn't make any sense at all - there's simply no logic in your statements. Should an independent state be created for every small minority in the country? Why should European Jews, which had no "uninterrupted ancestry" in the Palestine (other than age old books), be allowed to immigrate in huge numbers to already populated land, as opposed to e.g. somewhere in the countries of their benefactors? Why should eastern world bear any responsibility whatsoever / no wrong, even care about, a tragedy brought about entirely by West's own imperialist policies? Try this: we know there're many homeless people out there. Do a good thing - send them to live in (and take over) someone else's house. See what the owners will have to say. Sounds right? The truth of the matter is that the rulers of the world at the time simply considered it the cheapest possible solution to the problem they had on their hands, which happened to coincide with the program of radical Zionists. Bingo. By doing that they created a hot spot that'll be with us for a long time to come. I agree with you on one point though. In this situation, nothing at all guarantees long term stability for Israel, not even if they cover every square inch of land with guns and arms.

There was a report in this morning's "The House" on CBC Radio 1 that Canada may be asked to sign on to the US's agreement to prevent US nationals from being extradited to ICJ on war and crime against humanity warrants, and the Conservative government may be considering it. This link is the only reference I could find in a quick search. Whilst its quite unusual for the US administration, which likes to blow and honk all over the place about justice and democracy to stall the very institution that is supposed to promote both by bringing to justice masterminds and instigators of wars and such, rather than henchmen of rank and file, this country has been involved in creation of the ICJ from the start (I believe it was a Canadian who has come up with the original idea). To sign this agreement now would be a huge aboutface in Canada's position, which will, without doubt affect its standing internationally. Is there a subtle and well planned out plot by the CPC to bring about a full turn in the Canada's international policy? So far, there have been already a few signs, can we say that they make a pattern: blowing the "war on terror" out of all imaginable proportions; unconditional support of Israel's "measured response" in Lebanon; abandoning Kyoto; this report.

There're lines that people who (consider themselves) acting on the side of law will never cross. E.g. police chasing dangerous criminals will never blow up two inhabited apartment buildings to smoke them out. Sorry that it requires explanation. And yeah, I now remember that the rules of American engagements are such that all morals, legalities, rules and conventions apply exclusively to their opponents (Hiroshima; Vietnam; Guantamo; Iraq; feel free to add to the list).

Sorry, Argus, you had a chance to respond with concrete arguments and chose not to. This avenue is closed.

Don't expect an answer.

You're using the same fallacious argument as the one we already discussed with Argus - assuming that someone's moral standing, or calculation, etc can serve as a meaningful justification of an overwise criminal action. It doesn't. You can phantacise all you want about millions of imaginary damage. The facts remain. ... Not much of an argument. There were, of course, options other than surrender or blow up cities full of civilians.

It should be only a logistical problem to let people "opt out" of certain programs - however how do we ensure they won't try to get back in if / when personal situation changes?

OK, is there another, more reliable source of information that can prove otherwise (i.e. that people in question were a significant minority or maybe even a majority) before British occupation?

FYI (Rue in particular): BBC had a site with detailed information on the history of Middle East conflict. Google search must find it in a flash. Please consult it (BBC being a respectable source of information) for the factual background on the recent history of the region. BTW it does mention that prior to British occupation of the area in the early 1900 and massive Jewish immigration that followed, Jewish people were an insignificant minority in the area (around 10% if I recall it correctly).

Actually, even though it happened 60 years ago, no one has ever admitted that it was wrong (am I mistaken here)? No one ever apologised. So, it's still a valid example. Here's an interesting parallel: Japan has never threatened the US proper, only it's interests in the Pacific. The war was fought on the islands thousands of miles from the american soil. Now compare these two figures (easily found on the net): 1) the number of american military casualties in Pearl Harbour; 2) the number of civilian deaths in the two cities (Hiroshima & Nagasaki). Talk about maximization. And compare it with the recent compaign in Lebanon by Israel (and it's staunch support by the US) . Looks like not much has changed in 60 years. Here's another one: the two cities had 0 military value; both had large civilian population. Deliberate and intentional attempt to cause mass civilian casualties with a purpose of achieving political goal ... does it reminds us of something? some definition? Maybe, Bin Laden and the bunch, they're just learning from their teachers?

I agree with the assessment about the SC. It's very much lost its legitimacy in the eyes of many and now serves exclusively as a power trading club. Even if it were to be extended now (which in itself may take close to forever given all the underlying power currents), without a trasparent and legitimate framework of delegation, it's bound to have the same problems. On the UN as a whole though, I'd give it a benefit of doubt: there's a benefit in having a place to talk, even for the sake of it (after all, these were the origins of the "Parliament").