Figleaf

[fe.

It may be relevant to add around #3 or 4 that a plan for a two state partition of the area had been propounded in the UN by western states.

But they are decidedly not 'both equally cursed'. One side today lives under the boot-heel of the other. FOUL!

I look forward to it.

What is relevant in this issue is the rules of modern international law currently prevailing. The political conditions of pre-modern ethnic clusters, city-states, empires, or petty potentates are of no concern. In terms of modern international law, the period of policital relevance begins with the League of Nations Mandate held by the British. At this point the British held international authority for the region, but were not successors of any prior state. Any and all prior sovereignties in the region were extinguished.

.

What (if they exist) about them? What bearing would it have on any of my arguments here?

The poll asks the wrong question: 'Should he be allowed to develop an nuclear weapon?' Right now, as a signatory of the Non-proliferation treaty, Iran IS NOT allowed to develop a nuclear weapon. However, the fact is that on three months notice signatories can withdraw from the Non-proliferation treaty. If he does this, then he IS ALLOWED to develop a nuclear weapon.

p

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Liberty_incident

It sounds like you have no interest whatsoever in acheiving an agreed peace of any kind. If you won't acknowledge the source point of the dispute, any attempt at a discussion based on reason is out the window, isn't it? Does that mean fair compensation from the Arab states to all Jews forced to leave their homes, and compensation to Israel for the military attacks on it by Arab states, and compensation to Israel for the security costs due to terrorism funded by Arab states, and compensation to the families of Israelis murdered by terrorists funded by Arab governments? I'd say the principles of compensation ought to be applied equally to all participants, so: -Jews forced to leave homes - yes -attacks on Israel by Arab states - yes, for 1948, 1956, 1973. -security costs - no -murdered by terrorists funded by Arab governments - yes, on case by case basis for killings outside the scope of 'fair' warfare. Personally, I think the solution on Jerusalem would be something like this: -city declared heritage of all humanity and put under governance of a UN Security Council sub-committee. -said subcommittee appoints Israel the administrator and security protector of the city for 50 or 100 years, subject to subcommittee's broad policies. -both Israel and the Palestinian state permitted to make Jerusalem their ceremonial capital, provided that they maintain an administrative capital in another city.

[

l

What utter nonsense! Urging Palestinians to flee was: (1) reasonable, given the expulsion activities being carried out by Isreali forces, and (2) in no way the cause of the confiscation and continuing exclusion of these people. Arab states' not signing a peace deal with Israel is because there has been no redress for the Palestinians. You need to keep the concept of cause and effect more clear in your head, it seems. No states' have any obligation to accept masses of refugees as citizens. But hey, where are these refugees from, anyway? Israel/Occupied Palestine, right? Your comments are absolutely selective so its not suprising you would try get personal with me and refer to what I said as nonsense. It was Argus's post. The remainder of your post is fantastical and repetitive drivel, already amply refuted on this thread.

bye

homey don't play this

I don't know how you can ignore the issue that it was somebody elses' land.

I don't regard the BBC as being a respectable source of information on the Arab-Israeli dispute. I regard the BBC as foresquare and unapologetically on the side of the Palestinians and with no moral or ethical problems with slanting stories so as to make Israel look bad and the Arabs look good - or at least, better. But wouldn't you say the same of anyone who doesn't accept foursquare the Bush/Likud worldview?

What utter nonsense! Urging Palestinians to flee was: (1) reasonable, given the expulsion activities being carried out by Isreali forces, and (2) in no way the cause of the confiscation and continuing exclusion of these people. Arab states' not signing a peace deal with Israel is because there has been no redress for the Palestinians. You need to keep the concept of cause and effect more clear in your head, it seems. No states' have any obligation to accept masses of refugees as citizens. But hey, where are these refugees from, anyway? Israel/Occupied Palestine, right?

Oh please.

l

So, near London Ontario there is a massive landfill site, owned by a family business. A legal, legitimate, operating business that the city of London Ontario has no problem with. Then one day, the family dump is bought by another organization, the City of Toronto. This organization plans to continue using the dump as a dump. But suddenly, the City of London Ontario has a problem with the dump. The only difference is the owner. So what gives with London? Why are they being such goofs?

In retrospect, one begins to notice a persistence of troubling problems arising from and within the RCMP. Here is a beginning of a list of things from recent memory. Does this constitute a troubling pattern? -APEC pepperspray attack -Maher Arar torture rendition -Kafkaesque investigation of reporter Juliet O'Neill -abortive, but destructive sniffing around Ontario Minister Greg Sorbarra -two recent incidents of gun-toting rural nutcases getting the drop on officers in questionable circumstances -convenient release of politically damaging letter vs. Ralph Goodale in the middle of the election -blundering investigation of Mulroney's Airbus dealings -failure of the Air India case -mysterious deaths in RCMP custody (e.g. Ian Bush, Paul Alphonse) - ...?

i'm sorry i wasted so much of my time in a crap hell like mapleleafweb.

That anyone disagrees with you. True. They saw no basis for creating implanting a Western-sponsored 'jewish state' in their midst, especially since the territory was already in use by someone else. De facto borders are also called occupations, depending on what side of it you look at. In any event, the UN had proposed borders for the state of Israel in 1948. If Israel wishes to have cover of the UN in its establishment, then those are the borders that are relevant. (Of course, Israel declared itself a state in 1947, just a short while before the UN got around to it.) In any event, these 'de facto' boarders of Israel have been challenged continuously since its foundation. This passage clearly indicates you have no proper understanding of what you are talking about. The 'Arab League of Nations' has no sovereign status under international law and thus cannot go to war against anyone. If you mean to refer to member states of the Arab League, you should say that, for precision. Whatever advice or warnings the Arab League may have given Palestinians is irrelevant to the issue. What is relevant is that Israelis did conduct expulsion operations. Crap. It had no legal obligation, and any supposed moral obligations are not the issue. Why is that ironic, exactly? Hezbollah has no legal status to represent Palestinians. It is a political party in Lebanon. Hamas is a political party in Palestine and has won the majority of seats in the Palestinian legislative assembly in an election generally recognized as fair. They have whatever legal rights are accorded to them in the sovereign territories in which they are at any given time. It's important to remember that the UN is just a club composed of member countries. It has little ambit for action or blame apart from whatever its members make of it. That is utterly silly. The Arab league didn't establish an unwelcome state on their land. It didn't fail to complete its two state promise. It didn't force them off their lands and deny them the right to return to them. It didn't militarily occupy them and settle it's people on their lands. You make absolutely no sense whatsoever. Yes, it's quite a legacy, isn't it. Maybe it should make a just peace, then. What other options?