bush_cheney2004 Posted July 14, 2011 Report Share Posted July 14, 2011 which of these 'almost all countries' have been occupying and annexing another group of people's land for over 40 years? which country has created an illegal blockade which even the red cross has called a clear violation of international humanitarian law? which of these countries have been receiving both political and economic support from western countries? China? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted July 14, 2011 Report Share Posted July 14, 2011 Why are these countries viewed as 'idiotic examples' by you? Weve been over this in the 50 other threads this moronic example was kicked around. The biggest thing is representation. The territories you mention, and the people in them are not stateless. They can participate in the governments that are excersizing sovereignty over them. First theres the simple CLAIM of sovereignty. Israel does not even claim Gaza and most of the west bank as its territory... If you asked Israel to excersize a full sovereign claim to that land and its inhabitants, they would tell you to go fuck yourself. No nation is going to want to absorb a large population of people in poverty. Israel wont claim the land for the same reason Jordan, and Egypt arent interested. So these are really apples and oranges comparisons. Israel has no interest in providing full civil administration over those areas and the people that live there. Then of course the obvious "two wrongs make a right" fallacy that even a kindergarten student should be able to recognize. Even if other countries DID get away with aquiring territory in a way that violates international law, that doesnt not in any way mean that its ok to allow that kind of thing to continue. But again... the biggest thing is this tripe about Israel "giving back territory". Because Israel is not even asserting ownership of it. They dont have to give anyone anything... its not theirs to give. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted July 14, 2011 Report Share Posted July 14, 2011 China? India? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted July 14, 2011 Report Share Posted July 14, 2011 China? Another stupid comparison. China excersizes a full sovereign claim over tibet, which is recognized by the majority of world governments... and it provides civil administration. Israel has no interest in asserting ownership of gaza, and the vast majority of the west bank. Makes you wonder what we are even talking about here. If they made such a claim they would have to absorb millions of angry poor folks... an extremely expensive endevour, and one that would open its policies up to be challenged in its own courts. There really is no other good comparison. In order to find one, you have to find a territory with a large population that no state asserts sovereignty over, that is being kept from creating a state of their own by a prolonged military occupation, by a country thats plundering the territory for resources. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted July 14, 2011 Report Share Posted July 14, 2011 Another stupid comparison. Tibet doesn't think so. China excersizes a full sovereign claim over tibet, which is recognized by the majority of world governments... and it provides civil administration. Go back and read the question. Israel has no interest in asserting ownership of gaza, and the vast majority of the west bank. Makes you wonder what we are even talking about here. If they made such a claim they would have to absorb millions of angry poor folks... an extremely expensive endevour, and one that would open its policies up to be challenged in its own courts. Because some genius told us it was all about access to water? There really is no other good comparison. In order to find one, you have to find a territory with a large population that no state asserts sovereignty over, that is being kept from creating a state of their own by a prolonged military occupation, by a country thats plundering the territory for resources. Why a large population? First Nations not big enough? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted July 14, 2011 Report Share Posted July 14, 2011 Tibet doesn't think so. Go back and read the question. Because some genius told us it was all about access to water? Why a large population? First Nations not big enough? Because some genius told us it was all about access to water? No because they have no interest in assimilating a large poor population. Once again... youre trying to provide justification for a claim of ownership by Israel that doesnt even exist. First Nations not big enough? Yup it is. The difference of course is that first nations people can vote in Canadian elections, and seek redress in Canadian courts. We assimilated their population... Israel cant do that because of their obsession with religious demographics. Israel wants to take the land and resources WITHOUT assimilating the population. Its a completely different circumstance. Tibet doesn't think so. If a majority of people in Tibet (or quebec) for that matter, want to seek independance then Id personally support them... it will be an uphill battle though because Chinas assertion of sovereignty is recognized by most of the world, and China is a regional superpower that isnt likely to just let em have a referendum then let them go. In any case thats a completely different question than what we have in the middle east, because the Palestinians arent trying to separate from any state... theres no state asserting sovereignty over them at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted July 14, 2011 Report Share Posted July 14, 2011 (edited) There really is no other good comparison. In order to find one, you have to find a territory with a large population that no state asserts sovereignty over, that is being kept from creating a state of their own by a prolonged military occupation, by a country thats plundering the territory for resources. In fact, to find a good comparison, it would be even harder. In addition to the above conditions, the territory and the people living on it would have had to have attacked the country in question half a dozen times in the last 60 or so years. If a majority of people in Tibet (or quebec) for that matter, want to seek independance then Id personally support them... it will be an uphill battle though because Chinas assertion of sovereignty is recognized by most of the world, and China is a regional superpower that isnt likely to just let em have a referendum then let them go. By the way, "asserting sovereignty" over something can happen a lot of ways. A brutal regime of military control, forced assimilation and conformity, and extermination of dissenters, is one way. You know, the way China asserted sovereignty over a good chunk of its provinces. If Israel's killed just 1/10th as many people as China did, it would have no trouble assimilating the remaining ones, after all. Somehow, I don't think Israel's critics would be too thrilled if it tried to "assert sovereignty" in this way. Edited July 14, 2011 by Bonam Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bloodyminded Posted July 14, 2011 Report Share Posted July 14, 2011 So they agree with me. They may feel it is a violation of humanitarian law, they may feel many things...as a non judicial body, they are quite free to feel...but to enforce...judicate ...they feel they can't. ...but the blockade itself conforms with every article of the treaty. No it doesn't...not according to your own citation. That's why you included the little smiley faces. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted July 14, 2011 Report Share Posted July 14, 2011 (edited) Weve been over this in the 50 other threads this moronic example was kicked around. The biggest thing is representation. The territories you mention, and the people in them are not stateless. They can participate in the governments that are excersizing sovereignty over them. The Germans in Prussia and Pomeriania were removed from their homes. They no longer live there. Poles were moved in...city names changed...cultures erased. First theres the simple CLAIM of sovereignty. Israel does not even claim Gaza and most of the west bank as its territory... If you asked Israel to excersize a full sovereign claim to that land and its inhabitants, they would tell you to go fuck yourself. No nation is going to want to absorb a large population of people in poverty. Israel wont claim the land for the same reason Jordan, and Egypt arent interested. These refugees should have been absorbed by the surrounding Arab states rather than being officially ostracized by their fellow combatants. The world would have been a much nicer place. The Israelis did it with all the Jews ethnically cleansed from the so-called 'Muslim World'. So these are really apples and oranges comparisons. Israel has no interest in providing full civil administration over those areas and the people that live there. Really? I'd hazard that you know little to nothing of Israel's official plans and intentions for anything. Then of course the obvious "two wrongs make a right" fallacy that even a kindergarten student should be able to recognize. Even if other countries DID get away with aquiring territory in a way that violates international law, that doesnt not in any way mean that its ok to allow that kind of thing to continue. Germany losing its territory was wrong, eh? So you would have rewarded Germany for WW2 in the same manner as you'd like to reward the Arabs for starting a war? As for allowing things to continue: what about South Viet-Nam...last heard from in 1975...several years after your precious, Jew specific, UN 242? Or is that also a moronic comparison as it doesn't suit your agenda? But again... the biggest thing is this tripe about Israel "giving back territory". Because Israel is not even asserting ownership of it. They dont have to give anyone anything... its not theirs to give. Apparently it is...just as it was Jordan's/Egypt's to do with what they wished when they held it. In that case it was to not give the "Palestinian Arabs" diddly. Edited July 14, 2011 by DogOnPorch Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted July 14, 2011 Report Share Posted July 14, 2011 ...Yup it is. The difference of course is that first nations people can vote in Canadian elections, and seek redress in Canadian courts. We assimilated their population... Israel cant do that because of their obsession with religious demographics. The difference is academic, as underlying land and resource disputes remain. Arabs have been offered citizenship in Israel, and can vote in elections if that be your measure of "assimilation". Many Arabs/Palestinians reject Israeli citizenship because it would explicitly recognize Israel as a sovereign state. A direct, on point comparison is just a diversion from the practical aspects of occupation and state security, not terribly different from that experienced in North America. Israel is in "good" company by that measure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saipan Posted August 11, 2011 Report Share Posted August 11, 2011 (edited) dre: If a majority of people in Tibet want to seek independance then Id personally support them... But they don't of course. The Communist China state television clearly show they are very happy there under the occupation it will be an uphill battle though because Chinas assertion of sovereignty is recognized by most of the world The whole world recognized Soviet Union far more than China's occupation of Tibet as "legitimate". Where's is Soviet Union now? Edited August 11, 2011 by Saipan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted August 6, 2014 Author Report Share Posted August 6, 2014 But they don't of course. The Communist China state television clearly show they are very happy there under the occupation (regarding Tibet) The whole world recognized Soviet Union far more than China's occupation of Tibet as "legitimate". Where's is Soviet Union now? Apparently these outrages are secondary to Israel's collateral damage in trying to exist (link). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.