Fighting Un-Conventional Wars

[Rue]

Do you really not understand the difference between private purchise of land and its nationality, or deliberately trying to confuse by constantly pulling in the Jewish card?

When anyone buys land that is a part of an Arab state it still remains a part of that state. Israeli troops have nothing to do there and Israeli politicians can't claim it as the "facts on the ground".

This position is very funny and is not very credible to the people from outside the conflict like myself. One one hand, you want to use selected pre-1948 facts to justify Israeli presence on the lands which were allocated to arabs as part of separation. With the other hand though you want to ignore the fact that Jewish population was in significant minority in the territories not long before it. You can have one of the two but not both: either revisit the entire history, and situation pre-1948, which would, among others, raise questions about legitimacy of creation of Israel; or accept 1948 as the starting point in all discussions. You seem to want to have it both ways: Isreal in current borders plus whatever pre-1948 justifications you can find for grabbing extra land. To me, that does not appear as just or credible or reasonable position in this conflict.

Myata you are completely incorrect in your analysis but please don't let me stop you from the usual b.s. lecture on land. Your facts are completely wrong. You should try read history before you revise it.

There was NO Palestinian state prior to Israel. Once and for all read history before you talk about it as if you are an expert.

The area known as Palestine prior to Israel was not a state and was never a state.

The creation of Israel was legal and it is a legal state. You can try twist and dance your way around that but international law is what it is and Israel as a soverign state is legitimate.

More to the point Myata if you had the slightest clue as to the origins of the current issue you would understand that Jordan sits on 85% of what was then Palestine and has always contained the vast majority of Palestinians, but Jordan was a country created by the British when they broke their promise to the League fo Nations and misappropriated the vast majority of Palestine for Transjordan so they could set up a puppet state. You seem to skip over that completely. As well the countries of Syria and Lebanon were created by the French.

If one is to be accurate and understand history without the usual anti-Israel bias, they would unlike you, understand that Jordan, Syria and Lebanon are artificial borders created by the British and French.

As for Israel, why don't you go back and read what Britain's mandate was supposed to be on behalf of the League of Nations when they set up Transjordan.

Next, put up or shut up. Please refer to the expropriations you are talking about.

While you are at it look up de facto possession and what that means in international law.

[betsy]

"US for suspecting that Iraq has the weapons made other nations think twice before they stubbornly proceed to do so"

Have you heard of North Korea??? Iran who is clearly going to walk the same road.

Oh, I forgot! The UN! The laughable, pathetic, hypocritical, dithering, corrupt, biased UN!

Include the UN....to the various factors that gave other rogue states like Iran and North Korea to get bolder.

[betsy]

I find it highly unlikely that Bush's public opinion was the determiner for Iran and North Korea. Either way it still stands that Iraq was not a significant deterance.

Well I'd say that the pressure on Bush due to Americans turning from his policy....plus the continued global display of hate towards him were taken into great consideration by both rogue states...and calculatingly used it to "test" the water again. Had the Americans unitedly stood behind their president, and showed a united strong America come hell or high water (including shoving the UN aside)....I don't think North Korea or Iran will be daring enough. Bush had already shown he doesn't need the approval of the UN.

All he needed was the rally of his own citizens behind him!

One thing sure though, so far there hasn't been any attack on US soil after 9/11. Iraq proved a significant deterrence enough.

[Higgly]

Today on tv, they showed a footage of a large group of Palestinian women in their traditional burqua apparently shielding and hiding gunmen from Israeli soldiers. The Israeli soldiers open fired....two women were killed.

Civilians do not have to be excluded from the fight....if they are participants in the war. That includes children as well. I think it's fair.

I cannot find the topic on Geneva Conventions....so let me say it here that I think, the Geneva Conventions Rules ought to be revised.

Palestinian women do not wear the Burqa. Do you know what one looks like Betsey? Please provide a link to a pic of what you think is a burqa and then a link to a picture of someone you think is a Palestinian woman.

I am not surpised you would think the Geneva convention rules need to be revised since you are an Israel supporter and Israel has never adopted the Geneva conventions. How can you revise something you never agreed to in the first place? You do not have a seat at the table, Betsy.

[Higgly]

forcefully appropriated

Forcefully? Is that what they buying land...or only land bought by jews?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4872938.stm

http://www.jewishpublicaffairs.org/israel/...law-7-5-01.html

This is not a civics class and you are not our professor. Summarize your research. Why do you expect us to read your sources?

[Higgly]

One example is not plural for ... , you know it. Most of West bank settlements (all?) are built on illegally expropriated land.

And then, what's the meaning of "buy"? If the land is illegally occupied, international law does not allow "buying" and settling it, so it's really all bs.

Exactly. It makes no difference if Israel has agreed to the Geneva conventions or not. It is time to tell Israel that these are the rules of the road, and it is time to stop driving on the shoulder.

What is sauce for the Shias is sauce for the Jews.

[Higgly]

One example is not plural for ... and you know it. Most of West bank settlements (all?) are built on illegally expropriated land.

If it was expropriated, how couold it be illegal.....esecially considering numerous sites in the west bank ...and Hebron have been owned by Jews for generations......

It is illegal because the Geneva conventions require an occupying power to honour the exigent land registry.

[Higgly]

"The terrorists of today do not follow the Geneva Conventions!"

Neither do the Isra-aylies. Does this make them terrorists?

[Higgly]

Your analogy is defective. Your analogy would be correct or accurate, if those settlers engage in terrorist acts.

In fact they have. The settlers are armed with AK-47s and Uzis. From their positions in settlements on hills overlooking Palestinian farms, they have murdered Palestinian farmers in their olive groves on a number of occasions. How many have been brought to justice?

[Higgly]

Because in the end, the ways of all life, lead to one simple rule: survival!

At last. Common ground.

[bradco]

"The terrorists of today do not follow the Geneva Conventions!"

Neither do the Isra-aylies. Does this make them terrorists?

Israel does a better job at following the Geneva Conventions than the terrorists. At least Israel recognizes them and does follow them as far as they believe they can in their own national security interests. The terrorists wipe their asses with the Geneva Convention or probably, dont even know that it exists.

[Higgly]

I saw the footage again. More detailed, this time.

Apparently those women heard the gunmen on the radio asking for help. So these women rushed to help and shield them...and they even provided extra burquas SO THE GUNMEN CAN DISGUISE THEMSELVES AS WOMEN.

See the implication in this? What this entails?

DO NOT ASSUME EVERYONE WEARING BURQUAS ARE WOMEN!

Palestinian women do not wear burqas Betsey. Get your facts straight.

[Higgly]

It all boils down to the law of survival, isn't it?

Survival of your comrades.

Survival of your platoon.

Survival of your battalion.

Survival of your own people.

Survival of your nation.

Survival of your way of life!

Wow. Just wow.

[Higgly]

But can you actually destroy terrorism by engaging in terrorism? To defeat terrorism is a long term battle where you need to prove your way of life and your values are superior. How can you do this if you resort to terrorist values right away?

Why, have we fought terrorism before?

You don't know any more than I do...I think. So can you explain why you're so sure that's the best way to go?

Besides, you seem to be confused.... equating fighting back with acts of terrorism?

So now, when you hit back....that's now defined as terrorism?"

Too bad Nasser is gone. He could give you a good argument here. How would you feel about going to a movie or dropping a letter in a mail box if you had to worry about an Israeli terrorist blowing you up? How would you feel about staying in the King David Hotel if you had to worry about Itzhak Shamir blowing you up?

Your hands are not clean Betsy.

[Rue]

Your analogy is defective. Your analogy would be correct or accurate, if those settlers engage in terrorist acts.

In fact they have. The settlers are armed with AK-47s and Uzis. From their positions in settlements on hills overlooking Palestinian farms, they have murdered Palestinian farmers in their olive groves on a number of occasions. How many have been brought to justice?

Higgly once again put up or shut up. Specifically indicate the murders you are referring to.

Your comments are a fabrication-I insist you provide specific examples of these murders .

You wouldn't ask the question how many have been brought to justice if this was true.

No one doubts the presence of Israeli settlers in the West Bank are an obstacle to peace but you trying to paint this as a one sided invasion of the West Bank is absolute b.s.

For that matter, I would suggest before you lecture anyone on the status of the West Bank, you understand that legally the West Bank belongs to no one. It does not belong to Jordan, Palestinians, Israel, Turkey, etc. It has no status so your legal analysis is b.s. No one Palestinian, Jew, Arab, Christian, what-ever has a

legal right to it yet. This is what is under dispute and has to be settled.

Under international law, it belongs to no one.

It was illegally annexed by Jordan from 1949 to 1967 and since 1967, Israel under inernational law, had the right to annex it as a defence to terrorist attacks being launched from it into Israel proper.

The fact is it needs to be part of the Palestine state, but for that to come about, The Arab League and in particular Jordan have to agree to that and they have to be able to prevent Hamas, Hezbollah and other terrorist factions from using it to launch terrorist attacks.

You can pretend all you want Israeli settlers are killing Palestinians but that is absolute b.s. The fact is many of these evil Israeli settlers have also ben killed.

It is not the one sided episode you paint it as.

[bradco]

"US for suspecting that Iraq has the weapons made other nations think twice before they stubbornly proceed to do so"

Have you heard of North Korea??? Iran who is clearly going to walk the same road.

Oh, I forgot! The UN! The laughable, pathetic, hypocritical, dithering, corrupt, biased UN!

Include the UN....to the various factors that gave other rogue states like Iran and North Korea to get bolder.

Iran and North Korea are encouraged to go nuclear in response to perceived threats to their security. It is the US that is viewed mainly as this threat. It has nothing to do with the UN. You can demolish the UN and the same threats to Iran and North Korea will still exist and still convince them to go nuclear. Either way the UN is nothing more than an institution. An institution is not responsible for anything...only its members are.

Cant resist commenting on your calling the UN biased. You do realize it is completely biased to western interests right? Who has the veto? Not Iran thats for sure. The problem is people who have no clue as to how the UN operates and its rules get all worked up when dictators take the podium in the General Assembly. Their doing so does nothing...their being included does nothing...all the power rests with the permanent members of the SC. Geez scan the audience when these guys make their speeches...or even when Bush or Martin or Harper make theirs. Nobody is in the room besides a few interns taking notes. The real diplomacy and power is busy occuring at the fancy restaurants down the street.

You better look up the definition of "rogue state" in political science discourse. What your are effectively arguing for consistantly in this thread is to make Iran and North Korea not rogue states by changing the laws and norms that they refuse to follow. You argue for changing international laws and norms to match those of terrorists and the current rogue states which results in the current rogue states being the norm and no longer rogue. What you argue for is western ideals to become "rogue"

[Higgly]

Your analogy is defective. Your analogy would be correct or accurate, if those settlers engage in terrorist acts.

In fact they have. The settlers are armed with AK-47s and Uzis. From their positions in settlements on hills overlooking Palestinian farms, they have murdered Palestinian farmers in their olive groves on a number of occasions. How many have been brought to justice?

Higgly once again put up or shut up. Specifically indicate the murders you are referring to.

Your comments are a fabrication-I insist you provide specific examples of these murders .

You wouldn't ask the question how many have been brought to justice if this was true.

No one doubts the presence of Israeli settlers in the West Bank are an obstacle to peace but you trying to paint this as a one sided invasion of the West Bank is absolute b.s.

For that matter, I would suggest before you lecture anyone on the status of the West Bank, you understand that legally the West Bank belongs to no one. It does not belong to Jordan, Palestinians, Israel, Turkey, etc. It has no status so your legal analysis is b.s. No one Palestinian, Jew, Arab, Christian, what-ever has a

legal right to it yet. This is what is under dispute and has to be settled.

Under international law, it belongs to no one.

It was illegally annexed by Jordan from 1949 to 1967 and since 1967, Israel under inernational law, had the right to annex it as a defence to terrorist attacks being launched from it into Israel proper.

The fact is it needs to be part of the Palestine state, but for that to come about, The Arab League and in particular Jordan have to agree to that and they have to be able to prevent Hamas, Hezbollah and other terrorist factions from using it to launch terrorist attacks.

You can pretend all you want Israeli settlers are killing Palestinians but that is absolute b.s. The fact is many of these evil Israeli settlers have also ben killed.

It is not the one sided episode you paint it as.

The West Bank belongs those who held legal land titles under the Turks and Brits. The Geneva conventions demand that occupying powers respect the land registry. As for the murdering settlers do your own research.

[KrustyKidd]

You better look up the definition of "rogue state" in political science discourse. What your are effectively arguing for consistantly in this thread is to make Iran and North Korea not rogue states by changing the laws and norms that they refuse to follow. You argue for changing international laws and norms to match those of terrorists and the current rogue states which results in the current rogue states being the norm and no longer rogue. What you argue for is western ideals to become "rogue"

Bradco, not sure I understood this. Can you put it in another way please.

[betsy]

Today on tv, they showed a footage of a large group of Palestinian women in their traditional burqua apparently shielding and hiding gunmen from Israeli soldiers. The Israeli soldiers open fired....two women were killed.

Civilians do not have to be excluded from the fight....if they are participants in the war. That includes children as well. I think it's fair.

I cannot find the topic on Geneva Conventions....so let me say it here that I think, the Geneva Conventions Rules ought to be revised.

Palestinian women do not wear the Burqa. Do you know what one looks like Betsey? Please provide a link to a pic of what you think is a burqa and then a link to a picture of someone you think is a Palestinian woman.

I am not surpised you would think the Geneva convention rules need to be revised since you are an Israel supporter and Israel has never adopted the Geneva conventions. How can you revise something you never agreed to in the first place? You do not have a seat at the table, Betsy.

Whether it is a burqua or not, the news still stated that they had provided clothes for the men to disguise themselves as women. The point is still the same. Burqua, sack, 70's muu-muu...whatever they call it, it is!

Well I know I don't have a seat at the table....same as you. Unless seating at our dinner table.

I know this forum is like a...coffee table. We're all gathered with our latte or our tea or our beer and venting to our hearts' content!

We are discussing!

[betsy]

forcefully appropriated

Forcefully? Is that what they buying land...or only land bought by jews?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4872938.stm

http://www.jewishpublicaffairs.org/israel/...law-7-5-01.html

This is not a civics class and you are not our professor. Summarize your research. Why do you expect us to read your sources?

If you make a claim that can be refuted and /or you want to be taken seriously, you should provide something to back it up. Same as your "opponent."

You are not obliged to read their source...same as we are not obliged to read your source. However, if we do not...then we cannot really argue about it.

Reading provided sources is letting you know where the other is coming from. If you do not know that...then you've got no argument. You cannot refute or rebutt something you know nothing about.

[betsy]

But can you actually destroy terrorism by engaging in terrorism? To defeat terrorism is a long term battle where you need to prove your way of life and your values are superior. How can you do this if you resort to terrorist values right away?

Why, have we fought terrorism before?

You don't know any more than I do...I think. So can you explain why you're so sure that's the best way to go?

Besides, you seem to be confused.... equating fighting back with acts of terrorism?

So now, when you hit back....that's now defined as terrorism?"

Too bad Nasser is gone. He could give you a good argument here. How would you feel about going to a movie or dropping a letter in a mail box if you had to worry about an Israeli terrorist blowing you up? How would you feel about staying in the King David Hotel if you had to worry about Itzhak Shamir blowing you up?

Your hands are not clean Betsy.

No hands are clean in war, Higgly! And some bloody hands are not something to be ashamed of...or feel guilty about!

Gee, it's Remembrance Day...you forget already?

[betsy]

deleted. double post.

[betsy]

Too bad Nasser is gone. He could give you a good argument here. How would you feel about going to a movie or dropping a letter in a mail box if you had to worry about an Israeli terrorist blowing you up? How would you feel about staying in the King David Hotel if you had to worry about Itzhak Shamir blowing you up?

Your hands are not clean Betsy.

Nasser or not...my argument is still the same. What makes you think an Arab nationalist who abhors US policy can do better than your argument...or any other here who root for Palestine?

Oh I'd tell him exactly the same thing I'm telling you.

Nasser may probably twist his reasoning around but there's really no argument here. It's just plain common sense.

If the Palestinians had allowed themselves to be used like a wall...then they better be prepared to be treated...and be breached like a wall! If you assume the role of a shield...then be prepared to be knocked aside like a shield.

Shame on these terrorists for hiding behind children! And double shame for the parents of these children for letting that happen!

And what is most shameful are the hypocritical bleeding hearts shedding crocodile tears for these children!

If you really want to stop the slaughter of the innocents, then have the balls to point your fingers at Hamas and the people collaborating with Hamas. If not, then stop your whining and don't bother counting little bodies. Their own people don't think much of them.

[bradco]

You better look up the definition of "rogue state" in political science discourse. What your are effectively arguing for consistantly in this thread is to make Iran and North Korea not rogue states by changing the laws and norms that they refuse to follow. You argue for changing international laws and norms to match those of terrorists and the current rogue states which results in the current rogue states being the norm and no longer rogue. What you argue for is western ideals to become "rogue"

Bradco, not sure I understood this. Can you put it in another way please.

rogue state: a state that deviates from accepted international laws and norms. Ie: Iran and North Korea

accepted current laws include Geneva Conventions

if one argues that we, that is the "west", should abandon the laws (geneva conventions) that we mostly crafted following our values in favour of following the path of current rogue states such as Iran and North Korea, than we become like the rogue states

by abondoing current laws and norms developed and shaped by western values, it is western values that become "rogue", as following the current laws and norms would deviate from the "new" (really just those of the current rogue states) widely accepted norms and laws.

[betsy]

"Rogue state is a term applied by some international theorists to states considered threatening to the world's peace. This means meeting certain criteria such as being ruled by AUTHORITARIAN regimes severely restricting human rights, accused of SPONSORING terrorism, and SEEKING TO PROLIFERATE weapons of mass destruction.

In the last six months of the Clinton administration, the term "rogue state" was temporarily replaced with the term "state of concern," however, the Bush administration has returned to the earlier term. The U.S. government perceives the threat posed by these states as justifying its foreign policy and military initiatives, as in the case of anti-ballistic missile programs, which are held to be grounded in the concern that these states will not be deterred by the certainty of retaliation."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogue%5Fstate