Stan187

Your words are wise. I just don't want those people who use this board for information read the garbage he's posting with no response and take it as truth. But you are indeed right.

gunnut

At least I agree with you that UN resolutions are worthless.

Uh...no. The partition was to divide the land 50/50 between Jews and Arabs. The minute this happened, 6 neighboring Arab nations declared war on the state of Israel. After this war, Israel won additional territory from the Arabs. In fact the Arabs lost half of the Palestinian land to Israel. The remainder, Golan Heights was occupied by Syria, and Sinai went to Egypt. These Arab neighbors lost Palestinian land to Israel and then gobbled up the remainder. Then directed their victims to Israel!!!

Tell that to the Arabs who declared war the day after the proposal passed. They didn't waste much time talking in the UN.

The Arabs forced their hand.

Taking land by conquering is historically fair and square. If the Arabs can, they'd do the same to Israel. In fact they tried that in 1948, and failed miserably.

The Israelis have no problem with Arabs living amongst them. It's the Arabs who want to kill them by blowing themselves up at their restaurants and cafes they have a problem with. The indigenous people were not expelled for no good reason at all. They were expelled because they want to blow themselves up and taking other people too.

Ethnic cleansing? By the Israelis? They sure are doing a horrible job at it. The Palestinians are still there, killing not only the Jews but themselves as well.

I have a piece of paper saying that I live here legally. This piece of paper is recogniced by over 180 nation states in the world as well as the UN. Of course your opinion matters more than those blowhards. So I will concede. I occupy the US illegally as decreed by Yirmeyahu.

I totally agree. Thus I condemn the attacks perpetrated by the Arabs against Isreal in 1948, designed to take their land; the attacks against Israel in 1967, designed to take their land; and the attacks against Israel in 1973, designed to take their land.

Think of it as a game, a poker match if you will. They played a game using land as collateral. Win, and take land from the Jews. Lose, cede land to the Jews. They lost.

Do you sit down at a blackjack table, wager, play, lose, and then complain about it? The rules are clearly stated in warfare. They knew the risks. They understood the game. They lose. You complain.

__________________
"Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

Stan187

Although sometimes, I wish Israel would just use the exact same moral standards as her enemies. All these land dispute problems would be solved in a coupla quick months.

Yirmeyahu

Stan187,

I fail to see how there is any "contradiction" in any of those statements. You posted some statements and claimed they were "contradictory" but made no effort to explain or demonstrate why you think this is so.

gunnut,

I didn't say UN resolutions are "worthless". I observed that General Assembly resolutions are not legally binding. They are reflections of the international consensus.

That is incorrect. It is as I said. However, assuming you were correct, it would still be a disproportionate offer for Arabs, the majority population.

It is historically a crime. Under international law, it is a crime to take territory through the use of force. Hence UN resolution 242 of 1967, recognizing the inadmissability of the acquisition of territory through war and calling upon Israel to withdraw from the illegally occupied territories.

That's correct. That's hardly controversial.

I've made it quite clear that I don't believe any such thing. Applying your own logic leads inevitably to this conclusion. Needless to say, I don't agree with the conclusion, having recognized the fallacy of the logic.

johntay

Yirmeyahu on the founding of Israel:

Quote:
"There was nothing "fair and square" about it, but I'm sure you know that. Indigenous people were forcibly expelled from their land, or worse, killed. Treaty after treaty was broken. The nation was founded by ethnic cleansing."

Sounds like an awfully familiar way of founding a country to me...

Yirmeyahu, you sound like a fairly bright fellow, think about this for a moment.

"If" the USA had been founded using these same methods, would you also say that it is an illegal state that has no right to exist because it killed a great many Indigenous people and is currently occupying what used to be the land of the vanquished people?

Would you, if you were a citizen of this "Hypothetical" USA, consider yourself an illegal occupier of the land of the natives?

Do you apply this label of illegality to all prosperous democratic nations built over the dust of vanquished native populations, or do you only reserve this kind of labelling for Israel?

As far as I am concerned, might is right. The Jews came and they fought for the land and they conquered. If the Palestinians can conquer back the land from the Israelis, then kudos to them. If they can't then too bad for them, they don't deserve the land. But frankly, seeing as how the Israelis are at least democratic and civilized and that they've actually developed the country, I think they deserve it more than those whiny Arabs.

astralis

johntay,

while yirmey's stance is error filled, there is also something funny/ironic in this statement. "might makes right" does not fit in a modern democratic society...because it is by definition antiethical to what democracy stands for.

by that standard, why don't you say kudos to the nazis for conquering western europe?

__________________
Never let the future disturb you. You will meet it, if you have to, with the same weapons of reason which today arm you against the present.

-Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

Yirmeyahu

johntay,

If you are unfamiliar with the ethnic cleansing of the indigenous population of North America by its European conquestors, I can only suggest you do a little research. It's not a history that's too difficult to find.

As for the "right to exist", it's a meaningless phrase. No state has the "right to exist", irregardless of whether or not they were founded by means of ethnic cleansing.

People have the right to self-determination. That is the proper framework for discussiong the "rights" of nations to "exist".

That is the right denied to the Palestinians, just as it was denied to the indegenous inhabitants of North America by its white conquestors.

You say you believe "might is right". By that moral standard, the Nazis were "right" in committing the Holocaust because they had the "might" to do so. "Might is right" is an amoral philosophy, rejected by any reasonable person accepting even the most elementary moral truisms.

astralis,

If you believe I've made any error in fact or logic, please show me where and demonstrate or explain why you believe this is so.

Shek

Yirmey,

Once again, you state that cluster munitions are prohibited by the spirit of the law, and yet you provide no case law to back up your position. Also, the only attempt you've made to state that cluster munitions are prohibited is in the urban/populated scenario.

Next, you cite Article 51 of Protocol I (which addresses the issue only in the context of civilian populations); however, your reading fails to address the concepts of military necessity and proportionality, both of which are clearly embedded in that same article. These principles are time honored principles in just war theory - this protocol allows for civilian casualties to occur based on military necessity coupled with proportionality. This is a case by case basis - once again, you have failed to present a case that these principles were violated by Israel in Lebanon, although they were clearly violated by Hizbollah. So, until you bring some facts to the table, unless you believe in "guilty until proven innocent," your case is nothing but an unproven assertion.

__________________
"So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3

Bluesman

Just like always.

shek, why do you do this to yourself?

__________________
"The quickest way of ending a war is to lose it, and if one finds the prospect of a long war intolerable, it is natural to disbelieve in the possibility of victory."
- George Orwell

Stan187

Where did you get that idea? From statements like these?


Its hardly controversial to Osama BinLanden and terrorist sympathizers like you perhaps.


This much of what you say is true:

Yirmeyahu

shek

One needn't cite case law to recognize the spirit of the law. I'm not arguing the letter of the law. If I were, I'd cite case law. I've already stated that there is no law explicitly outlawing cluster munitions. However, the spirit of existing law is unambiguous. Indiscriminate warfare is forbidden. Using cluster munitions in populated areas is inherently indiscriminate warfare. Landmines are forbidden as indiscriminate weapons. Unexploded cluster munitions become de facto landmines.

We know Israel used cluster munitions. You've already acknowledged that Israel used cluster munitions.

As for military necessity and proportionality, the burden is upon Israel to demonstrate that their attacks met the requirements under international law, including Article 51 of Geneva Protocol I. Until Israel does so, their case is nothing but an unproven assertion.

Stan187

Add Israeli historian Benny Morris to that list.

Shek

Yirmey,

1. Case law is not required for the letter of the law, because the letter of the law is clear. Case law provides examples of where the intent/spirit of a law is unclear through the letter of the law, and thus, case law cuts through the intent and defines the spirit that hasn't been captured by the letter. Thus, case law is required to prove your case about the spirit of the law. You have not done so, and appear to either be unwilling or unable to do so.

2. As far as the burden of proving military necessity and proportionality, can you show where this is explicitly a burden for the attacker? I've seen where HRW claims that it should be the attacker's burden, but their desires are not international law. Care to show where this is the attacker's burden?

Yirmeyahu

shek,

Upon which point do you challenge my statement?

I said indiscriminate warfare is forbidden under international law. Do you disagree?

I said using cluster munitions in populated areas is inherently indiscrimiante warfare. Do you disagree?

I said Landmins are forbidden as indiscrimiante weapons. Do you disagree?

I said unexploded munitions become de facto landmines. Do you disagree?

As for military necessity and proportionality, the burden is upon Israel to demonstrate that their attacks met the requirements under international law, including Article 51 of Geneva Protocol I.

That's an elementary moral and legal truism.

Say Joe goes to John and beats his face in. The police arrive on the scene. Must John prove that Joe did what he did without justification? Or is it rather up to Joe to demonstrate that what he did was necessary for his own self-defense?

It's the most elementary of principles.

Stan187

As was already established by Shek, unless we are working with a "guilty until proven innocent" logic, the burded of proof is on you. We are waiting.

gunnut

Hardly. UN votes are bought and sold on the international market like oil and gold.


I am unfamiliar with the population distribution of that area in 1947 so I cannot comment.

Nope. It's legal until you lose the war. Land is conquered and reconquered throughout history. Want to complain about it? Win some wars.

But don't you agree that if the Israelis are really into the ethnic cleansing business they could do a much better job at it than to have their victims lobbing rockets over and blowing themselves up at their shopping malls and cafes?

I laid out my logic. You don't agree.