Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 69

Thread: Deceptive progress with new proposals

  1. #31
    Senior Contributor Doktor's Avatar
    Join Date
    25 Aug 08
    Location
    Skopje, Macedonia
    Posts
    13,668
    Let me paraphrase...

    Why Palestinians only ask for the territories occupied by Israel? I remember Jordan, Syria and Egypt occupy vast majority of what was supposed to be Palestine in 1947. Better?
    No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

    To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

  2. #32
    Banned Patron
    Join Date
    25 Jun 11
    Posts
    213
    Quote Originally Posted by Doktor View Post
    Back to Israel's expansionism:

    Israel, Egypt and Syria sat and signed peace afterwards. Right?
    Israel has only ever ceded occupied land when forced to do so. They attacked Egypt in '56, but were forced to withdraw, largely by the US. The refused Egyptian attempts to negotiate withdrawal from the Sinai, refusals which led to the '73 war.


    Quote Originally Posted by Doktor View Post
    Have Egypt or Syria lost THEIR land? Have they asked Israel to bring them back the lost land? If Israel failed to give the lands back and was wrong to occupy the lands, was there a case against Israel in front of UN bodies? Is there a verdict?

    If the answer to any of the above is NO, my question is WHY?
    Israel tried to hang on to the Sinai, but a better-than-expected showing from the Egyptians in '73 made Israel rethink. It's worth noting that Egypt was not condemned for the '73 war for precisely this reason.

    Israel has a policy of colonising parts of the Golan Heights, which are recognised as Syrian territory, and yes, the UN has obviously had a thing or two to say about it.

  3. #33
    Banned Patron
    Join Date
    25 Jun 11
    Posts
    213
    Quote Originally Posted by Doktor View Post
    Why Palestinians only ask for the territories occupied by Israel? I remember Jordan, Syria and Egypt occupy vast majority of what was supposed to be Palestine in 1947. Better?
    Because they're Palestinians? And Palestine is occupied by Israel?

    It boils down to whether or not they have a right to self determination. If they do, they have a right to establish a state on their land. If they don't, well I guess this fuss is over nothing.
    Last edited by Dubitante; 13 Jul 11, at 09:12.

  4. #34
    Senior Contributor Doktor's Avatar
    Join Date
    25 Aug 08
    Location
    Skopje, Macedonia
    Posts
    13,668
    We are not understanding each other or you deliberately ignore my question?

    They have a right of self determination. It's everyone's right. In 2001 in New Zealand over 50,000 people declared as Jedi. Official state census data

    Why don't they establish their state on the territories under Jordan/Syrian/Egypt rule then claim the lands occupied by Israel?

    While Israel is good to be blamed if you are Arab/Palestinian, their brothers (so called) are not sincere in backing them up. Otherwise the mentioned states would give back the Palestinian lands they currently occupy and would recognize the new state at once, asking Israel to do the same. Then negotiations about the land occupied by Israel will start.

    YES, Israel occupies parts of what was supposed to be Palestine. I don't have problem admitting that. Think Benny doesn't have that problem either.
    No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

    To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

  5. #35
    Banned Patron
    Join Date
    25 Jun 11
    Posts
    213
    Quote Originally Posted by Doktor View Post
    We are not understanding each other or you deliberately ignore my question?
    I think I might not be understanding you.

    Quote Originally Posted by Doktor View Post
    Why don't they establish their state on the territories under Jordan/Syrian/Egypt rule then claim the lands occupied by Israel?
    Again, I'm still puzzled by the question. We accept the these people, the Palestinians, have an historic claim to the land which was under the former British Mandate, and a legal claim to a state of approximately the 67 lines. These people have no historic or legal claim to, say, Egypt. So how would they establish a state there?

    Quote Originally Posted by Doktor View Post
    While Israel is good to be blamed if you are Arab/Palestinian, their brothers (so called) are not sincere in backing them up. Otherwise the mentioned states would give back the Palestinian lands they currently occupy and would recognize the new state at once, asking Israel to do the same. Then negotiations about the land occupied by Israel will start.
    I'm still not with you. What Palestinian land are they occupying? Even Ben Gurion accepted that the Arabs of Palestine were culturally distinct from other Arabs, and were entitled to be treated so.

    "The right which the Arabs in Palestine have is one due to the inhabitants of any country . . . because they live here, and not because they are Arabs . . . The Arab inhabitants of Palestine should enjoy all the rights of citizens and all political rights, not only as individuals, but as a national community, just like the Jews."
    (Shabtai Teveth, p. 170)

  6. #36
    Senior Contributor Doktor's Avatar
    Join Date
    25 Aug 08
    Location
    Skopje, Macedonia
    Posts
    13,668
    Attachment 25617

    Is this a map of Palestine?

    I see vast land in what's today Jordan, some small parts in Egypt and maybe in Syria. We follow now?

    Why Jordan don't let them establish a state there? After all as a % it's more there then in Israel
    No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

    To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

  7. #37
    Banned Patron
    Join Date
    25 Jun 11
    Posts
    213
    Quote Originally Posted by Doktor View Post
    Is this a map of Palestine?
    No, actually it isn't. It's a map of the British Mandate of Palestine, which encompasses Palestine (to the West of the Jordan River) and Transjordan to the East of it. Transjordan became exempt from the policies regarding the "Jewish national home" in 1922.

    Maps such as the one you use are a common propaganda tool, but the area we call "Palestine" was always West of the river.



    Quote Originally Posted by Doktor View Post
    I see vast land in what's today Jordan, some small parts in Egypt and maybe in Syria. We follow now?

    Why Jordan don't let them establish a state there? After all as a % it's more there then in Israel
    The Arabs of Palestine are from Palestine, not Transjordan.

  8. #38
    Dirty Kiwi Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    10 Nov 04
    Location
    Wellington, Te Ika a Maui, Aotearoa
    Posts
    19,747
    Quote Originally Posted by Dubitante View Post
    Maps such as the one you use are a common propaganda tool, but the area we call "Palestine" was always West of the river.
    Well no, only since 1922

    http://208.84.118.121/pf_mandate_transjordan.php
    In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility

    Gottfried Leibniz

  9. #39
    Senior Contributor Doktor's Avatar
    Join Date
    25 Aug 08
    Location
    Skopje, Macedonia
    Posts
    13,668
    Noted.

    Now, again how is Israel being expansionist?

    You said UN had a word or two on attacking an ally to their enemy? Cite please

    Can you tell me in which year are we stopped? 1948, 1967, 1973?
    No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

    To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

  10. #40
    Dirty Kiwi Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    10 Nov 04
    Location
    Wellington, Te Ika a Maui, Aotearoa
    Posts
    19,747
    More on the British excising of Transjordan from the original territory of Palestine


    The Emirate of Transjordan (Arabic: إمارة شرق الأردن ʾImārat Sharq al-ʾUrdun) was a former Ottoman territory in the Southern Levant that was part of the British Mandate of Palestine. In 1921 it was excised from Palestine and became an autonomous political division under as-Sharif Abdullah bin al-Husayn:[1] "In a telegram to the Foreign Office summarizing the conclusions of the San Remo conference, the Foreign Secretary, Lord Curzon, stated: 'The boundaries will not be defined in Peace Treaty but are to be determined at a later date by principal Allied Powers.' When Herbert Samuel, High Commissioner of Palestine, set up the civil mandatory government in mid-1920 he was explicitly instructed by Curzon that his jurisdiction did not include Transjordan. Following the French occupation in Damascus in July 1920, the French, acting in accordance with their wartime agreements with Britain refrained from extending their rule south into Transjordan. That autumn Emir Faisal's brother, Abdullah, led a band of armed men north from the Hedjaz into Transjordan and threatened to attack Syria and vindicate the Hashemites' right to overlordship there. Samuel seized the opportunity to press the case for British control. He succeeded. In March 1921 the Colonial Secretary, Winston Churchill, visited the Middle East and endorsed an arrangement whereby Transjordan would be removed from the original territory of Palestine, with Abdullah as the emir under the authority of the High Commissioner, and with the condition that the Jewish National Home provisions of the (future) Palestine mandate would not apply there. Effectively, this removed about 78% of the original territory of Palestine and left about 22% where the application of the Balfour Declaration calling for a "Jewish" national home could be applied. Transjordan remained under the nominal auspices of the League of Nations and British administration, until its independence in 1928.
    In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility

    Gottfried Leibniz

  11. #41
    Banned Patron
    Join Date
    25 Jun 11
    Posts
    213
    Quote Originally Posted by Parihaka View Post
    Well no, only since 1922
    Don't confuse the creation of Transjordan as a separate political entity with the geographical area we know as Palestine. Admittedly, because it has historically been a geographical area, rather than a fixed border, it moves around a little bit, but it has commonly been viewed (for thousands of years) as the area from the "river to the sea."

    To quote Wikipedia, which I know we all love

    Palestine (Greek: Παλαιστίνη, Palaistinē; Latin: Palaestina; Hebrew: ארץ־ישראל Eretz-Yisra'el, formerly also פלשׂתינה, Palestina; Arabic: فلسطين‎ Filasṭīn, Falasṭīn, Filisṭīn) was a conventional name, among others, used between 450 BC and 1948 AD to describe the geographic region between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River
    I can also quote different sources from different centuries showing this a common usage of the term.

  12. #42
    Banned Patron
    Join Date
    25 Jun 11
    Posts
    213
    Quote Originally Posted by Doktor View Post
    Now, again how is Israel being expansionist?
    Well, ask yourself this: Land beyond the 1967 lines is uncontroversially regarded as not being Israeli territory, as it is a fundamental principle of international law that you cannot acquire territory through war. So the question is this: Does the Israeli regime agree? If not, are they trying to lay claim to land which is nearly universally recognised as "not theirs". i.e. are they trying to expand?

    Quote Originally Posted by Doktor View Post
    You said UN had a word or two on attacking an ally to their enemy? Cite please
    I said that the UN has had a thing or two to say about the theft of parts of the Golan Heights. UN Resolution 242 being an obvious example. Happy to quote more if you like.

    Quote Originally Posted by Doktor View Post
    Can you tell me in which year are we stopped? 1948, 1967, 1973?
    I don't understand the question.

  13. #43
    Dirty Kiwi Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    10 Nov 04
    Location
    Wellington, Te Ika a Maui, Aotearoa
    Posts
    19,747
    Quote Originally Posted by Dubitante View Post
    Don't confuse the creation of Transjordan as a separate political entity with the geographical area we know as Palestine. Admittedly, because it has historically been a geographical area, rather than a fixed border, it moves around a little bit, but it has commonly been viewed (for thousands of years) as the area from the "river to the sea."

    To quote Wikipedia, which I know we all love



    I can also quote different sources from different centuries showing this a common usage of the term.
    LOL, you somehow missed the full quote

    Palestine (Greek: Παλαιστίνη, Palaistinē; Latin: Palaestina; Hebrew: ארץ־ישראל Eretz-Yisra'el, formerly also פלשׂתינה, Palestina; Arabic: فلسطين‎ Filasṭīn, Falasṭīn, Filisṭīn) was a conventional name, among others, used between 450 BC and 1948 AD to describe the geographic region between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River, and various adjoining lands.[1][2][3][4][5]

    The boundaries of the region have changed throughout history, and were first defined in modern times by the Franco-British boundary agreement (1920) and the Transjordan memorandum during the British Mandate for Palestine. Today, the region comprises the country of Israel and the Palestinian territories.
    Which neatly returns us to my quote above

    The Emirate of Transjordan (Arabic: إمارة شرق الأردن ʾImārat Sharq al-ʾUrdun) was a former Ottoman territory in the Southern Levant that was part of the British Mandate of Palestine. In 1921 it was excised from Palestine and became an autonomous political division under as-Sharif Abdullah bin al-Husayn:[1] "In a telegram to the Foreign Office summarizing the conclusions of the San Remo conference, the Foreign Secretary, Lord Curzon, stated: 'The boundaries will not be defined in Peace Treaty but are to be determined at a later date by principal Allied Powers.' When Herbert Samuel, High Commissioner of Palestine, set up the civil mandatory government in mid-1920 he was explicitly instructed by Curzon that his jurisdiction did not include Transjordan. Following the French occupation in Damascus in July 1920, the French, acting in accordance with their wartime agreements with Britain refrained from extending their rule south into Transjordan. That autumn Emir Faisal's brother, Abdullah, led a band of armed men north from the Hedjaz into Transjordan and threatened to attack Syria and vindicate the Hashemites' right to overlordship there. Samuel seized the opportunity to press the case for British control. He succeeded. In March 1921 the Colonial Secretary, Winston Churchill, visited the Middle East and endorsed an arrangement whereby Transjordan would be removed from the original territory of Palestine, with Abdullah as the emir under the authority of the High Commissioner, and with the condition that the Jewish National Home provisions of the (future) Palestine mandate would not apply there. Effectively, this removed about 78% of the original territory of Palestine and left about 22% where the application of the Balfour Declaration calling for a "Jewish" national home could be applied. Transjordan remained under the nominal auspices of the League of Nations and British administration, until its independence in 1928.
    In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility

    Gottfried Leibniz

  14. #44
    Staff Emeritus
    Military Professional
    Mostly Harmless
    bigross86's Avatar
    Join Date
    07 Aug 03
    Location
    Tel Aviv, Israel
    Posts
    14,070
    Quote Originally Posted by Dubitante View Post
    The simple fact that you have repeatedly failed to address is that Israel had no established right of passage though the Straits of Tiran. If they had no established right of passage, how would closing the Straits partially for two days be an act of war?

    Israel does not get to decide what is and is not a casus belli. That's not how it works. Provide evidence showing that Israel had a right of passage through the straits and I will look at it. You're big on asking for citations, not so big on providing them.

    So the points you need to address are:

    - Was the International Law Commission wrong in stating that no law gave Israel right of passage? And if so, why?
    - Do you accept that any such right applies only to "innocent" passage? If not, why not?
    - Do you accept that "innocent" passage does not cover such cargo at such a time that may damage the security of the coastal state? If not, why not?

    Please cite accordingly.
    Passage Through the Strait of Tiran and in the Gulf of Aqaba Middle East Crisis: Test of International Law - Gross, Leo (Law and Contemporary Problems
    33 Law & Contemp. Probs. (1968))


    The principle of freedom of the seas applies to all waters which qualify as high seas or parts thereof. States which desire to exclude parts of the high seas from the regime of customary international law on historical or other ground have the burden of proof. As suggested earlier no such evidence has been made available by the governments concerned or writers who support them.

    Moreover, there there is strong evidence that the Arab coastal states as well as Israel have considered the Gulf to be part of the high seas; all of them proclaimed belts of territorial sea in the Gulf varying from three (Jordan) to six Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Israel) miles. Claims to territorial sea imply that the Gulf is part of the high sea although there are exceptions... But no comparable exception has been established in favor of the Gulf of Aqaba before or after the establishment of the State of Israel...

    ... The United States' position is that the Gulf of Aqaba comprehends international waters. That no nation has the right to prevent free and innocent passage in the Gulf and through the Straits giving access thereto. A denial of those waters to vessels of United States registry should be reported to the nearest United States diplomatic or consular offices...
    ...The Council made some additional findings of a general character and addressing itself to the specific complaint of Israel regarding Egypt's restrictions in the Suez Canal, called upon Egypt

    to terminate the restrictions on the passage of international commercial shipping and goods through the Suez Canal wherever bound and to cease all interference with such shipping beyond that essential to the safety of shipping in the Canal itself and to the observance of the international conventions in force
    .
    Egypt's non-compliance with this resolution is a matter of record. When Israel on January 28, 1954, complained to the Security Council about illegitimate interference with shipping passing to and from Israel through the Gulf of Aqaba, it was not contested by Egypt that the 1951 resolution applied to that waterway as well.
    So now we've proven that the Gulf of Aqaba are and were considered High Seas. Now we'll deal with issue of passage, even though you already have the US position regarding passage in the Gulf of Aqaba. Notice that the following applies to free passage, not "innocent" passage, and includes within it warships as well as civilian cargo.

    The Middle Eastern States and the law of the sea
    By Ali A. Hakim


    Israel declares that 'the description of the Gulf of Aqaba as "closed Arab waters under exclusive Arab jurisdiction" was based neither on law nor on fact'. She asserts that 'as a littoral state' on the Gulf of Aqaba, she should be able to 'exercise full rights of free passage in the Gulf of Aqaba and through the Straits of Tiran'. For Israel believes that 'the Gulf of Aqaba comprehends international waters and that no nation has the right to prevent free and innocent passage in the Gulf and through the Straits giving access thereto, in accordance with the generally accepted definition of those terms in the law of the Sea'.

    The government of Israel considers that 'the Gulf of Aqaba is an international waterway in the sense that the territorial waters of at least four countries overlap within the Gulf, so that, if any one country were to assert the application of its sovereign rights in the territorial waters, we would...achieve a maritime jungle...'

    In addition, with the Gulf of Aqaba in mind, the Israeli government, commenting on the provisional articles concerning the regime of the high seas and the territorial sea adopted by the International Law Commission at its seventh session in 1955, has maintained that:

    ...where access to a given port - whether existing one or which at some future date a State may wish to establish - is only possible by traversing a strait (in the geographical sense), then it is quite immaterial whether that Strait is or is not within the water classes as te territorial sea of one or more of the littoral States, or what is the legal nature (gulf, bay, high seas) of the waters on which the harbour is situated. In such circumstances the right of passage for the ships of all nations, and quite regardless of their cargo, is and must remain absolutely unqualified, and the littoral State or States have no right whatsoever so long as the matter is not regulated by Convention to hinder, hamper, impede or suspend the free passage of those ships. The same rule is also true as regards warships...

    The interests of the international community must have absolute predominance over those of the littoral States whose territorial waters have to be traversed in making for a given harbour. In this respect the passage through Straits of this character is assimilated to the high seas themselves.

    ...regardless of their position as a territorial sea, straits in the geographical sense which constitute the only access to a harbour belonging to another state can under no circumstances fall within the regime of territorial sea.
    In support of its stand, Israel places heave reliance on the rule in Article 16(4) of the 1958 Geneva Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone, namely: 'There shall be no suspension of the innocent passage of foreign ships through straits which are used for international navigation between one part of the high seas and ... the territorial sea of a foreign State'. Thus Israel declares that 'there could not be a more unequivocal affirmation of Israel's right of navigation through the Straits of Tiran than (Article 16(4)) of the Convention. Israel also maintains that:

    For ten years and more, since the Sinai Campaign, the Straits of Tiran had been free and open to Israel's and to all shipping as a provision of the general settlement which led to the withdrawal of the Israeli Defense Forces from the peninsula.
    As indicated earlier, in a supplementary argument Israel asserts that the blocking of the Straits of Tiran against Israeli Shipping is contrary to the Egyptian undertaking that the passage 'will remain free...' which is contained in the Egyptian aide-mémoire of 1950.
    Last edited by bigross86; 13 Jul 11, at 11:09.
    Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

    Abusing Yellow is meant to be a labor of love, not something you sell to the highest bidder.

  15. #45
    Banned Patron
    Join Date
    25 Jun 11
    Posts
    213
    Quote Originally Posted by Parihaka View Post
    The boundaries of the region have changed throughout history, and were first defined in modern times by the Franco-British boundary agreement (1920) and the Transjordan memorandum during the British Mandate for Palestine. Today, the region comprises the country of Israel and the Palestinian territories.
    I'd agree with that. The borders of Palestine were more formally and rigidly defined in 1922. But like I said, for thousands of years, Palestine has been regarded as the geographical area between the river and the sea. Slightly amorphous and non-specific yes, but I'm not aware of Palestine being considered as an area existing largely to the east of the Jordan. Happy to be proven wrong.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Just deceptive not quite illegal
    By Roosveltrepub in forum American Politics & Economy
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 28 Apr 10,, 02:45
  2. Russia rejects U.S. missile proposals
    By xrough in forum Europe and Russia
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 14 Nov 08,, 00:51
  3. Are McCain's tax proposals as suspect as Gordon Brown's?
    By Traps in forum American Politics & Economy
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 06 May 08,, 20:24
  4. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 25 Apr 07,, 17:59

Tags for this Thread

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •