How to get your F35 fighters for free

[P4man]

I would like to know why such settlements should be considered illegal on land that was ceded to Israel vs land that was taken before the '67 conflict.

Or did the outrage only happen when the Arabs & Palestinians (as LL explained) finally realized that they could not wipe out Israel, so had to find other ways of fighting and crying for help after promises were broken

Syria can cede whatever it wants, that doesnt give Israel the right to use the land after ethnically cleansing it from its legal owners, any more than it allows Israel to use the people themselves in slave labor camps. Geneva convention, ever heard of it?

Where was the outrage by the Palestinians and Arabs after '67 when Israel started up settlements?

Where were you?

First resolution in 1967 unanimously voted (Yes even the US) called upon Israel to implement Geneva convention protections. Israel failed to do that and started building settlements. The outrage wasnt just by Arabs, it was pretty much unanimous. Not even the US voted against it:

Israel's settlements in Palestine are Illegal.​

Security Council Resolution 446, March 22, 1979 ​

"Determines that the policy and practices of Israel in establishing settlements in the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967 have no legal validity and constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East."

Gee, they certainly got that last sentence right!
​

 

[EagleKeeper]

Based on the Wiki cables, it seems Israel is willing to accept a Palestinians state. It is the Palestinians that refuse to come to the table and accept peace.

What is said publicly is not the same as thought privately.

Egypt is getting frustrated with the Palestinians; that does not sound positive. we know Jordan does not want anything to do with them.

So half the Arab countries that are directly affected by Israel are not on the Palestinian's side. That does not bode well for forced state sponsorship. As has been for the past 60+ years.

The Palestinians are going to have to get their act together or be seen as the obstacle.
And being seen as the obstacle will kill their chances for a generateion of so.

As you say without world pressure on Israel, Israel will continue to expand settlements.
When the Palestinians refuse to act on peace and show that they deserve a state rather than being a territory, they are up a creek - not world support; they are the problem, not Israel.

 

[P4man]

Based on the Wiki cables, it seems Israel is willing to accept a Palestinians state. It is the Palestinians that refuse to come to the table and accept peace.

Accept a Palestenian state on what land? And what terms? A sovereign state stripped of 40% of its land, 90% of its water rendered completely ingovernable though the mesh of apartheid highways and military zones and checkpoints. A "sovereign" state that has no right to an army, nor control over its airspace etc. Thats a joke.

Go read the Arab peace plan. It offers Israel peace and security in return for simply complying with international law and UN resolutions. What an outrageous concept.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Syria can cede whatever it wants, that doesnt give Israel the right to use the land after ethnically cleansing it from its legal owners, any more than it allows Israel to use the people themselves in slave labor camps. Geneva convention, ever heard of it?

Where were you?

First resolution in 1967 unanimously voted (Yes even the US) called upon Israel to implement Geneva convention protections. Israel failed to do that and started building settlements. The outrage wasnt just by Arabs, it was pretty much unanimous. Not even the US voted against it:

Israel's settlements in Palestine are Illegal.​

Security Council Resolution 446, March 22, 1979 ​

"Determines that the policy and practices of Israel in establishing settlements in the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967 have no legal validity and constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East."​

A country giving up land to another is giving up the responsiblity of such land. The receiver of the land now has control of it to due what they please.

Russia captured islands from Japan - Japan protests but does not get the land back. Has the UN forced it to be given back

The problem is there is no state to give the West Bank and Gaza back to.
Egypt and Jordan were the coutnries that had them and were respnosbile for them. Those two do not want that land. What state should then control it.

The UN resolution 237 has nothing to do with settlements (per your Wiki link) It only wants Israel to be humanitarian w/ protection of POW and civilians. Which is not what the Hamas & Hezbollah groups honor. double standard again?

Look at the verbage for what is ask and demanded.

called upon the government of Israel to ensure the safety and welfare of the inhabitants of the areas where military operations had taken place and to facilitate the return of those inhabitants who had fled. The resolution also recommended the governments concerned to respect humanitarian principles governing the treatment of prisoners of war and the protection of civilian persons in times of war contained in the Geneva Conventions.

Look at who abstained on Security Council 446

 

[Nebor]

I love new, bright-eyed Palestinian (terrorist) rights supporters. It seems like a new one comes along every month or so, rails against Israels grave injustices perpetrated against the Israeli people, and condemns the US for tacitly (or actively) supporting Israel. They spin and spin until they realize that no one here cares. You could post pictures of Israeli soldiers using flamethrowers on fleeing Palestinian orphans and the biggest reaction you'd get from AT P&N is, "Eh... that's a shame." Eventually you get so enraged that you fly off the handle and get banned.

 

[Lemon law]

"A country giving up land to another is giving up the responsiblity of such land. The receiver of the land now has control of it to due what they please."

"Russia captured islands from Japan - Japan protests but does not get the land back. Has the UN forced it to be given back"
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Am I the only one who notes the complete contradiction in those two sentences.

In the first sentence, its assumed the the country gave up the land to another country, which is entirely different than ceding control without giving that land to any particular nation, but rather to the indiginous population of that former part of another country.

In the second sentense we are talking Russia seizing by military force certain Japanese Islands before the UN was formed. Now Russia and Japan both cliam the territory, but since the Russian conquest does not apply to the UN doctrine that land gained by military conquest is illegitimate because it was prior to the formation of the UN.

In terms of any claim the Egypt ceded the Gaza strip to Israel, the following wiki link proves that is completely false.

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

In the case of the West Bank and Jordon, again Wiki notes, Jordon ceded control of the West Bank, not to Israel, but to the PLO.

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

As for the Golan heighths also illegal land gains by right of conquest, Syria has never ceded control to anyone and still wants the Golan heights back.

So in short, Israel has no legitimate claim to any of these lands taken by conquest, and its also why no country in the world recognizes any Israeli claims to ownership.

 

[EagleKeeper]

If Israel took the land by conquest, how is that different than the sino-russian situation. Other than Russia has a permanent seat.

Syria, Egypt and Jordan lost control of that land via hostilities. How can they have the right to cede something that they do not control.

Israel controls that land.
w/ exception of Syria, neither want that land back.
Egypt and Jordan took control of that land in the '48 partition

What state exists to take control of that land now?

 

[P4man]

A country giving up land to another is giving up the responsiblity of such land. The receiver of the land now has control of it to due what they please.

They can not do with it as they please. They are not allowed to annex the land, and even if they where, that doesnt give any settler property rights. Are you the owner of your land, or is your government?

You know its great if you want to give your own personal opinion, but it changes neither UN resolutions nor Geneva conventions. Those resolutions still stand today, they havent been revoked, no matter how much you want to argue them. Those settlements are illegal, under the Geneva convention and as confirmed by UNSC resolutions. End of story. Al the rest is blah blah.

What you are doing arguing history, morals or could have/should have whatever, is what many Arabs do about the creation of Israel. I too think creating Israel was a mistake by the UN (at least the way it was created), but neither my opinion nor anyone else's changes the fact its now a recognized state with its legal rights. There is no more point arguing if Israel has a right to exist, or should or shouldnt have been created, it has been created, it has that right. Unless the UN somehow revokes that right, all the rest is blah blah, no different as arguing the legality of the settlements. If want to call in question the illegality of the settlements, you should be prepared to call in question the legality of the state of israel.

The problem is there is no state to give the West Bank and Gaza back to.
Egypt and Jordan were the coutnries that had them and were respnosbile for them. Those two do not want that land. What state should then control it.

Right to self determination. Ever heard of it? Until that happens, those territories are occupied (or are you even arguing that?) and that comes with obligations and rules. One such rule is NOT to move your civilian population in to them ie, no settlements. Read the rest of the geneva convention as well rather than keep stating things that are patently wrong.

No one says Israel has to occupy those territories, if they dont want to be responsible for implementing Geneva conventions, they can simply withdraw, leave it up to the Palestenians to determine their own future.

The UN resolution 237 has nothing to do with settlements (per your Wiki link) It only wants Israel to be humanitarian w/ protection of POW and civilians.

Cant you read?

Considering that all the obligations of the Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War of 12 August 1949 /5 should be complied with by the parties involved in the conflict,
1. Calls upon the Government of Israel to ensure the safety, welfare and security of the inhabitants of the areas where military operations have taken place and to facilitate the return of those inhabitants who have fled the areas since the outbreak of hostilities ;
2. Recommends to the Governments concerned the scrupulous respect of the humanitarian principles governing the treatment of prisoners of war and the protection of civilian persons in time of war contained in the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949;/6

No, it doesnt mention settlements. Nor does it mention collective punishment or nerve gas. The geneva convention being referred to, do mention that. Are you getting it now?

Which is not what the Hamas & Hezbollah groups honor. double standard again?

Yes. I agree. Double standard. One organization is called a terrorist group for having breached those conventions in the past, the other is getting paid billions in arms while it keeps breaching them every single day for the last 40+ years.

Look at who abstained on Security Council 446

Who would have guessed

 

[Lemon law]

'
"If Israel took the land by conquest, how is that different than the sino-russian situation. Other than Russia has a permanent seat."
( Because the land Rusia took from Japan was taken prior to the formation of the UN, so the doctrine of land taken by conquest is illegitimate did not exits at the time. And to a certain extent it was payback for land Joan took from Russia following the 1906 war when the Japanese Navy kicked the butt of the Russian Navy. )

"Syria, Egypt and Jordan lost control of that land via hostilities. How can they have the right to cede something that they do not control."
( Simply because by UN doctrine Jordon Egypy and Egypt still own the land regardless of any temporay Israeli occupation that cannot last.)

"Israel controls that land.
w/ exception of Syria, neither want that land back.
Egypt and Jordan took control of that land in the '48 partition"
( Again same basic reasoning with some additions. With the UN approved end of the British Palestine mandate, the UN approved the formation of the State of Israel and also approved
the Governance of Jordon over the West Bank, and Egypy of Gaza. With a somewhat within the next decade a plan to form a Palestinian State out of those lands. That plan got shelved when Israel and the Arabs fought each other immediately after the formation of Israel in 1948. And then when Israel forced Palestinians out of their own lands illegally, some were forced into the West Bank, others into Gaza, and others into Lebanon.
Since the Arab States have maintained these Palestinian refugees came from Israel originally, were expelled by Israel, and are still an Israeli responsibility. Which explains why they do not accept any right for Palestinian refugees to be foisted off on them when its Israelis responsibility. And its explains why Egypt and Jordon ceded control of the land, not to Israel, but to the Palestinians.)

"What state exists to take control of that land now?

"

( Wow oh Wow, what an poorly thought out question! If you can't realize we are trying to create a viable Palestinian state to do just that, and instead maintain no land can be given to a non State, then YOU THEN HAVE TO ADMIT ISRAEL which was a non State in early 1948 MUST BE AN ILLIGITIMATE STATE STILL! Because if non-State entities cannot receive the land to form a State according to Common Courtesy the the 1948 UN decision to form Israel was always null and void. In short, we, the larger world and UN are trying to do the same thing for Palestinian refugees in 2010 that we did for Jewish refugees in 1948. Now which is it, or are you just trying to take polar opposite sides of the same argument depending on which side favors Israel at the time? )

 

[JEDIYoda]

They can not do with it as they please.

You see P4man you have a huge comprehension issue......

You are say this treaty says that...you are saying they cannot do this....or they agreed to to this or they signed that......

So just to get this straightened out -- what exactly is the world or other countries doing about it?

Nothing, jack squat! Why??

Because obviously they can do everything you are saying they cannot do......
yet from there view point as opposed to your view point - they are correct......
Remember their are two or even three sides to every storie and the fact is that sometimes all sides are correct.... think about that!

 

[EagleKeeper]

"

( Wow oh Wow, what an poorly thought out question! If you can't realize we are trying to create a viable Palestinian state to do just that, and instead maintain no land can be given to a non State, then YOU THEN HAVE TO ADMIT ISRAEL which was a non State in early 1948 MUST BE AN ILLIGITIMATE STATE STILL! Because if non-State entities cannot receive the land to form a State according to Common Courtesy the the 1948 UN decision to form Israel was always null and void. In short, we, the larger world and UN are trying to do the same thing for Palestinian refugees in 2010 that we did for Jewish refugees in 1948. Now which is it, or are you just trying to take polar opposite sides of the same argument depending on which side favors Israel at the time? )

Then why do the Palestinians not have a state?
The UN waived their hands and the State of Israel was established.
Where was the state of Palestine?

Why did all the time the Arab nations that controlled that land not push for a state of Palestine?

However,

The point of this thread is to bribe Israel to allow the Palestinians another shot. Saving face by agreeing to suspend construction AGAIN.

The Palestinians may also have to be bribed to show up because they know the suspension will not be permanent.

Then it is up to the Palestinians to stay at the table if they can not get the job done in the time frame alloted, because Israel will not suspend construction another time.

I do not think that the Palestinians will get the job done in the time frame and will again try to stall for more time. They seceded once and will try the same play again.

As much as Israel would like the bribes if an agreement is reached; she is not going to allow the Palestinians the upper hand in demanding what the borders should be.

 

[P4man]

The point of this thread is to bribe Israel to allow the Palestinians another shot. Saving face by agreeing to suspend construction AGAIN..

Lol. Gotta love the uppercase "AGAIN". As if slowing down illegal settlement building is somehow a concession. Its their legal obligation to not only permanently stop the expansion of settlements, but dismantle all the existing ones! Only when that happens, you can talk about the things that need to be talked about.

Is that realistic? No, probably not, expecting the current Israeli regime to comply to geneva conventions or UNSC resolutions is not realistic, certainly not as long as the US blindly supports and funds their colonialism.

The Palestinians may also have to be bribed to show up because they know the suspension will not be permanent.

I dont see any reason for them to show up unless Israel is willing to discuss dismantling all illegal settlements and comply to the other resolutions as well, like the right of return. Since Israel wont even put any of that on the table, anything resembling a fair deal simply isnt on the table and the only reason to discuss anything is public perception.

Then it is up to the Palestinians to stay at the table if they can not get the job done in the time frame alloted, because Israel will not suspend construction another time.

We mostly agree here.

As much as Israel would like the bribes if an agreement is reached; she is not going to allow the Palestinians the upper hand in demanding what the borders should be

Indeed. It wont allow any international law or UN resolution to state what the borders should be either. Which is kind or ironic if you consider how Israel came to be.

 

[Harabec]

Tough. Israel is tiny and giving even an inch back is hard to do, because the demands themselves never stop. The Palestinians will have to agree to SOMETHING...or they won't. Time will tell.
As the ongoing fire shows us, we can't afford to spare any land. Simply put, if you disagree it is your choice, and you have nothing to do about it.

 

[P4man]

Israel is tiny and giving even an inch back is hard to do

Apparently so. I guess bank robbers dont like returning their loot either. But if you hadnt and wouldnt continue encouraging Jews from all over the world with no ties to the land other than ethnicity/religion, to settle on land that isnt yours, youd have plenty of land (and a lot less trouble).

As the ongoing fire shows us, we can't afford to spare any land.

What a great argument. You spend over $14B per year on military. Maybe if you spent 0.1% of your military budget on actually protecting your civilians from stuff like fires, you wouldnt be in this trouble now. I guess F35s cant drop water.

 

[twinrider1]

How to get your F35 fighters for free...

Shouldn't this thread be in the Free Stuff forum? :biggrin:

 

[Harabec]

Apparently so. I guess bank robbers dont like returning their loot either. But if you hadnt and wouldnt continue encouraging Jews from all over the world with no ties to the land other than ethnicity/religion, to settle on land that isnt yours, youd have plenty of land (and a lot less trouble).

We'll have to disagree. As I have said, you are entitled to your opinion which does not affect anyone.

What a great argument. You spend over $14B per year on military. Maybe if you spent 0.1% of your military budget on actually protecting your civilians from stuff like fires, you wouldnt be in this trouble now. I guess F35s cant drop water.

We live and learn. Budget has been increased dramatically now.

 

[fire400]

nothing is free. either they pay for it, or we pay for it.

political aims? always a trade off, nothing's free in this world.

 

[lord_emperor]

Misleading thread title, I wanted one.

 

[Lemon law]

To some extent, we can look at it another way.

We can all somewhat agree, that the world has been searching for an answer to how to finally resolve all the repercussion arising from the 1967&73 mid-east wars. By 1992 a somewhat world consensus had emerged through the Oslo accords under the name land for peace. But the important doctrinal assumption implicit was that somehow the best way to resolve the whole mid-east peace question, can only be SOLVED WHEN AND IF BOTH ISRAEL AND THE PALESTINIAN PEOPLE COME TO SOME MUTUALLY AGREED DEAL.

Without taking any side on this post on whose fault it is in this post, history has somewhat shown, and may again show with the current effort, that such a mutual agreement will NEVER HAPPEN.

Which leads me to say, at some point in time, and maybe VERY SOON, the larger world with huge investments in a stable mid-east, may SHITCAN the ASSUMPTION THAT MID-EAST PEACE CAN ONLY BE FOUND THROUGH ISRAELI PALESTINIAN MUTUAL AGREEMENT and instead move to a NEW CONSENSUS THAT BINDING THIRD PARTY ARBITRATION IS REQUIRED INSTEAD AS THE ONLY WAY FORWARD.

 

[P4man]

Since Isreal already sits on its loot, its not going to agree to any binding third party arbitration, not even if the US would be the bribed arbiter. I mean, it has no scruples ignoring a huge list of UN resolutions, why would it subject itself to an actual impartial third party?

Since Israel also sits on a large arsenal of nukes, and I strongly suspect along with NK, its about the only country that wouldnt be too shy about actually using them (except that NK probably doesnt have any, or any effective ones), military pressure isnt gonna work either.

The solution is a lot simpler. The US buys a staggering 40% of Israels exports and funds the Israeli economy and military to such a degree, that without either, its economy would (/will) simply collapse. Add a UN embargo, and in a short few years, Israel will look like Cuba after the USSR disintegrated. Trust me, that would get them to negotiate.

Not that US politicians will voluntarily do anything like that as long they hold AIPAC campaign funding more dearly than their own constitution, but it may soon simply no longer have the money anyway. There is going to be a time where US voters will finally wonder why they have subsidize the swimming pools of immigrated Russians on land that isnt theirs, while already 15% of those voters have to rely on foodstamps and the future looks a lot more grim.

 

[Sp12]

I see this as much the same as the aid packages to Iran (wikileaks).

Basically 90% of the monetary value of aid given to the Middle East is in the form of fighter jets so that the US can use puppet Iraqis to do strikes on sensitive areas to avoid public scandal.

 

[Freshgeardude]

To some extent, we can look at it another way.

We can all somewhat agree, that the world has been searching for an answer to how to finally resolve all the repercussion arising from the 1967&73 mid-east wars. By 1992 a somewhat world consensus had emerged through the Oslo accords under the name land for peace. But the important doctrinal assumption implicit was that somehow the best way to resolve the whole mid-east peace question, can only be SOLVED WHEN AND IF BOTH ISRAEL AND THE PALESTINIAN PEOPLE COME TO SOME MUTUALLY AGREED DEAL.

Without taking any side on this post on whose fault it is in this post, history has somewhat shown, and may again show with the current effort, that such a mutual agreement will NEVER HAPPEN.

Which leads me to say, at some point in time, and maybe VERY SOON, the larger world with huge investments in a stable mid-east, may SHITCAN the ASSUMPTION THAT MID-EAST PEACE CAN ONLY BE FOUND THROUGH ISRAELI PALESTINIAN MUTUAL AGREEMENT and instead move to a NEW CONSENSUS THAT BINDING THIRD PARTY ARBITRATION IS REQUIRED INSTEAD AS THE ONLY WAY FORWARD.

there is a problem with that assumption. No one can impose peace.

both sides need to sacrifice for a peace deal.


imo, israel has given enough chance with this palestinian administration.

your opinion are flip flopped the other way.

we will both never agree on what we think is fair, because I look in Israel's interests and you look at the palestinians.

 

[Lemon law]

Since Isreal already sits on its loot, its not going to agree to any binding third party arbitration, not even if the US would be the bribed arbiter. I mean, it has no scruples ignoring a huge list of UN resolutions, why would it subject itself to an actual impartial third party?

Since Israel also sits on a large arsenal of nukes, and I strongly suspect along with NK, its about the only country that wouldnt be too shy about actually using them (except that NK probably doesnt have any, or any effective ones), military pressure isnt gonna work either.

The solution is a lot simpler. The US buys a staggering 40% of Israels exports and funds the Israeli economy and military to such a degree, that without either, its economy would (/will) simply collapse. Add a UN embargo, and in a short few years, Israel will look like Cuba after the USSR disintegrated. Trust me, that would get them to negotiate.

Not that US politicians will voluntarily do anything like that as long they hold AIPAC campaign funding more dearly than their own constitution, but it may soon simply no longer have the money anyway. There is going to be a time where US voters will finally wonder why they have subsidize the swimming pools of immigrated Russians on land that isnt theirs, while already 15% of those voters have to rely on foodstamps and the future looks a lot more grim.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
While P4man makes some valid points, its hard to do anything but despair and await a wider mid-east war, but still there is a implicit P4Man blindness and flaw in his analysis of the situation. If we assume Israel, due to regional military power has a veto power over any binding 3'rd party arbitration, then we are back to the same waiting and waiting and waiting and waiting for Israel and the Palestinian people to come to some mutually agreed resolution that will never happen.

But that is not the way third party arbitration often works, especially in the case of South Africa. Precondition job #1 is to slap a world wide economic embargo against the dominant regional military power, and then and only then can the larger world start making progress
towards solving the problem. Later third party arbitration may or may not be required next.

 

[Lemon law]

Maybe FGD hits the nail on the head but misses the point in saying, "we will both never agree on what we think is fair, because I look in Israel's interests and you look at the palestinians."

Somewhat the FGD delusion there may be that the LL or FGD opinion will ever amounts to doodlie squat in terms of driving the world debate and or more importantly the final resolution.

Face the facts, the larger world has a huge investment in mid-east stability, simply because its so close to the oil breadbasket of the world. Any even potential stability problem with that oil supply threatens price stability and gives migraine headaches to every leader of every oil dependent economy in the world.

When some small snit between some 5.4 million Jews and 3+million Palestinians has become the #1 threat to mid-east stability and has remained so for many decades. Only egotism by Israelis and Palestinians can drive their fantasies that the respective moral rightness of their cause will be the deciding factor.

But still in that overall larger 4 plus billion larger world calculus does look good for Israel in their smaller snit with the Palestinians. The larger world has been there, done that, and by and large the side with Israel stuff has been an epic fail. And after 45 years plus the larger world can only conclude that the threats to mid-east stability have gotten greater and not smaller in the past 45 years. While at the same time, the larger world is far more dependent on mid-east stability than it was before.

But only a fool clings to the notion that when previous plan A side with Israel has been an epic fail, that the larger world will stay stuck on stupid and refuse to try some plan B to solve the problem.

But make no mistake FGD, some plan B is a coming, what it will be may be unknown, but if Israel does not grow a brain and solve the problem before the the overwhelming plan B comes, its going to be a far worse outcome for Israel.

Just food for thought, FGD, because I expect to see it happen sooner or later. The larger world is rapidly losing all faith in Israel as anything but a negative force in the mid-east.

 

[JEDIYoda]

While P4man makes some valid points, its hard to do anything but despair and await a wider mid-east war, but still there is a implicit P4Man blindness and flaw in his analysis of the situation. If we assume Israel, due to regional military power has a veto power over any binding 3'rd party arbitration, then we are back to the same waiting and waiting and waiting and waiting for Israel and the Palestinian people to come to some mutually agreed resolution that will never happen.

But that is not the way third party arbitration often works, especially in the case of South Africa. Precondition job #1 is to slap a world wide economic embargo against the dominant regional military power, and then and only then can the larger world start making progress
towards solving the problem. Later third party arbitration may or may not be required next.

For there to be third party binding arbitration, all sides must agree.....
Israel will never agree and there is nation on the planet that will mstep up and force that to happen.

Then we have the Palestinians and namely Hamas.....
As long as the Hamas Charter calls for the destruction of Israel even hamas will not agree to third party binding arbitration.

Of course you of all people have been draming and spouting about third party binding operation for at least a century....

Nice try with the binding arbitration...eofl