The Wall

[Czar]

There has been alot of talk lately about the "security" wall being built by Israel. Now the US is considering cutting aid to Israel if they dont stop building it.

but mainly this post is to show this map
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/03/middle_east_israel0s_security_fence/html/1.stm

 

[AvesPKS]

I was all ready to defend the arguement that it really does sync up with "The Wizard of Oz"...

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: AvesPKS
I was all ready to defend the arguement that it really does sync up with "The Wizard of Oz"...

hehe 🙂

 

[lozina]

Excuse me while I expand the fence in my yard to enclose a little extra land from my neighbors...

 

[BDawg]

We don't need no education

We don't need no thought control

 

[jfall]

Dark side of the moon is the album that syncs with wizard of oz, not The Wall 🙂

 

[AvesPKS]

Originally posted by: jfall
Dark side of the moon is the album that syncs with wizard of oz, not The Wall 🙂

Yeah, but the joke doesn't work, then...🙂

 

[Smaug]

The thing is, that wall is terrible for the peace process, but is great for security. If Israel sees the peace process meaningfully moving forward, that wall will go down lickety split.

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: Smaug
The thing is, that wall is terrible for the peace process, but is great for security. If Israel sees the peace process meaningfully moving forward, that wall will go down lickety split.

doubt it, Israel will probably want the final border to go along the wall, the wall costs well over $1 million per kilometer, I doubt they are building it just for fun so they can just tear it down 2 years from now

 

[ThePresence]

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: Smaug
The thing is, that wall is terrible for the peace process, but is great for security. If Israel sees the peace process meaningfully moving forward, that wall will go down lickety split.

doubt it, Israel will probably want the final border to go along the wall, the wall costs well over $1 million per kilometer, I doubt they are building it just for fun so they can just tear it down 2 years from now

That's true, they are not building it for fun. They are building it to defend their citizens from terrorists. How dare they!

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: ThePresence

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: Smaug
The thing is, that wall is terrible for the peace process, but is great for security. If Israel sees the peace process meaningfully moving forward, that wall will go down lickety split.

doubt it, Israel will probably want the final border to go along the wall, the wall costs well over $1 million per kilometer, I doubt they are building it just for fun so they can just tear it down 2 years from now

That's true, they are not building it for fun. They are building it to defend their citizens from terrorists. How dare they!

why not build it on the border?

 

[lozina]

Originally posted by: ThePresence

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: Smaug
The thing is, that wall is terrible for the peace process, but is great for security. If Israel sees the peace process meaningfully moving forward, that wall will go down lickety split.

doubt it, Israel will probably want the final border to go along the wall, the wall costs well over $1 million per kilometer, I doubt they are building it just for fun so they can just tear it down 2 years from now

That's true, they are not building it for fun. They are building it to defend their citizens from terrorists. How dare they!

Do you honestly believe this wall is going to help their security vs. terrorism? I only forsee more terrorism if this thing continues, since it undermines the whole reason most Terrorists exist: to get their rightful land back!

If you think it's just for security, why don't they build it along their official border instead of way inside the UN declared Palestinian side? (bah, Czar beat me to this one)

 

[ThePresence]

What alot of people fail to realize is that all this land was land won in wars. Israel decided to return part of it (which is something no other country would ever consider doing), as a peace gesture. Then they get slammed for giving away too little. Now, when they try to build a wall to defend themselves, again, they are "stealing" land. It's insanity, they can never win. Whatever they do is not good enough. Not utill they give away the entire country. Even then, I'm sure people would still think it's not enough.

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: ThePresence
What alot of people fail to realize is that all this land was land won in wars. Israel decided to return part of it (which is something no other country would ever consider doing), as a peace gesture. Then they get slammed for giving away too little. Now, when they try to build a wall to defend themselves, again, they are "stealing" land. It's insanity, they can never win. Whatever they do is not good enough. Not utill they give away the entire country. Even then, I'm sure people would still think it's not enough.

would you be ok with maybe leaving a 100x100km square for the palestinians and leave the rest for your family?

 

[lozina]

Originally posted by: ThePresence
What alot of people fail to realize is that all this land was land won in wars. Israel decided to return part of it (which is something no other country would ever consider doing), as a peace gesture. Then they get slammed for giving away too little. Now, when they try to build a wall to defend themselves, again, they are "stealing" land. It's insanity, they can never win. Whatever they do is not good enough. Not utill they give away the entire country. Even then, I'm sure people would still think it's not enough.

You sir, do not understand International Law.

Protected persons who are in occupied territory shall not be deprived, in any case or in any manner whatsoever, of the benefits of the present Convention by any change introduced, as the result of the occupation of a territory, into the institutions or government of the said territory, nor by any agreement concluded between the authorities of the occupied territories and the Occupying Power, nor by any annexation by the latter of the whole or part of the occupied territory. (Fourth Geneva Convention, Article 47)

Not only does it violate the Geneva Convention, it violates UN Resolutions which established Israel's borders, and where the Internaitonal community has recognized Israel's borders to be.

"Winning land by land wars" is not legitimate anymore, but apparently you are living in the 17th century. Especially when Israel occupied this land after a pre-emptive war.

 

[ThePresence]

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: ThePresence
What alot of people fail to realize is that all this land was land won in wars. Israel decided to return part of it (which is something no other country would ever consider doing), as a peace gesture. Then they get slammed for giving away too little. Now, when they try to build a wall to defend themselves, again, they are "stealing" land. It's insanity, they can never win. Whatever they do is not good enough. Not utill they give away the entire country. Even then, I'm sure people would still think it's not enough.

would you be ok with maybe leaving a 100x100km square for the palestinians and leave the rest for your family?

If they attacked me, and I won it in a war, yes, I'd have no problem. It seems like you missed the point. No other country would ever give back land won in a war.

 

[ThePresence]

Originally posted by: lozina

Originally posted by: ThePresence
What alot of people fail to realize is that all this land was land won in wars. Israel decided to return part of it (which is something no other country would ever consider doing), as a peace gesture. Then they get slammed for giving away too little. Now, when they try to build a wall to defend themselves, again, they are "stealing" land. It's insanity, they can never win. Whatever they do is not good enough. Not utill they give away the entire country. Even then, I'm sure people would still think it's not enough.

You sir, do not understand International Law.

Protected persons who are in occupied territory shall not be deprived, in any case or in any manner whatsoever, of the benefits of the present Convention by any change introduced, as the result of the occupation of a territory, into the institutions or government of the said territory, nor by any agreement concluded between the authorities of the occupied territories and the Occupying Power, nor by any annexation by the latter of the whole or part of the occupied territory. (Fourth Geneva Convention, Article 47)

Not only does it violate the Geneva Convention, it violates UN Resolutions which established Israel's borders, and where the Internaitonal community has recognized Israel's borders to be.

"Winning land by land wars" is not legitimate anymore, but apparently you are living in the 17th century. Especially when Israel occupied this land after a pre-emptive war.

Okay, let's all become citizens of the Crown again. Maybe we should give back the Southern States to the Confederacy? I know I'm taking extreme, rediculous examples, but I'm just trying to illustrate my point. The pre-emptive war argument is a joke. All the armies were massed on the borders. They were going to be attacked. If they had just sat there and waited for attack, then there might have been no more Israel, and alot of people would be alot happier. Not me.

 

[kage69]

Well, as lozina mentioned, Israel launched a pre-emptive strike. Thing is, I can't blame Israel for that, they were outnumbered and being ganged-up on by their neighbors. A choice between a pre-emptive strike and being wipped out isn't much of a choice I'm afrraid. What I CAN blame Israel for is the attacking of the USS Liberty.

We should just precision-bomb the sh!t outta that wall. Oops! Sorry Sharon, we thought it was an Egyptian wall! Nope, sorry, didn't see all those Israeli flags, but hey - you know how that goes.

:disgust:

 

[lozina]

Originally posted by: ThePresence

Originally posted by: lozina

Originally posted by: ThePresence
What alot of people fail to realize is that all this land was land won in wars. Israel decided to return part of it (which is something no other country would ever consider doing), as a peace gesture. Then they get slammed for giving away too little. Now, when they try to build a wall to defend themselves, again, they are "stealing" land. It's insanity, they can never win. Whatever they do is not good enough. Not utill they give away the entire country. Even then, I'm sure people would still think it's not enough.

You sir, do not understand International Law.

Protected persons who are in occupied territory shall not be deprived, in any case or in any manner whatsoever, of the benefits of the present Convention by any change introduced, as the result of the occupation of a territory, into the institutions or government of the said territory, nor by any agreement concluded between the authorities of the occupied territories and the Occupying Power, nor by any annexation by the latter of the whole or part of the occupied territory. (Fourth Geneva Convention, Article 47)

Not only does it violate the Geneva Convention, it violates UN Resolutions which established Israel's borders, and where the Internaitonal community has recognized Israel's borders to be.

"Winning land by land wars" is not legitimate anymore, but apparently you are living in the 17th century. Especially when Israel occupied this land after a pre-emptive war.

Okay, let's all become citizens of the Crown again. Maybe we should give back the Southern States to the Confederacy? I know I'm taking extreme, rediculous examples, but I'm just trying to illustrate my point. The pre-emptive war argument is a joke. All the armies were massed on the borders. They were going to be attacked. If they had just sat there and waited for attack, then there might have been no more Israel, and alot of people would be alot happier. Not me.

Look at the massive amount of troops on the DMZ or in the Kashmir region- does that mean one of those countries should launch an overwhelming pre-emptive strike on the other? What would have happened in the 1950's if Kennedy decided to honor a policy of pre-emptive strike? Would we be alive today?

Regardless, your argument is going no where. If you do not honor the Geneva Conventions and UN Resolutions, then just say so, because then there's no point in trying to argue.

 

[Smaug]

Israel launched the first strike, but the act of war was on Egypt part, siezing the shipping through the Straits of Tiran. The only thing that would have prevented the arabs from attacking Israel would be a real commitment on the parts of France and the UK, to adhere to their gentelmans agreement in 1957, clearly that did not happen.

 

[DealMonkey]

Won't the Palestinian terrorists simply become better pole-vaulters? 😉

 

[LilBlinbBlahIce]

Originally posted by: lozina

Originally posted by: ThePresence

Originally posted by: lozina

Originally posted by: ThePresence
What alot of people fail to realize is that all this land was land won in wars. Israel decided to return part of it (which is something no other country would ever consider doing), as a peace gesture. Then they get slammed for giving away too little. Now, when they try to build a wall to defend themselves, again, they are "stealing" land. It's insanity, they can never win. Whatever they do is not good enough. Not utill they give away the entire country. Even then, I'm sure people would still think it's not enough.

You sir, do not understand International Law.

Protected persons who are in occupied territory shall not be deprived, in any case or in any manner whatsoever, of the benefits of the present Convention by any change introduced, as the result of the occupation of a territory, into the institutions or government of the said territory, nor by any agreement concluded between the authorities of the occupied territories and the Occupying Power, nor by any annexation by the latter of the whole or part of the occupied territory. (Fourth Geneva Convention, Article 47)

Not only does it violate the Geneva Convention, it violates UN Resolutions which established Israel's borders, and where the Internaitonal community has recognized Israel's borders to be.

"Winning land by land wars" is not legitimate anymore, but apparently you are living in the 17th century. Especially when Israel occupied this land after a pre-emptive war.

Okay, let's all become citizens of the Crown again. Maybe we should give back the Southern States to the Confederacy? I know I'm taking extreme, rediculous examples, but I'm just trying to illustrate my point. The pre-emptive war argument is a joke. All the armies were massed on the borders. They were going to be attacked. If they had just sat there and waited for attack, then there might have been no more Israel, and alot of people would be alot happier. Not me.

Look at the massive amount of troops on the DMZ or in the Kashmir region- does that mean one of those countries should launch an overwhelming pre-emptive strike on the other? What would have happened in the 1950's if Kennedy decided to honor a policy of pre-emptive strike? Would we be alive today?

Regardless, your argument is going no where. If you do not honor the Geneva Conventions and UN Resolutions, then just say so, because then there's no point in trying to argue.

Presence says he's American but has served in the Israeli army as a border guard. Anyone who would go and serve in another country's army is a traitor IMO, and, if nothing else, is going to be biased and extreamly unobjective about any issue facing that country.

 

[B00ne]

ummm a WALL - where have I seen this before.

It actually did work well - maybe we could lend them our expertise 😀, self-shooting devices are a great aid too

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: ThePresence
What alot of people fail to realize is that all this land was land won in wars. Israel decided to return part of it (which is something no other country would ever consider doing), as a peace gesture. Then they get slammed for giving away too little. Now, when they try to build a wall to defend themselves, again, they are "stealing" land. It's insanity, they can never win. Whatever they do is not good enough. Not utill they give away the entire country. Even then, I'm sure people would still think it's not enough.

??? In modern times Israel is the only one to keep the land after a war. The US does not have settlements in afgahnistan or or Panama. Simple solution is to go back to what israel signed as thier border and the whole world recognises as thier border. Oh well... Don't know why I bother with these Iisrael Palestine threads...there will never be peace as long as boh sides are so aggressive an unforgiving. Only way is if an American president had balls a drew the lines and sent peacekeeps in.

 

[Linflas]

Originally posted by: ThePresence
What alot of people fail to realize is that all this land was land won in wars. Israel decided to return part of it (which is something no other country would ever consider doing), as a peace gesture. Then they get slammed for giving away too little. Now, when they try to build a wall to defend themselves, again, they are "stealing" land. It's insanity, they can never win. Whatever they do is not good enough. Not utill they give away the entire country. Even then, I'm sure people would still think it's not enough.

I guess it is a good thing for the rest of the world that the Allies did not think this way at the end of WWII. There are a lot of us that have no problem with Israel defending itself against terrorists and aggressors but knew from the time Menachem Began allowed settlements in the occupied territories that it would lead to nothing but more bloodshed and violence. Had the US at that point stood firm and withheld aid until the settlements were removed we might be looking at an entirely different situation there today. I generally am 180 degrees from czar on anything political but he is exactly right when he points out that if you are going to build a fence it should be built on the actual recognized political boundry.