Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

Shove International Consensus

Israel World Court

  • Please log in to reply
91 replies to this topic

#61 Ogami

Ogami
  • Islander
  • 2,976 posts

Posted 18 July 2004 - 06:00 PM

Shaun also wrote:

As for Iraq, you'd have to be completely delusional to think that it's going well.

Thank goodness I have the command of history, and not merely personal emotion, to back up such a statement.

Some reading for you, Shaun, feel free to entertain my delusions:

What lessons postwar Germany holds for Iraq
http://www.csmonitor...q.html?worldNav

Rebuilding Japan and Germany almost 60 years ago won't hold all the answers, of course. But it's an excellent guidepost considering how democratic those countries are today. Delusional is pooh-poohing any good news from Iraq as helping Bush. Now that's just flat-out weird.

-Ogami

#62 Mr.Calgary

Mr.Calgary

    Has left.

  • Islander
  • 1,348 posts

Posted 18 July 2004 - 08:45 PM

Ogami, on Jul 18 2004, 03:48 PM, said:

I'm sorry, I must have missed the military campaign that occurred anywhere in the last 60 years where the Palestinians won that land.
Hello Ogami,

Well said.  :thumbs-up:

As to having an useful exchange with Aric, a sincere good luck to ya.

That's a mighty serious bubble he's in.  :blues:
Favourite Coda thread quotes.....

(1)  Yes. Bad Trance! Wicked, Evil Trance!

(2)  Stayed purple.   (3)  Bad, bad Trance!

(4)  Love and Blowing Things Up continue forever. The universe wins

#63 Aric

Aric

    Ar1ARX

  • Islander
  • 504 posts

Posted 18 July 2004 - 10:22 PM

Hardly, Mr. Calgary.  For instance, if you've noticed, none of my arguments can be proven false, misleading, or a lie.  Ogami is arguing around me.  Since you're clearly unwilling to engage in this argument, what did you expect?  Me to just believe that I'm wrong in the face of what, exactly?

As for the question of Palestinian land, I believe it was the Security Council, including Israel's ally the US, that said the 1967 borders were the new borders, that Israel's attempts to annex East Jerusalem and build settlements on the West Bank and Gaza were illegal.  Palestinians don't have to conquer any land at all, they were granted this land, just like Israel was granted their land, by force of international will.  And on a different note, what a great signal to the world, hey, don't worry about all the last half century of trying to end wars of conquest, if you want land, go seize it through force of arms.  It's no wonder the Palestinians, incapable of taking the field of battle against the Israelis, resort to terrorism.  According to your metric, Ogami, it's the only weapon they have.  What incentive do they have to make peace, by the way, the court case was a peaceful exercise, but Israel already said they'd ignore it.  Put yourself in the position of the Palestinians, Ogami, and tell me what you would do.

Aric

#64 Ogami

Ogami
  • Islander
  • 2,976 posts

Posted 19 July 2004 - 07:05 PM

Aric wrote:

Hardly, Mr. Calgary. For instance, if you've noticed, none of my arguments can be proven false, misleading, or a lie. Ogami is arguing around me.

Aric, your stance has been quite clear. The World Court has spoken, therefore Israel must comply with their ultimate authority, ultimate justice, and ultimate jurisdiction.

I simply don't agree that the World Court has any say over anything or anyone, save perhaps the European Union.

I also don't assume that the World Court, simply by merit of its name, is any more moral, compassionate, or just than any other group in the world.

There was once a World Court that sat across all of Europe, just in the last century. They held the final word in morality and justice. And they exterminated tens of millions of Jews, gypsys, and anyone else deemed to be in violation of international consensus.

The World Court should bear this in mind before appointing themselves the holy overseers of humanity.

-Ogami

#65 Ogami

Ogami
  • Islander
  • 2,976 posts

Posted 19 July 2004 - 07:13 PM

Aric wrote:

And on a different note, what a great signal to the world, hey, don't worry about all the last half century of trying to end wars of conquest, if you want land, go seize it through force of arms.

I suppose you have a similar message for Syria, Egypt, Jordan, and Lebanon? Don't be so ludicriously one-sided.

It's no wonder the Palestinians, incapable of taking the field of battle against the Israelis, resort to terrorism.

Ah, we come to the crux of the matter, thank you for the honesty. Anything Palestinians do is justified, anything Israel does in response is illegal. Gotcha.

According to your metric, Ogami, it's the only weapon they have.

That's rubbish. Accepting Israeli rule has always been an option, one rejected at every turn by the Palestinian leadership.

What incentive do they have to make peace, by the way, the court case was a peaceful exercise, but Israel already said they'd ignore it.

Ah, so ignoring the World Court's ruling justifies more blowing up college cafeterias and crowded cafes.

Put yourself in the position of the Palestinians, Ogami, and tell me what you would do.

Well first, I would be aware that there are two groups of Palestinians. One group is already living in Israel, has Israeli citizenship, and has more rights than all the other arabs in the neighboring countries. The second group is the one you are referring to, the Palestinian refugees. By all indications from their education, news media, leadership, and public opinion polls, these people have no desire for peace. It will simply take the death by natural causes of this present generation of Palestinians for peace to be achieved.

They've been refugees for over 50 years, waiting for some outsiders to undertake the "Jewish problem" for them. If they're too stupid, too rotting with hatred, to opt for peaceful relations, let them wait another 50 years until every Yassir and every Hezbollah and every Martyr Brigade has died of old age.

Then there might be peace.

-Ogami

#66 Chakotay

Chakotay

    For gosh sakes let me out of here!

  • Islander
  • 6,657 posts

Posted 20 July 2004 - 03:51 AM

Ogami, on Jul 18 2004, 11:48 PM, said:

Israel earned every inch of land it has through blood-stained combat, they fought for their right to exist. I have yet to see a single Palestinian fight for their right to have a nation, they expect others to somehow deed the land to them. First the Arab armies in 1948, then the UN, now this World Court.
1946
Britain grants independence to Transjordan, which becomes the kingdom of Jordan. The British continue to administer the area west of the Jordan river, still known as Palestine. The militant Jewish campaign for independence grows more vicious, culminating in the bombing of the King David Hotel in Jerusalem.

1947
In November 1947 the general assembly of the United Nations votes to partition Palestine, dividing it into Jewish and Arab controlled parts. The Jews accept the UN plan, but the Palestinians and neighbouring Arab nations indignantly reject it.


Maybe the UN was wrong to give in to the jewish terrorists and give them a country over the objections of the people already living there. Maybe collective guilt over the Russian pogroms and the Nazi concentration camps blinded the rest of the world to what it was doing to the Arabs in the middle east.

I feel that both sides in this conflict are wrong in their actions, but like them, I don't see an immediate way out of the cycle of hate they've gotten themselves into. And the Fence/Wall isn't helping.
  No plan survives first contact with the enemy - military axiom.

#67 Mr.Calgary

Mr.Calgary

    Has left.

  • Islander
  • 1,348 posts

Posted 20 July 2004 - 10:09 AM

November 1917, the Balfour Declaration - to create a Jewish national homeland

1920 British mandate for Palestine and to create a Jewish national homeland

1922 British chop off 77% of the mandate land to create Trans-Jordan as an Arab protectorate.  Jews barred from living or owning land east of the Jordan river.  Trans-Jordan still administered under mandate authority and laws.

1940's  No Jewish homeland yet thanks to British government timidness.  Jews pressured to split the remaining 23% of land even further to create yet another Arab state.  

November 29, 1947 UN "two-states" resolution passes.

May 14, 1948 State of Israel proclaimed

May 15, 1948, as a sign of friendship and peace, Arab armies invade to push Jews into the sea.

---edited to use 'timidness' in place of the 'other' word--- :blink:

Edited by Mr.Calgary, 21 July 2004 - 01:23 PM.

Favourite Coda thread quotes.....

(1)  Yes. Bad Trance! Wicked, Evil Trance!

(2)  Stayed purple.   (3)  Bad, bad Trance!

(4)  Love and Blowing Things Up continue forever. The universe wins

#68 Shaun

Shaun
  • Islander
  • 788 posts

Posted 20 July 2004 - 10:29 AM

Mr.Calgary, on Jul 20 2004, 03:07 PM, said:

1940's  No Jewish homeland yet thanks to British cowardice.  Jews pressured to split the remaining 23% of
This kind of thing is REALLY PISSING ME OFF.

Ogami, thanks for the pointer. However you're mistaken, I'm not relying on emotion I'm relying on actual facts.
Shaun
Veni, vidi, vici

#69 Aric

Aric

    Ar1ARX

  • Islander
  • 504 posts

Posted 20 July 2004 - 11:41 AM

I believe I finally understand, Ogami.  At first, I couldn't understand how you constantly mischaracterised my arguments and argued around my points.  Now, I finally do, the truth is, we're speaking completely different languages.  That you would consider the Nazis as some kind of embodiment of international will akin to the Court's, that you would liken their actions to something you believe that the court is willing or capable of, speaks to this vast difference.  Thanks for the insights, Ogami, but I'm afraid my travel constraints will force me to withdraw from this discourse.

Aric

#70 Coffee Please

Coffee Please
  • Islander
  • 59 posts

Posted 20 July 2004 - 11:55 AM

Aric, on Jul 19 2004, 03:20 AM, said:

... What incentive do they have to make peace...
What incentive do they have to make peace?  What a strange statement.  How about all the deaths (on both sides) and all those hardships that were mentioned?  Why should anyone want peace?

So lets just keep on fighting till everyone dies, right?

I am glad that they tried a peaceful tactic...bout time.

#71 Uncle Sid

Uncle Sid

    Highly impressionable

  • Islander
  • 1,414 posts

Posted 20 July 2004 - 02:54 PM

Problem with something like the Court in this case is that it's not really a tactic that is worthy of being a "peaceful initiative" because there was never any hope that the Israelis would ever accept it.  It is just a PR tool.  You can't claim brownie points for a "peaceful" solution if you know that it will never actually be adopted.  

As to the existence of the State of Israel, the fact is that the Israelis moved into someone else's territory as what amounts to a group of squatters.  However, they came into the country and improved what had been allowed to turn into a dustbowl into something that was a successful state in the middle of a part of the world that had not left the Middle Ages.    If you object to them coming in and taking over Palestine, that's fair.  However, it's no worse than the Palestinian's ancestors who came in and conquered the same area from the Romans, who had conquered it from the Jews.  

In any event, we have to deal with the situation as it is *now* or we'll get nothing done.  Currently, the Israelis run their part and the Palestinians sit in refugee camps in Palestine.  The Israelis have their problems, but the Palestinians have to buck up and take responsibility for themselves too, and they have shown zero progress in that regard.  You can argue that the Israelis are out of control, but they can't work with the Palestinian Authority which is corrupt and unable to maintain control, and in some cases shows no interest in mantaining control.  Its possible that there is going to be a land grab, but you know, if the Israelis put up their wall and leave it that way, at least there is a line that they have invested in and they can work with that is no longer just a line on a map (and a dotted line at that).
I can picture in my mind a world without war, a world without hate. And I can picture us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it. - Jack Handey

#72 Ilphi

Ilphi
  • Islander
  • 4,071 posts

Posted 20 July 2004 - 03:45 PM

Quote

Quote

Mr.Calgary said:
1940's No Jewish homeland yet thanks to British cowardice. Jews pressured to split the remaining 23% of
Shaun said:
This kind of thing is REALLY PISSING ME OFF.

Tell me about it. And I'm even in agreement with Ogami on several key areas.
Yea, ere my hot youth pass, I speak to my people and say:
Ye shall be foolish as I; ye shall scatter, not save;
Ye shall venture your all, lest ye lose what is more than all;
Ye shall call for a miracle, taking Christ at His word.
And for this I will answer, O people, answer here and hereafter,
The Fool - Padraic Pearse

#73 Mr.Calgary

Mr.Calgary

    Has left.

  • Islander
  • 1,348 posts

Posted 20 July 2004 - 04:04 PM

Ilphi, on Jul 20 2004, 01:43 PM, said:

Quote

Quote

Mr.Calgary said:
1940's No Jewish homeland yet thanks to British cowardice. Jews pressured to split the remaining 23% of
Shaun said:
This kind of thing is REALLY PISSING ME OFF.

Tell me about it. And I'm even in agreement with Ogami on several key areas.
Perhaps you folks would be kind enough to expand on the "pissing off" part.

Should I be referring to the 30-year wait as an era of bravery?
Favourite Coda thread quotes.....

(1)  Yes. Bad Trance! Wicked, Evil Trance!

(2)  Stayed purple.   (3)  Bad, bad Trance!

(4)  Love and Blowing Things Up continue forever. The universe wins

#74 Ilphi

Ilphi
  • Islander
  • 4,071 posts

Posted 20 July 2004 - 04:15 PM

Quote

Perhaps you folks would be kind enough to expand on the "pissing off" part.

Should I be referring to the 30-year wait as an era of bravery?

Fine then, I'll tell you what pisses *me* off, although of course I can't speak for Shaun.

A) "British cowardice" as a phrase. The sheer arrogance of you to look down on an entire nation and dismiss it with one human emotion is breathtaking.

B) The Balfour Declaration of 1917 was formally a private letter from the British politician Balfour to Lord Rothschild. It has been interpreted, especially by Israel, as committing Britain to favouring the establishment of a Jewish national home in Palestine, but it was not some binding agreement as you make it out to be.

C) The British Mandate put the goverment having to juggle between the needs of both the Arabs and the Jews, and to say that they did "nothing" to work towards a Jewish state is silly. In 1936 the British proposed a partition between Jewish and Arab areas, which was rejected by both the Arabs and the Zionist Congress - for their own reasons.
Yea, ere my hot youth pass, I speak to my people and say:
Ye shall be foolish as I; ye shall scatter, not save;
Ye shall venture your all, lest ye lose what is more than all;
Ye shall call for a miracle, taking Christ at His word.
And for this I will answer, O people, answer here and hereafter,
The Fool - Padraic Pearse

#75 Josh

Josh

    He stares...

  • Islander
  • 13,774 posts

Posted 20 July 2004 - 04:20 PM

Quote

A) "British cowardice" as a phrase. The sheer arrogance of you to look down on an entire nation and dismiss it with one human emotion is breathtaking.

That pisses me off too and I'm not even British. This thread started out hysterical and it's stayed that way.
"THE UNICORNS ARE NOT TO BE TRIFLED WITH!" - John Burke.

#76 Ogami

Ogami
  • Islander
  • 2,976 posts

Posted 20 July 2004 - 05:41 PM

Josh wrote:

That pisses me off too and I'm not even British. This thread started out hysterical and it's stayed that way.

Then I thank you for your contribution in making the thread less hysterical.  :rolleyes:

I'm not intimately famiilar with the issues between the British and the Israelis, but I got a good perspective of the Israeli view from Moshe Dayan's autobiography: Story of My Life. The British had good reasons to be there, and the Israelis had good reasons to resent their interference. Both the Palestinians and the Jews chafed at the bit to create nation states, the Israelis were just better organized, is all.

-Ogami

#77 Mr.Calgary

Mr.Calgary

    Has left.

  • Islander
  • 1,348 posts

Posted 20 July 2004 - 05:59 PM

Ilphi, on Jul 20 2004, 02:13 PM, said:

A) "British cowardice" as a phrase. The sheer arrogance of you to look down on an entire nation and dismiss it with one human emotion is breathtaking.
:huh:  The overreaction is also quite breathtaking.

I'm rather surprised someone would think I was condemning every British person of the time.  There is a school of thought that would lay a lot of blame on the "British" and the "French" for screwing up the mid-east.  Do you presume they're all looking down on the entire nation as well?

The same as some folks might blame "the Americans" for betraying the Iraqi's in the wake of the first gulf war.  

ps - would it be fair to say the British also put roadblocks in the way of creating a Jewish nation?  Presumably, Britain took on the mandate out of self-interest?

If Israel has been created with full British support in 1928 instead of '48......it's just a guess, but I wager a few million people might have been saved.


I'll toss in a couple of quotes....

From the 1922 White paper;

The British government   "....does not want Palestine to become 'as Jewish as England is English', rather should become 'a center in which Jewish people as a whole may take, on grounds of religion and race, an interest and a pride.'"

From Sir Alec Kirkbride, the British representative in the area;

TransJordan was......"intended to serve as a reserve of land for use in the resettlement of Arabs once the National Home for the Jews in Palestine, which [Britain was] pledged to support, became an accomplished fact.  There was no intention at that  stage of forming the territory east of the River Jordan into an independant Arab state."
Favourite Coda thread quotes.....

(1)  Yes. Bad Trance! Wicked, Evil Trance!

(2)  Stayed purple.   (3)  Bad, bad Trance!

(4)  Love and Blowing Things Up continue forever. The universe wins

#78 Ilphi

Ilphi
  • Islander
  • 4,071 posts

Posted 21 July 2004 - 03:03 AM

Mr.Calgary said:

Quote

The overreaction is also quite breathtaking.

Balls. I love my country, and I'm going to defend her honour. Somehow I doubt that you'd like it if I started tossing around "America invaded Iraq for oil!" rhetoric, or why not "George Bush is a puppet of Haliburton!" Your assertion that it was "British cowardice" that led to the British foreign policy in that region is as ignorant and emotional as either of those sample statements.

Quote

If Israel has been created with full British support in 1928 instead of '48......it's just a guess, but I wager a few million people might have been saved.

You're looking at this in an absurdly black and white way, and with hindsight. Britain, when it recieved the Palestinian mandate after WW1, was essentially thrust into the most difficult situation of balancing two sets of people that any nation in the world had seen yet. Now let me make this clear - I support Israel, I support a two-state solution - even to the extent of interviewing protestors against the wall in Bournemouth, on video, about what I thought was ludicrous for them to be protesting only on Israeli actions considering how the other Arab states treat Palestinians - however you simply can't look at this situation from only one side, nor is it fair to judge a goverments actions with all the information you have now.

As Jewish immigration increased, there was violent opposition from the Palestinian Arab population at large. In some cases, land purchases by the Jewish agencies from absentee landlords led to the eviction of the Palestinian Arab tenants, who were replaced by the Jewish kibbutzim. The Palestinian Arabs prior to World War I had the status of peasants (felaheen), and did not own their land although they might own the trees that grew on that land. When Jews, who grew up with European laws, purchased land they did not always realise that the villagers on that land owned the trees. This was often a source of misunderstanding and conflict. The olive tree is particularly important here as it can remain productive for over 1,000 years. Tensions led to widespread violent disturbances on several occasions, notably in 1921, 1929 and 1936-1939. The 1929 disturbances were primarily violent attacks by Arabs on Jews, and in 1936-9.  In response to numerous Palestinian Arab attacks on Jewish communities, the Haganah was formed on June 15th, 1920. Beginning in 1936, several Jewish groups such as Etzel (Irgun) and Lehi (Stern Gang) conducted their own campaign of violence against British and Arab targets.

Do you really think that in this kind of volitile situation a country could simply create a new state? Well, hey, they tried to start the process in 1936 as I said previously - but the idea of partitioning land was rejected by both sides. So, lets recap - you've got two violent sides, both conducting terrorist activities against each other and your own goverment, and when you propose a plan to seperate them from eachother to prevent bloodshed they both flat out reject it. Added to that, you've had Italy invade Abbysinnia, Japan invade Manchuria, and Hitler approaching his zenith of power in the German nation-state. For the time being, I think you'll agree there were other concerns. Yes, perhaps a thousand people were killed in the inter-race terrorism - most in the 1936 Great Uprising - but I think you'll agree that fighting Hitler - and thus preventing the complete extermination of the Jewish race in Europe - was something of a priority, and troops (already seriously undermanned) couldn't have been shunted off for peacekeeping activities enforcing a new state.

Quote

From the 1922 White paper;

The British government "....does not want Palestine to become 'as Jewish as England is English', rather should become 'a center in which Jewish people as a whole may take, on grounds of religion and race, an interest and a pride.'"

Well, firstly thats a White Paper, which is only one state better than a Green Paper, which is only one state further than someone standing up and making a speech in the House of Commons... in essense, trying to throw it up as some binding agreement is rather meaningless, but I'll address it anyway.

Firstly, notice the language. "...a center..." Nothing about a state there. As for creating a center, well the British activly encouraged it, both in attempted terms with the division and by 1949 allocating 4000 acres (16 kmē) to Jews.

Ogami said:

Quote

The British had good reasons to be there, and the Israelis had good reasons to resent their interference. Both the Palestinians and the Jews chafed at the bit to create nation states, the Israelis were just better organized, is all.

Absolutly. The British tried walking a tight-rope to allow both sides to exist together - maybe it did favour Arabs a little too much, but then they were the local inhabitants at the time so it made sense to try and buy them off - but it fell apart. Ce la vie. Today, I'm in support of Israel on almost all of her actions. The thing I object to is going back on history and attempting to frame it from the modern perspective with only two camps - "good" and "evil", "black" and "white", "apeiron" and "nous", whatever you want to call them.
Yea, ere my hot youth pass, I speak to my people and say:
Ye shall be foolish as I; ye shall scatter, not save;
Ye shall venture your all, lest ye lose what is more than all;
Ye shall call for a miracle, taking Christ at His word.
And for this I will answer, O people, answer here and hereafter,
The Fool - Padraic Pearse

#79 Godeskian

Godeskian

    You'll be seein' rainbooms

  • Islander
  • 26,839 posts

Posted 21 July 2004 - 05:09 AM

Bravo Ilphi

#80 Ilphi

Ilphi
  • Islander
  • 4,071 posts

Posted 21 July 2004 - 05:19 AM

'Ta Cyberhippie.

In other news :

Quote

UN demands Israel scrap barrier

The UN General Assembly has adopted a resolution demanding that Israel comply with a world court ruling to dismantle its West Bank barrier.

The vote was passed with 150 in favour, 6 opposed and 10 abstentions.

The resolution, which is non-binding, was drafted after the International Court of Justice ruled the barrier illegally cut into Palestinian land.

Israel has already said it will ignore the court's ruling and condemned the resolution as "outrageous".

All 25 members of the European Union voted in favour of the resolution after it was amended to include calls for Israelis and Palestinians to meet their obligations under the "roadmap" peace plan.

Yea, ere my hot youth pass, I speak to my people and say:
Ye shall be foolish as I; ye shall scatter, not save;
Ye shall venture your all, lest ye lose what is more than all;
Ye shall call for a miracle, taking Christ at His word.
And for this I will answer, O people, answer here and hereafter,
The Fool - Padraic Pearse



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Israel, World Court

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users