View Full Version : Peretz's "Hong Kong" idea shows labor is lunie
The entire premise of "leasing" the WB settlements is that Israel must ACCEPT THE PAL ARAB claims that the WB is, by right, totally theirs, and therefore Israel has no right to them, and must "lease them".
It is an acceptance of the Arab narrative, in COMPLETE DISREGARD to Israeli rights to the WB as per the laws of nations and UN R. 242. In short, it is intellectual and political DEFEATISM.
And that is why Labor is IRRELEVANT, and, frankly, stupid. Labor has moved more and more towards the far left. They are already defeated. Might as well call them the French party, so quick they are to surrender.
Reffo
12-28-2005, 12:30 PM
Actuall by I think that the idea has merit provided that it would be implemented appropriately. For instance it could still encompass minor border adjustments as well as the proposed leasing. And/or it could be a long term arrangement and encompass accountabilities on both sides, involving penalty clauses "with teeth". I would not dismiss the idea outright!
what can be more loonier: this? or throwing people out of their homes and "disengaging" with barrages of Kassams on your tail?
Keeping in mind that if Sharon is re-elected, there's a very big chance that Labor will join his coalition along with the hardcore leftists from Meretz. a perfect coalition of irrelevancy...
Reffo
12-28-2005, 06:14 PM
The point with this idea is that, if it was implemented the right way, it would not throw people out of their homes until the expiry of the lease and once real peace breaks out, otherwise they would stay. And even then, it would be an orderly evacuation and appropriate compensation would be given to them.
The problem with the idea is that it assumes that it is Pal Arab land.
If it is not, if it is indeed disputed, with competing CLAIMS over it, then there is no need to talk about "leases." Why don't we allow the Pal Arabs to "lease" Hebron from us?
Reffo
12-28-2005, 07:34 PM
Perhaps our difference of opinion stems from the fact that I believe that for REAL peace, Israel should be prepared to sacrifice claims for land. I don't mean that they should do so to an extent that that their security would be clearly jeoperdized but rather, that they should be willing to take calculated risks under controlled conditions.
And another thing, while I do agree with you that by talking "Lease" Israel does apriori relinquish any territorial claims (only on the leased parts), it would also be true that if the Palestinians were to agree on the terms, they too would relinquish their mantra that those parts are occupied. Instead, they would have to admit that those parts are LAWFULLY leased and that they too have to adhere to agreements before they can get it back!
Of course, the whole thing is academic because I can't see the Pals agreeing to anything less than what is 100% favourable to them. I am just hoping that Perez and Labor don't end up going too far with the terms of their offer and that they will keep a reality check.
Mediocrates
12-28-2005, 08:25 PM
Certainly no one imagines that one can bargain rationally with them, do they? I remember 2-3 years ago the PLO committee bandied about the idea of forgoing all claims to Israel in exchange for money compensation. The amount they settled on was USD$500 Billion give or take. Their Syrian and Egyptian counterparts suggested 1 Trillion dollars. I guess they thought they were being serious but of course it's laughable like almost everything else they've ever uttered, pronounced, pontificated and predicted.
KettleWhistle
12-28-2005, 08:59 PM
Perhaps our difference of opinion stems from the fact that I believe that for REAL peace, Israel should be prepared to sacrifice claims for land. I don't mean that they should do so to an extent that that their security would be clearly jeoperdized but rather, that they should be willing to take calculated risks under controlled conditions.
What real peace? Why do you assume there can possibly be such a thing?
As for the subject of land, any giveaways need to be minimized, period. Not due to consideration of any fictisious peace, but simply because it is our native land. There is no comparison to Honk Kong. There is no comparison to any other place. There is simply no reason why Jews have to "lease" their own native land from foreigners. There is only one reasonable solution to this problem, and that is unilateral action. The Arab occupiers need to be completely cut off from Israel, with all the major settlements annexed. Everyone knows what's out there. There is nothing new or better or more reasonable that can be brought to the table. There is nothing to negociate.
Reffo
12-28-2005, 10:27 PM
What real peace? Why do you assume there can possibly be such a thing? If you are saying this based on the situation as it is today, then I agree with you. As far as the longer term is concerned, all I can say is that I hope you are wrong. And if you are, then Israel's leaders and it's people should put themselves into the frame of mind to recognize opportunities for peace and be prepared to make realistic sacrifices to achieve it. Why? Because no people should raise generation after generation of children for perpetual war unless it's absolutely unavoidable (which of course is the situation today - unfortunately)!
As for the subject of land, any giveaways need to be minimized, period. Not due to consideration of any fictisious peace, but simply because it is our native land. There is no comparison to Honk Kong. There is no comparison to any other place. There is simply no reason why Jews have to "lease" their own native land from foreigners. There is only one reasonable solution to this problem, and that is unilateral action. The Arab occupiers need to be completely cut off from Israel, with all the major settlements annexed. Everyone knows what's out there. There is nothing new or better or more reasonable that can be brought to the table. There is nothing to negociate.I agree with you about the need to minimize giveaways. In fact, I will take it a step further and don't give away anything for no substentive returns in terms of it's security needs and peace!
While I understand your horror about the idea of having to relinquish land, I can see the other side of the coin as well. Unless Israel is prepared to offer some hope to the Palestinians, they will not have any incentives to make peace, they will have nothing to lose and they will never go away. So, in your opinion, would that be a good vision for the future? To keep most of the WB and have perpetual war? When and how would it stop? After one side or the other completely eliminates it's enemy? I am sorry but that's not my idea of a good future for Israel, Israelis and Jews!
Reffo,
I agree that Israel needs to sacrifice territorial claims. However, "leasing" the major settlements is akin to Israel sacrificing ALL of its territorial claims. How about sacrificing claims to "just" 90-95% of the WB?
The Pal Arabs have claims, and they are legitimate. Israel too has legitimate claims. You compromise. The lease idea stinks of defeatism.
Maybe Israel could "lease" the Jordan Valley for some time as a security consideration.
Again, why is the idea that the Arabs "lease" the WB any less valid than Israel "leasing" it? If the idea of the Arab lease is less valid to you, then you have already conceded to the Arab position. Not only am I not prepared to do that, but I don't believe it is legally or morally justified.
Mediocrates
12-29-2005, 06:52 AM
The Palestinians don't accept the legitimacy of the SALE transactions they themselves participated in. Why would they accept leasing? No what they'd do is lease it to the Jews and then move in anyway under the assertion that it's their land to do with as they wish. And even if there were a lease, what court exists to enforce it?
These are not honorable people so they won't behave in an honorable way.
tzanchan
12-29-2005, 07:53 AM
What real peace? Why do you assume there can possibly be such a thing?
As for the subject of land, any giveaways need to be minimized, period. Not due to consideration of any fictisious peace, but simply because it is our native land. There is no comparison to Honk Kong. There is no comparison to any other place. There is simply no reason why Jews have to "lease" their own native land from foreigners. There is only one reasonable solution to this problem, and that is unilateral action. The Arab occupiers need to be completely cut off from Israel, with all the major settlements annexed. Everyone knows what's out there. There is nothing new or better or more reasonable that can be brought to the table. There is nothing to negociate.
And nablus, jericho, tul karem, and all the other pali villages is their native land. Are they supposed to live in a perpetual state of non stateness? The settlers have citizenship to a nation state.
tzanchan
12-29-2005, 07:57 AM
Again, why is the idea that the Arabs "lease" the WB any less valid than Israel "leasing" it? If the idea of the Arab lease is less valid to you, then you have already conceded to the Arab position. Not only am I not prepared to do that, but I don't believe it is legally or morally justified.
Isnt the idea of leasing it under the assumption that a viable state is erected in the WB? If in the Jewish state arabs lease land from the jewish state in the form of arnonas, and taxes, etc., why if an arab state is able to hopefully be created there, should not those lands be taxed as well?
You miss the point entirely, (and not surprisingly).
The issue IS NOT about land in any Arab "Palestine" that is formed. It IS about determining the borders of Israel and that Arab state. The idea that Israel needs to "lease" the major settlements, as opposed to simply retaining them and ANNEXING those parcels of land as a consequence of valid Israeli claims due to the 6 day war, is that Israel "gives up" the idea that it has a valid claim on any lands won during the 6 day war.
If that is the case, then shouldn't any place that the Arabs had control of pre 1948 war be "leased?" Israel should lease any lands outside of the UN R. 181 boundaries, no? And lease the Western Wall and old city, too.
Idiots.
You are the same as if the Pal Arabs were saying "well, lets lease Hebron from Israel for 100 years."
KettleWhistle
12-29-2005, 09:08 AM
And nablus, jericho, tul karem, and all the other pali villages is their native land. Are they supposed to live in a perpetual state of non stateness? The settlers have citizenship to a nation state.
They are Jordanian citizens, not any sort of non-citizens. What they do is not any of my concern. I care for MY people; the Arab occupiers are of no interest to me. And living some place doesn't make it their native land. I own a cabin in New Mexico. Does that make me a New Mexican native?
Reffo
12-29-2005, 09:37 AM
Reffo,
I agree that Israel needs to sacrifice territorial claims. However, "leasing" the major settlements is akin to Israel sacrificing ALL of its territorial claims. How about sacrificing claims to "just" 90-95% of the WB?
The Pal Arabs have claims, and they are legitimate. Israel too has legitimate claims. You compromise. The lease idea stinks of defeatism.
Maybe Israel could "lease" the Jordan Valley for some time as a security consideration.
Again, why is the idea that the Arabs "lease" the WB any less valid than Israel "leasing" it? If the idea of the Arab lease is less valid to you, then you have already conceded to the Arab position. Not only am I not prepared to do that, but I don't believe it is legally or morally justified.I don't know the exact terms of Peretz's idea but I certainly did not suggest leasing of all the main settlements. This is what I actually said:
Actuall by I think that the idea has merit provided that it would be implemented appropriately. For instance it could still encompass minor border adjustments as well as the proposed leasing. And/or it could be a long term arrangement and encompass accountabilities on both sides, involving penalty clauses "with teeth". I would not dismiss the idea outright!
tzanchan
12-29-2005, 09:42 AM
You miss the point entirely, (and not surprisingly).
The issue IS NOT about land in any Arab "Palestine" that is formed. It IS about determining the borders of Israel and that Arab state. The idea that Israel needs to "lease" the major settlements, as opposed to simply retaining them and ANNEXING those parcels of land as a consequence of valid Israeli claims due to the 6 day war, is that Israel "gives up" the idea that it has a valid claim on any lands won during the 6 day war.
If that is the case, then shouldn't any place that the Arabs had control of pre 1948 war be "leased?" Israel should lease any lands outside of the UN R. 181 boundaries, no? And lease the Western Wall and old city, too.
Idiots.
You are the same as if the Pal Arabs were saying "well, lets lease Hebron from Israel for 100 years."
There are settlements on the green line, and settlements in the middle of the territorise. It is not viable or practical for Israel to annex blotches in the middle of judea and shomron, surrounded by a palestinian state. The settlements close to the green line should be annexed, and the israeli arab villages close to the green line should be relinquished-- Libermans plan.
"You are the same as if the Pal Arabs were saying "well, lets lease Hebron from Israel for 100 years"
It would be as if a Arab in Haifa that pays arnona from the Israeli state.
KettleWhistle
12-29-2005, 09:50 AM
If you are saying this based on the situation as it is today, then I agree with you. As far as the longer term is concerned, all I can say is that I hope you are wrong. And if you are, then Israel's leaders and it's people should put themselves into the frame of mind to recognize opportunities for peace and be prepared to make realistic sacrifices to achieve it. Why? Because no people should raise generation after generation of children for perpetual war unless it's absolutely unavoidable (which of course is the situation today - unfortunately)!
This is the situation today, and this is what it has always been. Why shouldn't people raise their children to be soldiers? If we are to learn anything from our history, it is when we weren't all or mostly soldiers that we were abused. The situation of today is not merely practical. It is natural. It is what breeds success.
And to expect "peace" either in the short term or in the long term is foolish. Unless, of course, you buy the leftist demagoguery and believe that having word "peace" written on a piece of paper actually means anything. There is such a thing as a formal peace. There is no such thing in reality. And we cannot expect even any sort of civil relationships with Israel's neighbors neither now, nor a hundred years from now.
While I understand your horror about the idea of having to relinquish land, I can see the other side of the coin as well. Unless Israel is prepared to offer some hope to the Palestinians
There is no other side of the coin, since there is no coin. The very idea that Israel has to give something to the "Palestinians" to be offensive and preposterous. Israel's primary, secondary, and tertiary responsibilities are to the Jews, not to the Arabs, not to anyone else. Israel owes them nothing, and should offer nothing.
tzanchan
12-29-2005, 09:53 AM
They are Jordanian citizens, not any sort of non-citizens. What they do is not any of my concern. I care for MY people; the Arab occupiers are of no interest to me. And living some place doesn't make it their native land. I own a cabin in New Mexico. Does that make me a New Mexican native?
"They are Jordanian citizens, not any sort of non-citizens."
They dont have Jordanian passports...How are they Jordanian citizens?
"I care for MY people; the Arab occupiers are of no interest to me"
There is no equality in morality? Only MY people are important?
"And living some place doesn't make it their native land. I own a cabin in New Mexico. Does that make me a New Mexican native"
Does that mean that the US can expel you from your cabin, and subsequently a native american can expel the US government? By that logic, 99% of the peoples on this planet arent living on their native lands. Does that mean they have no rights to it?
In any case, if you were to have a kid who grew up in your cabin, he would be a new mexican native.
Mediocrates
12-29-2005, 10:12 AM
"They are Jordanian citizens, not any sort of non-citizens."
They dont have Jordanian passports...How are they Jordanian citizens?
Neither are they 'refugees' unto the 30th generation.
"I care for MY people; the Arab occupiers are of no interest to me"
There is no equality in morality? Only MY people are important?
To some extent yes. I for one care little for the poor of the Ukraine. Morality in fact has little to do with convenient cheap empathy.
"And living some place doesn't make it their native land. I own a cabin in New Mexico. Does that make me a New Mexican native"
Does that mean that the US can expel you from your cabin, and subsequently a native american can expel the US government? By that logic, 99% of the peoples on this planet arent living on their native lands. Does that mean they have no rights to it?
Native Americans have no claim to lands they are not already on. That's the law.
tzanchan
12-29-2005, 10:15 AM
Neither are they 'refugees' unto the 30th generation..That is not the issue, nor were they referred as such in this thread.
To some extent yes. I for one care little for the poor of the Ukraine. Morality in fact has little to do with convenient cheap empathy..Most people dont care as much for the poor of Ukraine in comparison to the poor in their own country. That doesnt mean its right.
Native Americans have no claim to lands they are not already on. That's the law.So why does Israel haev claims to Nablus?
KettleWhistle
12-29-2005, 10:16 AM
"They are Jordanian citizens, not any sort of non-citizens."
They dont have Jordanian passports...How are they Jordanian citizens?
They are either Jordanian citizens, or children of Jordanian citizens, which makes them all Jordanians. Who cares what passports they have?
"I care for MY people; the Arab occupiers are of no interest to me"
There is no equality in morality? Only MY people are important? This has nothing to do with morality. And yes, only my people, Jews and Americans, are important to me.
"And living some place doesn't make it their native land. I own a cabin in New Mexico. Does that make me a New Mexican native"
Does that mean that the US can expel you from your cabin, and subsequently a native american can expel the US government? By that logic, 99% of the peoples on this planet arent living on their native lands. Does that mean they have no rights to it?
I am a U.S. citizen. The U.S. government cannot expel me from my property, unless there are special circumstances. BTW, national security issues would be one example of those special circumstances.
You all are changing Peretz's proposal. He is not talking about some outlying speck. You could argue about Ariel... but even then.
lets talk Ma'ale Adumim. Lease or Annex. Peretz is saying Lease. Do you agree? If so, why lease as oppose to annex.
the idea that its not practicable is obviously false, given that Israel is building the wall around it, and the wall does leave a contiguous Arab state on the other side (with a couple points here or there than you can argue about, but not Ma'ale Adumim).
ps. Israel, under the law of nations, has claim to all lands won in the 6-day war, other than those renounced (ie. the Sinai, now more or less Gaza.)
tzanchan
12-29-2005, 10:23 AM
They are either Jordanian citizens, or children of Jordanian citizens, which makes them all Jordanians. Who cares what passports they have?.
So you determine Jordanian citizenship law? It is important what passport they have because that is usually the sign of citizenship. If they were Jordanian citizens, they would get jordanian passports, which they dont.
This has nothing to do with morality. And yes, only my people, Jews and Americans, are important to me.. Everything has to do with morality. To only care about 'my people' is not moral. That is probably why all moral jews complained when the world didnt help the Jewish people fast enough in WW2.
I am a U.S. citizen. The U.S. government cannot expel me from my property, unless there are special circumstances. BTW, national security issues would be one example of those special circumstances. But nablus for instance is not belonging to Israel.
tzanchan
12-29-2005, 10:25 AM
ps. Israel, under the law of nations, has claim to all lands won in the 6-day war, other than those renounced (ie. the Sinai, now more or less Gaza.)
Can you expand on this? How does the law of nations allow Israel all lands that she won? Would that include all the lands she 'won' in lebanin as well?
KettleWhistle
12-29-2005, 10:29 AM
So you determine Jordanian citizenship law? It is important what passport they have because that is usually the sign of citizenship. If they were Jordanian citizens, they would get jordanian passports, which they dont.
Passports do not determine citizenship. They only prove it. Those people, just like a bunch of Jerusalem "Palestinians" that I know, are legally considered to be Jordanians by Israel. They all were Jordanian citizens before 1967, and there was no mass reliquinshing of their citizenship.
Everything has to do with morality. To only care about 'my people' is not moral. That is probably why all moral jews complained when the world didnt help the Jewish people fast enough in WW2.
No, not everything has something to do with morality. But aiding enemy and ignoring your own people is immoral.
But nablus for instance is not belonging to Israel.
And your point?
Reffo
12-29-2005, 10:37 AM
This is the situation today, and this is what it has always been. Why shouldn't people raise their children to be soldiers? If we are to learn anything from our history, it is when we weren't all or mostly soldiers that we were abused. The situation of today is not merely practical. It is natural. It is what breeds success.
And to expect "peace" either in the short term or in the long term is foolish. Unless, of course, you buy the leftist demagoguery and believe that having word "peace" written on a piece of paper actually means anything. There is such a thing as a formal peace. There is no such thing in reality. And we cannot expect even any sort of civil relationships with Israel's neighbors neither now, nor a hundred years from now. I don't know, you may be right but that's a very bleak outlook. I do definitely agree with the principle that if one wants peace then one must be prepared for war. That however does not necessarily mean that there must be a perpetual state of war.
While I understand your horror about the idea of having to relinquish land, I can see the other side of the coin as well. Unless Israel is prepared to offer some hope to the Palestinians
There is no other side of the coin, since there is no coin. The very idea that Israel has to give something to the "Palestinians" to be offensive and preposterous. Israel's primary, secondary, and tertiary responsibilities are to the Jews, not to the Arabs, not to anyone else. Israel owes them nothing, and should offer nothing.KW, I think that by chopping off the rest of what I said:
they will not have any incentives to make peace, they will have nothing to lose and they will never go away. So, in your opinion, would that be a good vision for the future? To keep most of the WB and have perpetual war? When and how would it stop? After one side or the other completely eliminates it's enemy? I am sorry but that's not my idea of a good future for Israel, Israelis and Jews!You altered the sense of what I said.
I guess that if you truly believe that Israel will never ever get peace whatever it does or does not do then your position may have some validity. However, my belief (or maybe it's just a hope) is that with appropriate policies and if it remains vigilant and strong, Israel will at least achieve long periods of peace, even if from time to time such peace may be broken and Israel's vigilance will be tested. And if I am right, then it's a worthwhile objective and it may warrant at least some sacrifices.
tzanchan
12-29-2005, 10:41 AM
You all are changing Peretz's proposal. He is not talking about some outlying speck. You could argue about Ariel... but even then.
lets talk Ma'ale Adumim. Lease or Annex. Peretz is saying Lease. Do you agree? If so, why lease as oppose to annex.
the idea that its not practicable is obviously false, given that Israel is building the wall around it, and the wall does leave a contiguous Arab state on the other side (with a couple points here or there than you can argue about, but not Ma'ale Adumim).
I dont know the details of peretz plan. I support a plan like libermans. Settlements close to the green line are in, israeli arab villages close to the green line out.
As far as maale Adumim, I dont know the details of the wall there. But if it is anything like the well in Bet Lehem by rachels tomb, the arab municipality should def be compensated for that.
tzanchan
12-29-2005, 10:47 AM
Passports do not determine citizenship. They only prove it. Those people, just like a bunch of Jerusalem "Palestinians" that I know, are legally considered to be Jordanians by Israel. They all were Jordanian citizens before 1967, and there was no mass reliquinshing of their citizenship.
The state of Israel does not determine citizenship. If the state of Jordan doesnt consider the descendants of est jerusalem palestinians Jordanian citizens, then they arent jordanian citizens.
No, not everything has something to do with morality. But aiding enemy and ignoring your own people is immoral. ? Palestinians are not my enemy. And everything has to do with morality. One cannot do what he wants and argue, 'morality doesnt apply here'.
And your point?That nablus arabs are not 'occupiers'
Probably not land in Lebanon. Lebanon, as a nation, did not committ an act of war on Israel. This compared to Egypt, Jordan and Syria.
http://www.constitution.org/gro/djbp.htm
http://www.crimesofwar.org/thebook/just-unjust-war.html
http://www.crimesofwar.org/thebook/jus-ad-bellum.html
http://www.crimesofwar.org/thebook/aggression.html
http://www.crimesofwar.org/thebook/crimes-against-peace.html
This is the basic text that had and, in all honestly, still guides international law when it comes to acquisition of land through war.
While the UN has resolutions that say essentially, "land cannot be acquired through force" this principle has NEVER been applied in terms of "just war," and barely in terms of unjust war (except attempts to apply it to Israel.) Not to the US, or France, or Poland, or Jordan or Egypt or N. Korea or S. Korea, or China, or Vietnam.
KettleWhistle
12-29-2005, 10:50 AM
You altered the sense of what I said.
I guess that if you truly believe that Israel will never ever get peace whatever it does or does not do then your position may have some validity. However, my belief (or maybe it's just a hope) is that with appropriate policies and if it remains vigilant and strong, Israel will at least achieve long periods of peace, even if from time to time such peace may be broken and Israel's vigilance will be tested. And if I am right, then it's a worthwhile objective and it may warrant at least some sacrifices.
I didn't mean to alter the meaning of what you said. I just think that it was irrelevant. We should not be thinking it terms of what the other side thinks or feels. We need to stop trying to cater to them. And the question is really how would you define "peace?" Is the "peace" with Egypt a real peace? People like throwing this word around as if it actually meant something. Well, it doesn't. There will always be conflics. Some millitary, some cultural, and some others. The idea that some fictitious "peace" on a piece of paper will end almost all of the problems and struggles, and this is how this whole issue is being sold to the brainless public, is just lunacy.
tzanchan
12-29-2005, 10:50 AM
I guess that if you truly believe that Israel will never ever get peace whatever it does or does not do then your position may have some validity. However, my belief (or maybe it's just a hope) is that with appropriate policies and if it remains vigilant and strong, Israel will at least achieve long periods of peace, even if from time to time such peace may be broken and Israel's vigilance will be tested. And if I am right, then it's a worthwhile objective and it may warrant at least some sacrifices.
There was a time in the 80s when Israelis used to shop in Ramalla, and Palis used to shop in dizengoff center. That is good enough peace for me, and it was once a reality (not a hope).
Here's a pic of the proposed route of the wall. You know where Ma'ale Adumim is.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:BarrierMay2005.png
KettleWhistle
12-29-2005, 10:54 AM
The state of Israel does not determine citizenship. If the state of Jordan doesnt consider the descendants of est jerusalem palestinians Jordanian citizens, then they arent jordanian citizens.
Then it is between the "Palestinians" and the Jordanians. Not my people, not my problem.
Palestinians are not my enemy. And everything has to do with morality. One cannot do what he wants and argue, 'morality doesnt apply here'.
Are you 10 years old? I'm eating an apple right now. Do tell me, am I being moral or immoral?
That nablus arabs are not 'occupiers'Yes, they are. They occupy Jewish native land, on which Nablus is located.
tzanchan
12-29-2005, 10:57 AM
Probably not land in Lebanon. Lebanon, as a nation, did not committ an act of war on Israel. This compared to Egypt, Jordan and Syria.
http://www.constitution.org/gro/djbp.htm
http://www.crimesofwar.org/thebook/just-unjust-war.html
http://www.crimesofwar.org/thebook/jus-ad-bellum.html
http://www.crimesofwar.org/thebook/aggression.html
http://www.crimesofwar.org/thebook/crimes-against-peace.html
This is the basic text that had and, in all honestly, still guides international law when it comes to acquisition of land through war.
While the UN has resolutions that say essentially, "land cannot be acquired through force" this principle has NEVER been applied in terms of "just war," and barely in terms of unjust war (except attempts to apply it to Israel.) Not to the US, or France, or Poland, or Jordan or Egypt or N. Korea or S. Korea, or China, or Vietnam.
The fact that the resolution "land cannot be acquired through force"' is rarely applied, does not make land acquired through a just war legal.
Well, considering that the terms has been interpreted to mean that the US, France, Poland, etc.'s acquisitions from and post WWII are legal, I would argue just the contrary.
after all, is it "any force" or a phrase meaning "you cannot use force to attempt to acquire land" (with the result of a defensive war being a different thing entirely)?
It has been used in the later sense, not the absolute sense. Attempting to use it in the absolute sense vis-a-vis Israel is discriminatory, and therefor, in legalistic terms, a "ridiculous outcome" that cannot be subscribed to.
Let me add two things:
first, the statement reflects a principle, not a law. UN R. 242, which specifically contemplates Israel possibly retaining some territory won in 242, contradicts an absolutist interpretation. So do various other border changes which have occured (as discussed above).
In the US you Government cannot interfere with the "Freedom of Speech", and yet you can be punished via government for defamation, treason, yelling fire in a movie theater, etc. etc.
tzanchan
12-29-2005, 11:05 AM
Then it is between the "Palestinians" and the Jordanians. Not my people, not my problem..Well, then you cant declare that they are Jordanians, and that they should be moved to jordan. They dont consider themselves Jordanian, the jordanian G doesnt consider them Jordanian.
Are you 10 years old? I'm eating an apple right now. Do tell me, am I being moral or immoral?. We were talking about caring about fellow man, which does have to do with morality. You cannot say, 'these are not MY people', morality doesnt apply.
Yes, they are. They occupy Jewish native land, on which Nablus is located.
So everyone who lived on a land 2000 years ago, retains property rights for eternity? That pretty much deligitmizes the United States, Canada, and much of the nation states of europe. Does that mean that the canaanites if not extinct would be entitled to all of Israel?
The Jordanian government considers anyone with a Jordanian passport Jordanian, no? Most WB Pal Arabs ARE Jordanian (or children of Jordanians, and thus...) .
Reffo
12-29-2005, 11:07 AM
You all are changing Peretz's proposal. He is not talking about some outlying speck. You could argue about Ariel... but even then.
lets talk Ma'ale Adumim. Lease or Annex. Peretz is saying Lease. Do you agree? If so, why lease as oppose to annex.
the idea that its not practicable is obviously false, given that Israel is building the wall around it, and the wall does leave a contiguous Arab state on the other side (with a couple points here or there than you can argue about, but not Ma'ale Adumim).Sorry MGB8, I said the idea has merit provided it's implemented thoughtfully. I didn't say that I supported their actual proposal because I was not familiar with the details.
With regards to Maale Adumim, I would be inclined to annexing it.
tzanchan
12-29-2005, 11:08 AM
Well, considering that the terms has been interpreted to mean that the US, France, Poland, etc.'s acquisitions from and post WWII are legal, I would argue just the contrary.
after all, is it "any force" or a phrase meaning "you cannot use force to attempt to acquire land" (with the result of a defensive war being a different thing entirely)?
It has been used in the later sense, not the absolute sense. Attempting to use it in the absolute sense vis-a-vis Israel is discriminatory, and therefor, in legalistic terms, a "ridiculous outcome" that cannot be subscribed to.
When did this clause refer to WW2. When was it interpreted for WW2. I did not know that it was entitled to be retroactively enforced. Do you have a source for this interpretation?
And why is a defensive war not considered 'force'?
tzanchan
12-29-2005, 11:10 AM
The Jordanian government considers anyone with a Jordanian passport Jordanian, no? Most WB Pal Arabs ARE Jordanian (or children of Jordanians, and thus...) .
The jordanian government does not consider them Jordanian, and Palestinians dont consider themselves Jordanian and thus....
Reffo
12-29-2005, 11:34 AM
Everything has to do with morality. To only care about 'my people' is not moral. That is probably why all moral jews complained when the world didnt help the Jewish people fast enough in WW2.Yes, I do agree that everything has to do with morality but you are acting as if it is always easy to decide what is the truly moral position. While often it is easy, it's not always so.
With the Israeli Palestinian/Arab conflict, Israel is facing people who more often than not don't take the moral position towards Israel/Israelis/Jews. They argue that it's war and that anything goes in wars. You on the other hand seem to ignore that it's war and in the name of morality you seem to want to make concessions that could endanger your people, your family and friends (at least according to the opinion of some, personally I don't know yet, I am not sure that I understand your full position yet).
Tzanchan, I know that your intentions are probably good and you probably don't agree that what you propose may have it's risks but that is a separate discussion. The important thing is that you need to recognise that what you call morality is not always simple. To some people, your good and moral intent to look after your enemy is trumped by the fact that your position is immoral towards them and their families because you place the well being of those who make war on Israel, ahead of the security concerns of Israel.
Your WW2 is an interesting example. I for one don't consider all people who did not help necessarily immoral. IMO the ones who did not help because they feared for their own and their families lives were not necessarily immoral. However, the governments who did not give asylum to Jewish refugees and returned them to be murdered were certainly not moral. Also, when they could have sabotaged the German extermination program of the Jews by bombing railway tracks etc, but didn't, that was certainly immoral because they could have helped without major risks to themselves, but they chose not to help.
The jordanian government does not consider them Jordanian, and Palestinians dont consider themselves Jordanian and thus....
That's just not true. The Jordanian government considers Palestinians with Jordanian passports Jordanian. From a not exactly pro-zionist source:
http://i-cias.com/e.o/westbank.htm
a more neutral source:
http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761557747_2/West_Bank.html
When did this clause refer to WW2. When was it interpreted for WW2. I did not know that it was entitled to be retroactively enforced. Do you have a source for this interpretation?
And why is a defensive war not considered 'force'?
The UN was founded, (Charter adopted) on October 24, 1945. San Remo had been done in April.
Do you really think all the land dealings post WWII were done by then? Not exactly. The Paris peace treaties were signed on February 10, 1947.
You are making a lot of things up, Tzanchan. Stop BSing.
ps - 1951 for territorial acquisitions vis-a-vis Japan.
nor does the UN say "from conflicts occuring from now on"
http://www.global-alliance.net/SFPT/aJustPeace.htm
scattergood
12-29-2005, 12:31 PM
When did this clause refer to WW2. When was it interpreted for WW2. I did not know that it was entitled to be retroactively enforced. Do you have a source for this interpretation?
And why is a defensive war not considered 'force'?
If the attackers (those engaged in an offensive war) and the defenders (those who engage in a defensive war) are treated the same vis a vis land acquistion, then there would be no disinsentive to invading your neighbors.
Just to make things clear I will try to go slow for you so you can understand things point by point:
1) Syria invades Israel. Syria is engaging in an offensive war, Israel is engaging in a defensive war.
2) There are two ways to dissuade an invading army. Destroy their invading forces, and destroy their ability to continue invading.
3) Israel destroys the invading army. Syria sends more troops who are then destroyed.
4) Israel says, hey, let's stop this nonsense, and invades Syria to destroy their staging areas and material depots.
5) Isreal says, hey, staying up on these hills is a good idea to:
a) Punish Syria for the invasion, and in the future threaten the loss of more territory for more bellicose actions .
b) Gain a strategic advantage so future invasions are more costly.
Now in your weird sense of logic, Isreal should 'give back' Syrian territory after Syria invades Israel? What kind of disinsentive to invading is that? It is a recipie for war after war, as there is no territorial losses, nor any additional disincentives for starting and losing a war.
Reffo
12-29-2005, 12:32 PM
I didn't mean to alter the meaning of what you said.No problems.
I just think that it was irrelevant. We should not be thinking it terms of what the other side thinks or feels. We need to stop trying to cater to them. And the question is really how would you define "peace?" Is the "peace" with Egypt a real peace? People like throwing this word around as if it actually meant something. Well, it doesn't. There will always be conflics. Some millitary, some cultural, and some others. The idea that some fictitious "peace" on a piece of paper will end almost all of the problems and struggles, and this is how this whole issue is being sold to the brainless public, is just lunacy.My position is not one of catering to them. My position is that in order to get what one wants, one has to give something. Conversely, if one does not get then one does not give.
How does one define peace? It's not easy, there are various degrees of peace but in the case of the Israeli Arab conflict, I would define it as the absence of war involving fully agreed borders of all the states (including Israel's) and recognised by all the parties. Probably something akin to what used to be the cold war between the old USSR and America. I think that's about the best that we could hope for in the medium range.
Reffo
12-29-2005, 12:51 PM
There was a time in the 80s when Israelis used to shop in Ramalla, and Palis used to shop in dizengoff center. That is good enough peace for me, and it was once a reality (not a hope).And why do you think that came to an end?
:-(
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=663107&contrassID=1&subContrass ID=1
Labor Party Chair Amir Peretz's diplomatic team is formulating a platform calling for the long-term leasing of large West Bank settlement blocs from the Palestinians, adopting the model of Great Britain and China with regard to Hong Kong.
...
The platform's "Hong Kong principle" refers to the agreement between Great Britain and China in 1898, according to which Great Britain leased the islands of Hong Kong for 99 years. When the lease ended in 1997, China took back the islands with a pledge to preserve their democracy.
Using this model, the large blocs of settlements, Ma'ale Adumim, Gush Etzion and Ariel, would remain under Israeli control in exchange for monetary or territorial compensation to the Palestinian state.
tzanchan
12-29-2005, 02:48 PM
That's just not true. The Jordanian government considers Palestinians with Jordanian passports Jordanian. From a not exactly pro-zionist source:
http://i-cias.com/e.o/westbank.htm
a more neutral source:
http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761557747_2/West_Bank.html
but do they consider their descendants Palestinian? Which is the question.
tzanchan
12-29-2005, 02:49 PM
The UN was founded, (Charter adopted) on October 24, 1945. San Remo had been done in April.
Do you really think all the land dealings post WWII were done by then? Not exactly. The Paris peace treaties were signed on February 10, 1947.
You are making a lot of things up, Tzanchan. Stop BSing.
ps - 1951 for territorial acquisitions vis-a-vis Japan.
nor does the UN say "from conflicts occuring from now on"
http://www.global-alliance.net/SFPT/aJustPeace.htm
The clause we are referring to was made in 1967...
tzanchan
12-29-2005, 02:57 PM
If the attackers (those engaged in an offensive war) and the defenders (those who engage in a defensive war) are treated the same vis a vis land acquistion, then there would be no disinsentive to invading your neighbors.
Just to make things clear I will try to go slow for you so you can understand things point by point:
1) Syria invades Israel. Syria is engaging in an offensive war, Israel is engaging in a defensive war.
2) There are two ways to dissuade an invading army. Destroy their invading forces, and destroy their ability to continue invading.
3) Israel destroys the invading army. Syria sends more troops who are then destroyed.
4) Israel says, hey, let's stop this nonsense, and invades Syria to destroy their staging areas and material depots.
5) Isreal says, hey, staying up on these hills is a good idea to:
a) Punish Syria for the invasion, and in the future threaten the loss of more territory for more bellicose actions .
b) Gain a strategic advantage so future invasions are more costly.
Now in your weird sense of logic, Isreal should 'give back' Syrian territory after Syria invades Israel? What kind of disinsentive to invading is that? It is a recipie for war after war, as there is no territorial losses, nor any additional disincentives for starting and losing a war.
Losing a war is a disincentive. In any case, your example is not one of international law, but one that I read on jewishvirtual library.com If international law wanted to allow territory gained in a defensive war admissible, they would have said so. But they didnt.
Practically I think that losing land is not a disincentive, only genocide is. Consequently genocide must be legal in international law since it is a disincentive towards war.....
In any case if israel had any intention of retaining territories in the westbank, then they would have to cater to all its denizens, which is equally impracticle.
tzanchan
12-29-2005, 02:58 PM
And why do you think that came to an end?
And why did that persist for so long?
Reffo
12-29-2005, 03:52 PM
And why do you think that came to an end?
And why did that persist for so long?C'mon tzanchan, I am not trying to take an adversarial role here and I personally don't feel that we are on opposing sides. You suggested that you would be happy with the situation as it was in the 80's. I am genuinely interested in your opinion as to what went wrong?
I will give you my opinion about it later.
The clause we are referring to was made in 1967...
Its generally attributed to the Charter, not the individual resolutions. I'll find you the cite when I can.
You are still bsing - not actually debating but playing rhetorical and arguing games. Seriously, stop - we can be above that, no?
Let me add:
it appears that this interpretation of the above "principle" comes from Article, section 4 of the Charter:
Article 2. The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance with the following Principles.
* 4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.
Again - this occured before Poland was divied up, before Japan lost its land to the US and others, before Finland lost land to Moscow and Italy too lost land. It is not a "new law" that it being attempted to be applied later on (and if it was, it would REINFORCE the illegitimacy and discriminatory nature) and, given the language of the charter, the idea of "just war" fits just fine.
tzanchan
12-30-2005, 09:51 AM
C'mon tzanchan, I am not trying to take an adversarial role here and I personally don't feel that we are on opposing sides. You suggested that you would be happy with the situation as it was in the 80's. I am genuinely interested in your opinion as to what went wrong?
I will give you my opinion about it later.
They became too nationalistic, and were incited by the leaders. Similar to the early days.
tzanchan
12-30-2005, 09:54 AM
Its generally attributed to the Charter, not the individual resolutions. I'll find you the cite when I can.
You are still bsing - not actually debating but playing rhetorical and arguing games. Seriously, stop - we can be above that, no?
I am BSing but your argument comes down to the ad hominem of telling me to stop playing rhetorical games.
More BS. This is tiresome.
My argument was clear as day. Taking land in "just war" has long precedent in International Law, and remains good standing today, given the application of the UN Charter.
Given that, Israel's claims to the WB (and to Gaza) are legitimate, and therefor the idea of "leasing" places like Ma'ale Adumim is defeatist, in that it denies these legitimate claims in favor of the Arab narrative - ideological/psychological surrender. This demostrates why the Israeli public has no faith in Labor, which has moved further and further to the left, anyway. Labor has already surrendered to the Arabs.
But at least you admit that you are BSing.
They became too nationalistic, and were incited by the leaders. Similar to the early days.
Or maybe, from a post 1967 position of no hope to destroy Israel, so might as well get along, they gained hope of Israel's destruction from the Israeli left's constant weakness and a strong Arab propaganda campaign.
It is not anger that motivates terrorists. It is HOPE.
Reffo
12-30-2005, 08:22 PM
C'mon tzanchan, I am not trying to take an adversarial role here and I personally don't feel that we are on opposing sides. You suggested that you would be happy with the situation as it was in the 80's. I am genuinely interested in your opinion as to what went wrong?
I will give you my opinion about it later.
They became too nationalistic, and were incited by the leaders. Similar to the early days.I don't think that they became nationalistic, they always were nationalistic. So, in 1987, their nationalism boiled over as a result of particularly heavy incitement by their religious leaders who used a traffic accident in which four residents of the Jabalya refugee camp in Gaza were killed. Their religious clergy used that accident to whip up the feelings of the masses (not for the first or the last time in the history of Palestinian Israeli relations) and riots broke out which became known as the first Intifada.
So, tzanchan, getting back to the issue of morality, I do agree with you that Israel should not factor out morality in it's dealings with the Palestinians. But surely it cuts both ways. Surely, they too have to deal with Jews/Israelis in a more moral way. Otherwise things get very complicated because war is complicated.
tzanchan
12-30-2005, 08:42 PM
So, tzanchan, getting back to the issue of morality, I do agree with you that Israel should not factor out morality in it's dealings with the Palestinians. But surely it cuts both ways. Surely, they too have to deal with Jews/Israelis in a more moral way. Otherwise things get very complicated because war is complicated.
The fact that some Palestinians fight immorally, does not give Israel the right to act immorally against one Palestinian.l
Reffo
12-30-2005, 09:00 PM
The fact that some Palestinians fight immorally, does not give Israel the right to act immorally against one Palestinian.I agree. But it's not a question of the "right to act immorally" It's a question of the practicalities of the situation. For instance, if/when there is no other choice, what is more moral? To safeguard the lives of Palestinians or the lives of Israeli civilians including children? Of course, if you can do both then both sets of lives should be protected but what if it's one or the other and if there is no other choice? What should you do? Unfortunately, that's the dilemma of all wars!
KettleWhistle
12-31-2005, 12:15 PM
What "morality" or "immorality" are you talking about? Tzanchan is simply spewing rhetoric that has no pragmatic or realistic meaning. Morality is subjective. Pragmatism isn't. And the whole issue in these latest stages of the Israeli-Arab conflict are about pragmatism, not about morality. The Arabs are simply exploiting the covardice of the leftists to push their agenda of expelling Jews from our native land through them. It got nothing to do with morality or the lack of it.
Reffo
12-31-2005, 12:45 PM
Morality and pragmatism are not mutually exclusive concepts. But what I am trying to demonstrate to tzanchan is that although smetimes morality is straight forward, for example most people would agree that it is not moral to steal or murder, but at other times, morality is in the eye of the beholder. For example, from the Israeli point of view, it is moral to shoot back at people who are shooting at you in order to silence them and to save your own civilians even if it means that some of their innocents may be harmed. Why? Firstly, because your primary responsibility is to save your own (especially since it's self defence). Secondly, because the Arabs too have a responsibility to stop their extremists from shooting at innocents. And if they choose not to do so, then they are guilty of immoral behaviour and they leave Israel with no other choice but to defend themselves, even if it has bad consequences to Arab civilians. Of course, on the other hand, the Arabs, their apologists and those who are misguided, argue that two wrongs don't make a right and that Israel is therefore also guilty for killing innocents, and of immoral behaviour.
Pragmatism on the other hand means that one is willing to compromise in order to meet one's objectives. For example, to give up land in order to achieve an acceptable sort of peace.
KettleWhistle
12-31-2005, 01:44 PM
Secondly, because the Arabs too have a responsibility to stop their extremists from shooting at innocents. And if they choose not to do so, then they are guilty of immoral behaviour and they leave Israel with no other choice but to defend themselves, even if it has bad consequences to Arab civilians.
No. They neither have any such responsibilities, nor are they guilty of anything immoral. They are doing what needs to be done to further their goal. And it is the right thing for them. It is not moral. It is not immoral. (It's amoral.) Because that's what you do in a war--you do what needs to be done. In WWII, Hiroshima wasn't enough. So there was Nagasaki. And it was the right thing to do because it got the job done.
Now, on the Jewish side, we have moralists--people who claim that amoral things or actions have moral values, and that you have to hurt yourself and your interests for the sake of those. And that's just not the case because this isn't how you win. It isn't about morality here. It is about winning.
Reffo
12-31-2005, 02:25 PM
No. They neither have any such responsibilities, nor are they guilty of anything immoral. They are doing what needs to be done to further their goal. And it is the right thing for them. It is not moral. It is not immoral. (It's amoral.) Because that's what you do in a war--you do what needs to be done. In WWII, Hiroshima wasn't enough. So there was Nagasaki. And it was the right thing to do because it got the job done.Yes, it's one thing to say "do what needs to be done", heck, I have used that expression myself in relation to this conflict, but is their goal moral? And even if it is moral, is there a more moral way of achieving the same thing (more of a win win)?
Let's look at the Palestinian Arab objectives:
I believe that a significant number of them just want to eliminate Israel, ethnically cleanse it of Jews and kill as many Jews as possible, is that moral? Of course not, and where will it end? Today they will do it to Jews, tomorrow to the and Christians, and eventually someone will do it to them. It's a recipe for a perpetual state of war, indiscriminate killing and oppression. Is that what humanity needs or wants? I think not, and that's why morality is important because if people consider morality then they may not adopt that type of behaviour (assuming one's morality is based on a principle like "Don't do unto others what you don't want to be done to you".
Others (I don't know in what numbers) don't want to go that far, they have given up the idea of destroying Israel. They just want to get as much land from Israel as possible so that they can create their own independent Arab Palestinian state. I have no problems with that. It's just as moral as the aspiration of Jews to have self determination and be independent. But the question to ask here is: Do they have to commit terrorism, or allow terrorism to be committed in their name, to achieve that objective? The answer to that is clearly no because if anything, it delays their objectives.
Now, on the Jewish side, we have moralists--people who claim that amoral things or actions have moral values, and that you have to hurt yourself and your interests for the sake of those. And that's just not the case because this isn't how you win. It isn't about morality here. It is about winning.Yes, I too don't agree with those who forego the national interest and who based on false moral considerations would endanger their own people. The problem with their type of thinking is that they want to hold their own side to impractically high moral standards while they accept highly immoral behaviour from the enemy. Of course, that is just a recipe for defeat, if not in the short term then in the longer term. And that is actually immoral towards your own people. IMO it's not a moral position to allow your own people to die and/or be endangered needlessly when there are ways of preventing that by appropriate self defense. In other words, do what needs to be done, no more no less!
KettleWhistle
12-31-2005, 02:32 PM
Yes, it's one thing to say "do what needs to be done", heck, I have used that expression myself in relation to this conflict, but is their goal moral?
The answer is no. It is not up to anyone to enforce their idea of morality on others. The whole issue of morality, is nothing other than moralistic (i.e. pseudo-moral) demagoguery that serves as nothing other than a political rallying call and nothing else. There is nothing more to it.
Reffo
12-31-2005, 02:42 PM
You are right, I don't see it as Israel's role to teach anyone else morals. All I was saying is that Israel can take morality into consideration. As long as they don't do so in an overly simplistic way. It need not become self defeating and impractical but at the same time it's not quite as harsh as what you seem to advocate.
Reffo
12-31-2005, 03:19 PM
No offence KW (I am sure you haven't fully thought through the implications of what you said), but my main problem with your position (that morality should not be a consideration) is that if one accepts this then it's the slippery slope! Where would it stop? What would prevent the strongest side from entirely eliminating/exterminating every potential enemy? The only answer is their morality. Without it, we would have Nazism!
KW,
I'm with Reffo on this one. There certainly are morality issues. The whole reason that terrorism is "wrong" or "bad" is due to morality. The reason that the press's articles are offensive is that they create false moral equivalence.
Also, the Nazi's were famous for wanting an amoral society. Communism also had a strain of "amorality" in it.
Certainly, their are complex issues, and sometimes "the lesser of the evils" is very evil in of itself. Nevertheless, morality should be considered, even in times of war.
If there was no issue of morality, then Israel shouldn't just expell the Arabs (because might would make right), but might as well kill them all - heck, in nice little camps (efficient). That is the amorality logic taken to its logical and natural endpoint.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.1 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.