Re: I would like to argue something pretty important to me.
@RF: Yes, Israel annexed the GOlan Heights, but the main thing about all this "stealing of land" is that Israel had never annexed the Gaza Strip or the West Bank... Shows you how much we really needed the Golan Heights over Gaza and West Bank doesn't it?
And, after the disengagement, Israel will be going back to the 67 borders excluding minor parts of the West Bank which have been cultivated and now have some thousands of Jews living in one or two places. Israel is more than willing to give land southern to this to the Palestinians. I don't see why this should be a problem.
@Rio: All I can now say to you is FUCK OFF.
Why? Well, I have stated at least 10 times that Israel HAD to start the actual shooting out of no other choice. The Arab countries were the ones getting ready for war first, thus it is pretty obviouse who wanted to start shooting on who, isn't it?
Rat-Faced, as the big mod in this thread, can you please moderate Rios posts? He's getting a little out of hand don't you think?
Re: I would like to argue something pretty important to me.
We would have moderated a long time ago, except everyone seemed to be having so much fun... :rolleyes:
Is everyone happy and finished with there pawning now?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tralalala
excluding minor parts of the West Bank which have been cultivated and now have some thousands of Jews living in one or two places.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rat Faced
Every Arab country has stated often that they will recognise Israel, if they go back to the pre-1967, mandated borders and stop laying claim to the Greater Israel.
The fact that the land was "settled" by Israeli's and cultivated is immaterial.
The land was not theirs to improve or to develope.
No one says you have to leave it Developed when you leave, however the situation of what is required is quite clear... leave it.
Israel's annexation of the Golan Hights has not even been recognised by the USA.. if Syria stops laying claim, then that is up to Syria.
Until this happens, the rest of the world consider it to be Syrian land.
If I buy a car; respray it, put new tyres on and generally fix it up then find out it was stolen.
This means that the owner has had a free spray job... not that the car is now mine.
I may be upset and thump the wall, but that does not alter the fact it was my fault for not being more careful in my purchase.
Re: I would like to argue something pretty important to me.
That's the biggest problem in this huge conflict.
Israel is refusing to withdraw from those little areas. Israel however does not claim rights on "Greater Israel" (which includes the whole Gaza Strip and the whole West Bank). So, we need to find something in the middle, otherwise this conflict will remain as is for all eternity....
Israel annexed the Golan Heights for one specific reason - safety. Syrians had always shot dead innocent people from the GOlan Heights on the lower areas underneath it. This is why, during the war, Israel decided to annex the area after capturing it, which is what Israel did NOT do with the rest of the land taken over (apart from Sini which was later returned to Egypt as part of a peace treaty).
Re: I would like to argue something pretty important to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rat Faced
If I buy a car; respray it, put new tyres on and generally fix it up then find out it was stolen.
This means that the owner has had a free spray job... not that the car is now mine.
I may be upset and thump the wall, but that does not alter the fact it was my fault for not being more careful in my purchase.
If that's how your laws work, it may be that we are products of our respective systems, and that this is why we disagree on this issue.
Until fairly recently we had a law here that said that if you'd bought property in good faith, you got to keep it, even if it later turned out to be stolen property. (I think it may have been discarded in compliance with EU law, or somesuch.)
I quite thought this law made sense, as this meant that the current owner wouldn't be punished for someone else's actions.
Re: I would like to argue something pretty important to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tralalala
@Rio: All I can now say to you is FUCK OFF.
Why? Well, I have stated at least 10 times that Israel HAD to start the actual shooting out of no other choice. The Arab countries were the ones getting ready for war first, thus it is pretty obviouse who wanted to start shooting on who, isn't it?
Rat-Faced, as the big mod in this thread, can you please moderate Rios posts? He's getting a little out of hand don't you think?
Not cool at all!!! :angry: don't start that snitching shit. Rat and lynx are IN this thread. I'm sure they see the friggin' posts. :ermm:
Leave it alone.
Re: I would like to argue something pretty important to me.
Sorry Busyman, but Rio was going over the top, too far over the top.
Now I know he actually looked at it in "that way" (RF), I'll leave it for now.
Re: I would like to argue something pretty important to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SnnY
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rat Faced
If I buy a car; respray it, put new tyres on and generally fix it up then find out it was stolen.
This means that the owner has had a free spray job... not that the car is now mine.
I may be upset and thump the wall, but that does not alter the fact it was my fault for not being more careful in my purchase.
If that's how your laws work, it may be that we are products of our respective systems, and that this is why we disagree on this issue.
Until fairly recently we had a law here that said that if you'd bought property in good faith, you got to keep it, even if it later turned out to be stolen property. (I think it may have been discarded in compliance with EU law, or somesuch.)
I quite thought this law made sense, as this meant that the current owner wouldn't be punished for someone else's actions.
I thought that was the situation here too, if you bought something in good faith it was yours. The original owner took the matter up with the thief.
Or more likely claimed their insurance. Which they would have done with the car thing. Think it thro' RF, your analogy is v poor.
That's just what I thought tho', I can't support it.
Re: I would like to argue something pretty important to me.
Another way to look at it...
Settlers didn't take the land. The government did.
The land should be returned to the rightful owners and the settlers should take the matter up with the government.
Re: I would like to argue something pretty important to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
I thought that was the situation here too, if you bought something in good faith it was yours. The original owner took the matter up with the thief.
Or more likely claimed their insurance. Which they would have done with the car thing. Think it thro' RF, your analogy is v poor.
That's just what I thought tho', I can't support it.
In England; it will usually belong to the Insurance Company, on the basis that they will have "bought" the vehicle by paying out the insurance.
If they haven't paid out, then it belongs to the Registered Keeper whether you have bought in good faith or not.
Either way the car will, in all probability, be removed by the police until the matter is sorted.
This is why there are a lot of companies that will make sure a car is not stolen and/or subject to HP etc prior to purchase.
Re: I would like to argue something pretty important to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman
Another way to look at it...
Settlers didn't take the land. The government did.
The land should be returned to the rightful owners and the settlers should take the matter up with the government.
Good point, compensation from the Government.
