I would like to argue something pretty important to me.

**Rat Faced** · 07-15-2005, 12:35 PM

Originally Posted by tralalala

Man, it's sad that you actually feel like you are there and need to save Palestine....

The land that was taken over by in the war in Gaza and West Bank is going to be given back... Why do you keep thinking it's not going to happen?

Maale Adumim is not far from Jerusalem, and is a big place like Ariel - it cannot be evacuated.
It's almost like saying if London was originally lets say Scottish (just ofr the example), and 200 years ago the Brits took it over, and now the Scots want it back - how on earth do you think you could possibly evacuate that place!?

Where are the UN resolutions (which mean nothing) that condemned the Nazis... eh? Even if they were, no one took them seriously, because the WERE AT WAR.

Syria - no, Israel took it over to make sure the Syrians stopped killing innocent civilians. Since the Syria has never wanted the place back... Hardly a crime.

The caravans I'm talking about are those being put up bt those nutters in these tiny bits of land (not even a quarter of an acre), and they think it'll stop the disengagement (which it won't).

No one takes these condemnations seriously as they mean nothing. They say it "because everyone else does". That's all... The wall will stop Palestinians from getting into Israel and bombing us after the disengagement. A good idea in my sense.

@BB: Not sure.. try find that info.

Its not going to happen. You've said yourself its not.. Israel will keep part, and its the best part.

Berwick upon Tweed, in the north of England has swapped hands a number of times between Scotland and England. To my knowledge its never had to be evacuated, to the withdrawing country. The locals just "got on with it", being part of a different country. In addition, 200 years ago there was no "International Law" as such that is worth mentioning, 38 years ago there was.

The UN wasn't around at the time of Nazi Germany, so i cant see how they could have passed any resolutions against them. If they had been, im sure they would have.

Syria doesnt want the Golam Hights back? Then fair enough.. keep them if the rightful owner doesnt want them. However it was shown that a number of the "attacks" in the north of Israel were actually conducted my Mossad, in order to facilitate the extention of Israels borders that way.

The wall has been condemned by most countries in the world, and is a contradiction of your opening argument. Its being built upon the land in dispute and has stopped 1000s of innocent Palestinians working land that they own now... simply because their village is on one side of the wall, and their land is on the other.

**bigboab** · 07-15-2005, 12:41 PM

Here is an article that mentions the land thing Rafi. Albeit I would have preferred to find a less biased account.

http://pubs.socialistreviewindex.org...264/sagall.htm

**Barbarossa** · 07-15-2005, 01:10 PM

Originally Posted by Rat Faced

Berwick upon Tweed, in the north of England has swapped hands a number of times between Scotland and England. To my knowledge its never had to be evacuated, to the withdrawing country. The locals just "got on with it", being part of a different country. In addition, 200 years ago there was no "International Law" as such that is worth mentioning, 38 years ago there was.

Slightly off-topic, but interesting none the less... Berwick-Upon-Tweed was also technically at war with Russia for some 93 years...

http://www.undiscoveredscotland.co.u...wickupontweed/

Even Henry VII's final capture of the town in 1482 didn't entirely simplify matters. Under the Treaty of Perpetual Peace between Henry VII of England and James IV of Scotland in 1502 (just 11 years before the Scottish army and nobility was destroyed by the English at the Battle of Flodden) Berwick was given a special status as being "of" the Kingdom of England but not "in" it. As a result the town thereafter needed special mention in royal proclamations.

This had one odd effect. When Queen Victoria signed the declaration of war on Russia in 1853, she did so in the name of "Victoria, Queen of Great Britain, Ireland, Berwick-upon-Tweed and the British Dominions beyond the sea." But Berwick was not mentioned in the Treaty of Paris that concluded the Crimean War in 1856, leaving the town technically still at war with Russia.

A peace treaty was only finally signed by a Russian diplomat and the the Mayor of Berwick in 1966. As the mayor said at the time: "You can tell the Russian people that they can now sleep peacefully in their beds".

I guess it does prove one thing, even International Law is sometimes an ass...

**JPaul** · 07-15-2005, 01:38 PM

Any "International Law" would only be meaningful if the State accepts that it supercedes their own laws. If they do not and something is illegal under this "International Law", but not illegal under the laws of the State itself then the people are not breaking any law.

It could obviously be argued that the State was in breach of "International Law" by failing to enact it. However the State could also argue that they had never accepted this law and as such were not bound by it. People often talk of us not having the right to impose our views on certain groups. If that is the case then we don't have the right to impose our views on anyone.

As an aside, but on a similar vein, there are also international treaties on human rights, which States ignore regularly. What one State considers a legitimate punishment another State may consider torture, or at the very least cruel and unusual punishment. What one State sees as reasonable policing of it's people another may see as oppresive behaviour, or again torture.

It really is a matter of perspective.

The one thing which makes progress impossible is when people say "you are 100% wrong and I am 100% right". Without compromise nothing will change, at least not in any sustainable or meaningful way.

**tralalala** · 07-15-2005, 02:17 PM

Originally Posted by Rat Faced

Originally Posted by tralalala

Man, it's sad that you actually feel like you are there and need to save Palestine....

The land that was taken over by in the war in Gaza and West Bank is going to be given back... Why do you keep thinking it's not going to happen?

Maale Adumim is not far from Jerusalem, and is a big place like Ariel - it cannot be evacuated.
It's almost like saying if London was originally lets say Scottish (just ofr the example), and 200 years ago the Brits took it over, and now the Scots want it back - how on earth do you think you could possibly evacuate that place!?

Where are the UN resolutions (which mean nothing) that condemned the Nazis... eh? Even if they were, no one took them seriously, because the WERE AT WAR.

Syria - no, Israel took it over to make sure the Syrians stopped killing innocent civilians. Since the Syria has never wanted the place back... Hardly a crime.

The caravans I'm talking about are those being put up bt those nutters in these tiny bits of land (not even a quarter of an acre), and they think it'll stop the disengagement (which it won't).

No one takes these condemnations seriously as they mean nothing. They say it "because everyone else does". That's all... The wall will stop Palestinians from getting into Israel and bombing us after the disengagement. A good idea in my sense.

@BB: Not sure.. try find that info.

Its not going to happen. You've said yourself its not.. Israel will keep part, and its the best part.

Berwick upon Tweed, in the north of England has swapped hands a number of times between Scotland and England. To my knowledge its never had to be evacuated, to the withdrawing country. The locals just "got on with it", being part of a different country. In addition, 200 years ago there was no "International Law" as such that is worth mentioning, 38 years ago there was.

The UN wasn't around at the time of Nazi Germany, so i cant see how they could have passed any resolutions against them. If they had been, im sure they would have.

Syria doesnt want the Golam Hights back? Then fair enough.. keep them if the rightful owner doesnt want them. However it was shown that a number of the "attacks" in the north of Israel were actually conducted my Mossad, in order to facilitate the extention of Israels borders that way.

The wall has been condemned by most countries in the world, and is a contradiction of your opening argument. Its being built upon the land in dispute and has stopped 1000s of innocent Palestinians working land that they own now... simply because their village is on one side of the wall, and their land is on the other.

Think for a moment why the part Israel is keeping is the best.....

Because Israel while owning that land actually did something with it, and that is why it is "better" as you say, from the land which we are giving back.

Intersting story about Berwick, but a little different from our situation - English people and Scottish people CAN in fact, as much as it sounds odd, live together in the same society, and that is why generally changing such a place between those areas wouldn't matter as much. In Israel, we are talking of putting people who are of completely different religion, background, even language... So I don't think your example, as interesting as it might be, is in place...

About the UN:
I thought (we learned it this year...) that after WW1, part of the Versay Agreements was creating a global "law enforcer", which would later on become the UN... this is long before WW2 took place.

About the Mossad attacks, I will have to agree with you on that point, or at least beleive you, because I actually don't know about that story

, although I am sure the attacks were done as said before to protect Israel from Syrian attacks.

The wall:
Yes, I know, it is very sad that we are ruining these peoples lives, and I think it is wrong to build the wall through villages. I think it should be built around villages, not through them, to STOP 100s of Palestinian militants and bombers from getting into Israel (that is it's main reason for being built).

@BB; I am tired and could'nt be bothered to read it all

Could you summarize it for me?

@JPaul: I agree with you 100%. You are 100% right, and so am I. what situation does that cause?

**JPaul** · 07-15-2005, 02:49 PM

It's perfectly possible for us both to be right, from our perspective.

Maturity involves being able to see someone else's point of view, even if you disagree with it. Then being able to compromise.