[fluff]

to complete your quote in bold.
.....the mysterious sinking of the USS Maine ship which led the US to blame the Spanish and start the Spanish-American War. Some critics have claimed that the sinking was intentional [1].

casus belli is not an excuse a country puts up, that is "valid" just because the country says so.
there is a legal framework around it. you cant say, for example, a brazilian timberer in peru grants peru the defensive position if it started a war. (for the claim to be valid, there should be a customary practice or a legal precedent) you also say
i dont define the terms of makes you an agressor. thats defined by casus belli. and the definition of what is "valid" casus belli is for the most part customary. it is rooted on precedents. (thats the customary part on customary international law). you just cant say "the first one to find a excuse", because its not about an excuse, but of what constitutes a valid act of war against one (valid being what is widely and customarily accepted as valid), and reason enough to retaliate in self defense. its not rationalized backwards. for the most part most "reasons to go to war" are already established. you just cant go and make up a new one to fit your needs.
and unless is some extremely rare action, never seen before (so that there is no precedent)... you cant retroactively find an excuse. casus belli is full or precedents, its definition is already shaped by them (and the lack of precedents in spite of widely known action).
so its not like X happens and you say "hey this is casus belli" (unless you are talking something so very extraordinary that there is no precedent).

now, back to 1967. you have (besides the mounting of troops on the borders, which for its own sake can be argued as a reason to go to war) the blockade of the tiran strait. that is customarily accepted as an act of war. do you want me to dig for a case??? or is it intuitively reasonable why a naval blockade is an act of war??
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockade

now, you ask me "Care to provide a list of valid reasons to go to war?"
i know a few..., blockades, bombarding, infantry invasion, magnicide (or whatever its spelled when you kill a president or a king), formal war declaration.... yet that list is not conclusive. there are many more reasons.....
i believe those 5 i just said are pretty intuitive and self-explaining.. and 48, 67 and 73 casus belli fall under those or other intuitive casus belli and there is no need to dig for a relevant case to back up.

So a reason is valid because you say it is? Come on, give me a validated list with a source, if one exists, otherwise simply admit that people start wars and make the reasons up if they need to.

Edit: BTW, infantry invasion is an act of war, not a reason to declare war and a declaration of war is an act of war also.

 

[fluff]

i know a few..., blockades, bombarding, infantry invasion, magnicide (or whatever its spelled when you kill a president or a king), formal war declaration.... yet that list is not conclusive. there are many more reasons.....

Whilst you're wriggling, would you differentiate between magnicide and state-sponsored assasination?

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

He has so far failed to give me a definition of a defensive war. Israel's wars of 67 and 82 involved them firing the first shots and invading other sovereign nations. They may have had good cause (though probably not in 82) but some feel that Iraq had good cause to invade Kuwait. As the actual fighting in 67 was started by Israel then the defensive argument goes out the window just as much as it does for Iraq.

What I am trying to get from Alexis_DH is consistency of viewpoint in order to enable a more useful discussion. If I need to play devil's advocate to do so I will.

wars are NOT always started by the one firing the first shots.
imagine tomorrow england blockaded. if england fires the first shots, england would still be fighting a valid defensive war. thats kinda intuitive enough.

about the gulf war.
i see similar practices around the world, recently no war has started directly as a consequence, and no country has claimed it to be casus belli. if anything, claims of that kind are limited to local or international courts. that is a precedent for example, that tells you if you start a war because you claim somebody is slant drilling, timbering or fishing in your territory it probably wont be considered a defensive war if you attack/invade (and now, plus the gulf war precedent, less so)

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

Whilst you're wriggling, would you differentiate between magnicide and state-sponsored assasination?

assasination of who?
that makes a lot of difference...
its not the same if cia assasinated krushev or if they assasinated a college professor in stalingrad.

 

[fluff]

wars are NOT always started by the one firing the first shots.
imagine tomorrow england blockaded. if england fires the first shots, england would still be fighting a valid defensive war. thats kinda intuitive enough.

about the gulf war.
i see similar practices around the world, recently no war has started directly as a consequence, and no country has claimed it to be casus belli. if anything, claims of that kind are limited to local or international courts. that is a precedent for example, that tells you if you start a war because you claim somebody is slant drilling, timbering or fishing in your territory it probably wont be considered a defensive war if you attack/invade (and now, plus the gulf war precedent, less so)

I find it hard to credit your reasoning, if another war had started due t slant-drilling then it would be OK? Well one did and suddenly it's not OK, why should a blockade be valid, simple because it may have happened before?

I can only conclude that your criteria depends upon your bias then as you seem unable to provide any definition other than by examples that fit your perspective. Your support of Israel seems to make you blind to the situation.

Tell me, is Israel fighting a defensive war in Lebanon, and if so why?

 

[fluff]

assasination of who?
that makes a lot of difference...
its not the same if cia assasinated krushev or if they assasinated a college professor in stalingrad.

OK, you tell me, who counts?

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

So a reason is valid because you say it is? Come on, give me a validated list with a source, if one exists, otherwise simply admit that people start wars and make the reasons up if they need to.

Edit: BTW, infantry invasion is an act of war, not a reason to declare war and a declaration of war is an act of war also.

am not aware of any "list of valid reasons". the fact you ask for that is a bit of a contradiction.
i mean, you live in a country with a common law system. it would be like if i asked you for a "written codified common law". if it was like that it would stop being common law, and would be civil law or roman law.

its not "people start wars and make reasons if they need to".
common law doesnt work like that.
another simplification, in common law (england for example) you dont say "he stole at gunpoint, and we´ll find an excuse to lock him up". its "we have the practice (and few coded bits) of locking up people who steal. and we have precedents on what is stealing and what are the aggravants".

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

OK, you tell me, who counts?

a president would count.

how far down the line until it stops?? i dont know, i would have to check for precedents to see where that line has been established before, if it has been (typical in common law) or i´d have to ask my sister or my dad.

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

I find it hard to credit your reasoning, if another war had started due t slant-drilling then it would be OK? Well one did and suddenly it's not OK, why should a blockade be valid, simple because it may have happened before?

you may have it hard to be believe, since it seems circular reasoning, but in a way, yes.
if another war had started due to slant-drilling AND the world had recognized that as a valid act of war... then yes, that happening a second time would be an act of war.
thats how customary international law, and common law works!!! read this, it explains it a lot better than me.
Article 38.1(b) of the ICJ Statute refers to "international custom" as a source of international law, specifically emphasizing the two requirements of state practice plus acceptance of the practice as obligatory or opinio juris sive necessitatis (usually abbreviated as opinio juris).

Derived from the consistent practice of (originally) Western states accompanied by opinio juris (the conviction of States that the consistent practice is required by a legal obligation), customary international law is differentiated from acts of comity by the presence of opinio juris (although in some instances, acts of comity have developed into customary international law, i.e. diplomatic immunity). Treaties have gradually displaced much customary international law. This development is similar to the replacement of customary or common law by codified law in municipal legal settings, but customary international law continues to play a significant role in international law
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sources_of_International_Law

another way, for example, would be is the custom of making a war in response to slant-drilling was so deep and accepted around the world... that it becomes a valid reason for its own sake.

I can only conclude that your criteria depends upon your bias then as you seem unable to provide any definition other than by examples that fit your perspective. Your support of Israel seems to make you blind to the situation.

nope, give that link about sources of international law, and about customary international law and how common law systems work.
and you´ll see its not am unable to "provide any definition". i would if international law was like roman law, where everything is coded and you have (like the geneva conventions) an article to quote or something.
but common law (interntaional law is common law) isnt that. international law is customary for the most part.

think about this parallel. ask yourself what is the definition of obsenity in the US (another common law system).
and you´ll see that the definition is not written down as "x amount of titties and poon in such and such way...". you´ll see that the definition of obscenity is shaped by the relevant legal precedents around it.

Tell me, is Israel fighting a defensive war in Lebanon, and if so why?

technically lebanon an israel have been at war since 1948.
same with syria.

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

To be fair, he said that the winner is entitled to the spoils of victory, provided that winner was fighting a defensive war. In your example, you might want to say that Kuwait is entitled to part of Iraq.

i dont know if am being clear enough, or if my slurred typing makes it harder.
the problem with the way fluff sets up the question is that it presents a contradiction.

he is asking for a civil-law like answer, from a basically common law system!!!!!!!!
you cant give a civil-law like answer (like quoting an article or saying X, Y and Z as established by article A, B and C) from a basically common law system..

it just doesnt work like that. he needs to read a few bits about how those legal systems differ, and whats the basis for international law.
those "victor is entitled the spoils provided it was a defensive war" have roots in international law. they are not things people say to justify. (although in the last decades its been determined that you cannot win territories thru a war, although that doesnt apply to israel based on the fact israel and the PA dont have legally defined borders yet)

 

[fluff]

you may have it hard to be believe, since it seems circular reasoning, but in a way, yes.
if another war had started due to slant-drilling AND the world had recognized that as a valid act of war... then yes, that happening a second time would be an act of war.
thats how customary international law, and common law works!!! read this, it explains it a lot better than me.
Article 38.1(b) of the ICJ Statute refers to "international custom" as a source of international law, specifically emphasizing the two requirements of state practice plus acceptance of the practice as obligatory or opinio juris sive necessitatis (usually abbreviated as opinio juris).

Derived from the consistent practice of (originally) Western states accompanied by opinio juris (the conviction of States that the consistent practice is required by a legal obligation), customary international law is differentiated from acts of comity by the presence of opinio juris (although in some instances, acts of comity have developed into customary international law, i.e. diplomatic immunity). Treaties have gradually displaced much customary international law. This development is similar to the replacement of customary or common law by codified law in municipal legal settings, but customary international law continues to play a significant role in international law
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sources_of_International_Law

another way, for example, would be is the custom of making a war in response to slant-drilling was so deep and accepted around the world... that it becomes a valid reason for its own sake.



nope, give that link about sources of international law, and about customary international law and how common law systems work.
and you´ll see its not am unable to "provide any definition". i would if international law was like roman law, where everything is coded and you have (like the geneva conventions) an article to quote or something.
but common law (interntaional law is common law) isnt that. international law is customary for the most part.

think about this parallel. ask yourself what is the definition of obsenity in the US (another common law system).
and you´ll see that the definition is not written down as "x amount of titties and poon in such and such way...". you´ll see that the definition of obscenity is shaped by the relevant legal precedents around it.



technically lebanon an israel have been at war since 1948.
same with syria.

By definition if for any act to be legal there must be a precedent then for any act to be illegal there must also be a precedent, hence you cannot simply declare something illegal because there is no legal precedent.

 

[fluff]

am not aware of any "list of valid reasons". the fact you ask for that is a bit of a contradiction.
i mean, you live in a country with a common law system. it would be like if i asked you for a "written codified common law". if it was like that it would stop being common law, and would be civil law or roman law.

its not "people start wars and make reasons if they need to".
common law doesnt work like that.
another simplification, in common law (england for example) you dont say "he stole at gunpoint, and we´ll find an excuse to lock him up". its "we have the practice (and few coded bits) of locking up people who steal. and we have precedents on what is stealing and what are the aggravants".

England has two law systems, common law and equity. Of which that latter takes precedence. Locking someone up for stealing is not governed by common law, but by a set of regulatory acts of law with defined actions and penalties.

The whole concept of international common law is an nonsense.

 

[fluff]

it just doesnt work like that. he needs to read a few bits about how those legal systems differ, and whats the basis for international law.
those "victor is entitled the spoils provided it was a defensive war" have roots in international law. they are not things people say to justify. (although in the last decades its been determined that you cannot win territories thru a war, although that doesnt apply to israel based on the fact israel and the PA dont have legally defined borders yet)

Do you not realise that the most powerful state sets the rules? The UN trys and fails if any of the veto-ed nations disagree.

There are regulations governing many aspects of international interaction and even some governing aspects of war and a internation kangaroo court in the Hague to dispense justice.

If Palestine cannot be invaded as as it has not legally defined borders then how can Israel be invaded? How can it fight a defensive war if it has no boundaries? Your arguments are descending into a tangled mess of nonsense because you refuse to apply priniciple consistently. You determine that Israel is right and then try and make the scenario fit. It's nonsense.

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

England has two law systems, common law and equity. Of which that latter takes precedence. Locking someone up for stealing is not governed by common law, but by a set of regulatory acts of law with defined actions and penalties.

The whole concept of international common law is an nonsense.

not really. for the sake of simplification, you can say international law is a form of common law for the most part, because of the jurisprudence relevance in both of them.
international is is heavily based on "laws derived from cases", just like common law. for the sake of simplicity i mentioned "common law", because international law is (like common law) based mostly on customs and precedents.
from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_law
International law has three primary sources: international treaties, custom, and general principles of law (cf. Art. 38 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice). International treaty law is comprised of obligations states expressly and voluntarily accept between themselves in treaties. Customary international law is derived from the consistent practice of States accompanied by opinio juris, i.e. the conviction of States that the consistent practice is required by a legal obligation. Judgments of international tribunals as well as scholarly works have traditionally been looked to as persuasive sources for custom in addition to direct evidence of state behavior.
of course there are coded bits, but those are also derived from custom and precedents...

By definition if for any act to be legal there must be a precedent then for any act to be illegal there must also be a precedent, hence you cannot simply declare something illegal because there is no legal precedent.

not really. its not necessary for a legal precedent saying "x is legal" to validate something as "legal".
nula pena sine lege.

If Palestine cannot be invaded as as it has not legally defined borders then how can Israel be invaded? How can it fight a defensive war if it has no boundaries? Your arguments are descending into a tangled mess of nonsense because you refuse to apply priniciple consistently. You determine that Israel is right and then try and make the scenario fit. It's nonsense.

palestine and israel DO NOT enjoy the same legal status.

israel is a dejure entity widely recognized around the world. its legal value as a dejure entity is recognized.
israel also controls west of the green line. its defacto control of this area is also regarded as legal and recognized by most of the world. thats good enough for a border.

palestine on the other hand, or the PA.
its legal status as a dejure entity is recent (oslo). its defacto control of areas DOES NOT enjoy the same status of the israeli control of tel aviv of haifa... SINCE (dejure), its been explicitly stated by the relevant parties (israel and the PA) that the borders are YET TO BE SET and then present agreements were set without prejudice to further border treaties.

now, you probably ask "why?".
easy. the legal status of the west bank is "up for grabs" since the british left.
lets say tomorrow a new continent is discovered. US borders are defined right not, but if the US decides to call dibs on the new continent, and the world recognizes that... then it becomes US land and the US borders shift.
now, the fact israel borders are set (de jure, de facto and widely recognized.. that makes them legal enough) west of the green line, has no prejudice on the fact israel borders can shift towards land legally up for grabs (the west bank).

i dont know if that is clear enough, specially since the PA accepts those borders are yet to be set.

 

[rockwool]

Israel invaded Gaza and the West Bank in 1967, and did not relinquish control back to their owners (Egypt and Jordan, respectively).

Blue, what do you mean with this? Please explain.

it is not.
whether it is, or not is dependant on the context.
perfectly legal exemptions are accepted for defensive wars (buffer zones), and sometimes as a form of reparation.

The context?
Allowing about two hours per week of running water,
Curfues, Nablous, as an example, was under curfew for 177 out of 300 days in 2002-2003,
West Bank under severe closure 66% of 2000-2001,
Collective punishment, Imprisoning of untried and unconvicted people; or in the words of Amnesty International:
"unlawful killings, torture and illtreatment,destruction of homes (some times with people inside), blocking of ambulances,denial of humanitarian assistance, civilians as human shields"
Amnesty even whent so far as to call these actions war crimes!

This is not a defensive war, nor a buffer zone. This is a colonization of the West Bank.
Has Israel made an outspoken claim of the West Bank as a war reparation? And if, what has the UN said about it?
Personaly, I find it very strange that you can bargain with peoples land and homes as if they were cattle that could be moved to new places of pasture. Come to think of it, so does the UN. It's ethnic clensing.

about the camp david offers.
israel got the west bank from jordan in 67, in a war an arab alliance started. that alone grants israel a legal the right to be in the west bank, since it can be rightly argued a war reparation or you can cite the security threats coming from there. jordan relinquished any further claim to the west bank in the 80s.
now, be realistic. why would israel have to let go something it is not obliged to do?? why would it let go something that can turn against its own security?.
you can say, palestinian have a right of self determination. and yes you are right... but when you reject a partition plan (the very same partition plan that gives the borders of a palestinian state they now demand) start a war, you basically put that right up for grabs.
do you know what is the legal status of the green line?

if you want to argue the right of return, we can do it in another thread.
i dont believe there is a "right of return" for palestinians in the "citizenship" kinda way. israeli jus sanguini based immigration laws are perfectly legal and within the same rights exercised by germany, switzerland and countries with similar laws.....
i believe israel liability is limited to reparation on a case per case basis, as deemed by excesses of the absentee property law. and the means to do so, exist since the early 70s in israel, and thousands of people have receive proper compensation. (the number being specially relevant since 1900s palestine was pretty much feudal).
compare that to the "right of return" (or even to proper compensation) of sephardim and mizhari jews fleeing arab countries.
the legal status of that is hard to argue against. basically the right of return, on first instance, from a legal pov, is a no-go. thats without even mentioning the obvious security issues....

you mention the facts and how they are ridiculously biased.. yet you keep making conviniently incomplete statements....

You start out with saying "about the Camp David offers" and you only touch ONE out of TEN facts I pointed out in that "peace agreement"! On top of that you claim that I make biased incomplete statments?!!
I showed some of the content in the Camp David proposal, which is so obviously wicked, it totaly speaks for it selfe, and by this showing that what you have been calling a fair peace offer is the crappiest fvcking thing ever to be called "a generous peace offer" and a spit in the Palestinians face.
The US media have portraid Camp David the same way as you see it and here is proof of the bias i've been talking about.

"Israel got the West Bank from Jordan"?
W-B is a part of Palestine, it was not a toaster for the old colonial power to give away to its successor. It is land and it belongs to its inhabitants!

Retreating from Palestine and recognizing the 1967 boarders would be the best thing for the security of Israel. That would bring stability to the whole region! Forcing people to live under that ****ty occupation will only continue the violence. How can one fale to see this? The fourth biggest war power in the world and they still can't protect their people from suicide bombers. 39 years have shown that it is not going to change.
They are occupying the W-B for one reason; colonization. By doing that they them selves are gambling with Jewish civilian lives and there for are indirect responsible of their deaths.
About how many Jews get killed every year, 1000? That's a slaughter for what, square footage?

The partition plan they rejected in 47?
Imagine the UN saying today that half of Peru from next year belongs to, say the US since they seem to be a bit unpopular down there, you lamas have nothing to say about it. Final. What would happen down there? Not a hard to guess people would reject that, wouldn't they?
Still, Jews have a historical right to that area too, so that gives them a right to be there. A partition was obviously the wrong way to go. A one state solution would have forced the two people to unite, instead of divided and antagonized them. That didn't happen eather, so here we stand; Palestinians have to accept that they have new neighbours and the Israelis must accept that they can't have more than they've been given. That is the will of the world.

"do you know what is the legal status of the green line?"
No, is it the same green line as the one in the Le Monde Diplomatique map Changleen linked to?

Yeah, lets leave the right to return for later we have enough as it is.
LOL, you continued anyways.. NP
Please explain better: "excesses of the absentee property law" and this compensation you've mentioned.
About fleeing sephardim and mizhari Jews from arab countries, they left. They got something new instead that was taken from others. Still, I belive any person has the right to go anywhere in this world to live and share. If they want to come to Sweden, they are welcome (I wanna go some place warmer ).
To clarify my stance: The Jews were given the "right to return" after 2000 years, same goes!

If you share your wealth, nobody's going to have to steal from you because it's theirs too.

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

The context?
Allowing about two hours per week of running water,
Curfues, Nablous, as an example, was under curfew for 177 out of 300 days in 2002-2003,
West Bank under severe closure 66% of 2000-2001,

thats not the context.
you seem to believe what is happening now is a "result of israel harsh meassures and violence". thats pretty naive and simplistic for a very complex and long problem....
israel is not in the west bank because it one day decided to oppress arabs. its there because a war was started against it, and when it entered the west bank the local population went nuts on resistance (legitimate self-defense is a right you loose when you start a war, because only one side can call "self-defense", and that is normally the defending side), and this in turn required harsher israeli meassure of control.. and so on.

the context is "the context in which israel entered the west bank". that´d be the historical context, reasons and conditions under which israel entered the west bank in 67, and from where legal rights and liabilities are derived.

and damn, when i was a kid, i lived thru curfews to. 300-350 days out 365 days a year for 2 or 3 years i think.... the context was grave enough to grant it as a necessity. am pretty sure israel condition is as dangerous if not worse (specially when you adjust war deaths per capita, israel has been, relatively, sustaing more than 10 times more war casualities than peru per year for 4 times the length of time)..

This is not a defensive war, nor a buffer zone. This is a colonization of the West Bank.
Has Israel made an outspoken claim of the West Bank as a war reparation? And if, what has the UN said about it?

israel is in the west bank as a result of a defensive war. the six days war. no matter how many times you repeat "is not a defensive war".
the PA itself acknowledges the legal borders and final status of the west bank is yet to be defined, and the green line was drawn without prejudice to further border demarcation.

.....Until a final status accord was established, West Bank and Gaza would be divided into three zones:

* Area A - full control of the Palestinian Authority.
* Area B - Palestinian civil control, Israeli military control.
* Area C - full Israeli control.
.......
The five-year transitional period would begin with the withdrawal from the Gaza Strip and Jericho area. Permanent status negotiations would commence as soon as possible between Israel and the Palestinians. The negotiations should cover remaining issues, including: Jerusalem, refugees, settlements, security arrangements, borders, relations and cooperation with other neighbors, and other issues of common interest.

You start out with saying "about the Camp David offers" and you only touch ONE out of TEN facts I pointed out in that "peace agreement"! On top of that you claim that I make biased incomplete statments?!!
I showed some of the content in the Camp David proposal, which is so obviously wicked, it totaly speaks for it selfe, and by this showing that what you have been calling a fair peace offer is the crappiest fvcking thing ever to be called "a generous peace offer" and a spit in the Palestinians face.
The US media have portraid Camp David the same way as you see it and here is proof of the bias i've been talking about.

"Israel got the West Bank from Jordan"?
W-B is a part of Palestine, it was not a toaster for the old colonial power to give away to its successor. It is land and it belongs to its inhabitants!

firstable. state sovereignity and private ownership are different things.

Retreating from Palestine and recognizing the 1967 boarders would be the best thing for the security of Israel.

so would be if palestinian terrorists stopped believing they have a "legitimate right to resist". you dont keep that right when you start a war and when you are not the legal owner of the land.
and came to realization they ****ed up when started their war against israel in 48, and that loosing what they consider "their land" is a consequence of starting a war and kicking the table on the partition (a partition that funnily, after being rejected and war called against israel, 50 years later gets mentioned as a basis in the PA independence declaration).

The partition plan they rejected in 47?
Imagine the UN saying today that half of Peru from next year belongs to, say the US since they seem to be a bit unpopular down there, you lamas have nothing to say about it. Final. What would happen down there? Not a hard to guess people would reject that, wouldn't they?

you analogy is full of holes.
firstable. peru is country, a dejure legal entity with dejure sovereignity over its land. 1947 palestine WAS NOT.
if anything, you can compare it to the spanish colonies when the spaniards left in the early 1800s. and back then (the viceroyalty of peru, derived from the inca tawantisuyu that was like 5-6 times the time of actual peru) got splitted. nothing illegal there.

2ndable. there was a native jewish population in the area (whoever they called in or considered equals is irrelevant to the status of their self-determination right). you say every group has a right to "its land". well, the jews got theirs from the legal holders (UK), just like the syrian and lebanese got theirs from the french, the jordanians and so on.....

3rd. the palestinians (the arabs better said) rejected the plan, although from that very same land a jordanian state (arab) was created. thats right there already another country cut from the same colony.

now, when they rejected the plan, that means they decoded to settle the "borders" thru war. i believe that is pretty clear.
they went, voluntarily, and started a war to gamble the land given to them by the partition in order to get all the land and kick the jews out.
they lost.

Still, Jews have a historical right to that area too, so that gives them a right to be there. A partition was obviously the wrong way to go. A one state solution would have forced the two people to unite, instead of divided and antagonized them.

thats an impossible dream. see yugoslavia, czechoslovakia, etc, etc.....

That didn't happen eather, so here we stand; Palestinians have to accept that they have new neighbours and the Israelis must accept that they can't have more than they've been given. That is the will of the world.

that would have been awesome had the arabs accepted.
but THEY DID NOT. they went all chimp-crazy on "throwing the jews to the sea", they chose war, and war as consequences.

you just CANNOT expect after almost 60 years of israel having to stand and fight 48-67-73 wars for survival IT DID NOT STARTED to say "oh yes, dont worry about the nuissance... we´ll leave everything like nothing happened".

"do you know what is the legal status of the green line?"
No, is it the same green line as the one in the Le Monde Diplomatique map Changleen linked to?

the green line is
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Line_(Israel)
Although the line does not formally denote an official border, as is explicitly stated in the 1949 Armistice Agreement with Jordan ("military considerations only"), in practice it is largely used to differentiate between those areas within the Israeli side of the Line, which are administered as part of the State of Israel, and the areas outside it, which are either administered by the Israeli military or in agreements with the Palestinian National Authority
it does NOT have the same legal of a border.

Yeah, lets leave the right to return for later we have enough as it is.
LOL, you continued anyways.. NP
Please explain better: "excesses of the absentee property law" and this compensation you've mentioned.
About fleeing sephardim and mizhari Jews from arab countries, they left. They got something new instead that was taken from others. Still, I belive any person has the right to go anywhere in this world to live and share. If they want to come to Sweden, they are welcome (I wanna go some place warmer ).

the light joyful treatment you give an issue like that, kinda makes me think you are not aware of the magnitude, and maybe never even heard the word dhimmi.....

To clarify my stance: The Jews were given the "right to return" after 2000 years, same goes!

you do not necessarily need to resort to religious or magical beliefs to support the state of israel.
you can make a perfectly sound argument based on the balcanization of former european colonies, and the non trivial native jewish population of the area.

 

[rockwool]

you can say that. but that is circunstancial, its irrelevant from a legal pov, since the legal reasoning does not rest on that.

You're fricking joking, that is one of th ekey issues in this conflict. The Israeli bs about only occupying for defence is the reason why people continuosly suffer. Israel is directly responsible for Jewish deaths because of their expansionist actions.

i believe israel´s offers have been fair enough, specially considering the background. i dont think they should accomodate more just because.

lol

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sources_of_international_law

Something all these mentioned under Historic Uses have in common is that they all thought/think them selves as beenig the victorious part in case of war.
Sheer military strength gives one "the right" to dictate over an other...

How can you have authority when you cannot travel in your own land? Seriously, what's the difficulty understanding this?

It isn't. But KillerDucks rule HuggyBears any day!

israel returned the sinai in exchange of a promise of peace.
palestinian authority word is worth virtually nothing (also because they have no real authority).

c´mon dude, the PA has like 80k "police officers", and the restrictions they face are nowhere near the average level.
thats not the reason, dont play the single-issue republican-voter emotive-appeal card....

I know life there is all to abstract for us to grasp but you can't really mean this. This is "I root for my team in any kind of weather" argument. You are too obvious..

Israel needs to make peace with someone, if it genuinely wants peace.

At the end of the day, thats what we want right?

If you criminalise people, they become criminals.

That serves a purpose if you want to prolong an occupation. But I don't think the Israelis have thought of that. We know of it cus we're superhumanly smart.

but israel cannot make a PA happen, unless you want a puppet one, and then that one wouldnt have much credibility either.

Works perfectly for the US, ask N8

nah, 90% of the west bank is pretty good actually.

Even if I agreed with you that land was somthing you could bargain with like something material, that would still be a líe. You saw, portrayed in the documentary, how that land wouldn't look much different from todays war zone...
Why do you wish for Palestinians to live like that when none of us would find it acceptable that Jews, Peruvians or any human did?
That is plain wicked

 

[rockwool]

Reading these threads everyday and watching the news has really started to depress me. The whole situation is the unsolvable conundrum of our time and there is no end that I can imagine. Hate begets more hate and as long as all sides feel they are justified in their actions they will continue to act as they are now.

It's so far beyond the "which came first the chicken or the egg" finger pointing and blaming that it doesn't even matter who did what first. As always the people who will truely suffer are the ones who have no interest beyond getting up, going to work, and taking care of their families.

You pretty much said it. But an end to it is not that hopeless. Just let people live.

 

[rockwool]

He has so far failed to give me a definition of a defensive war. Israel's wars of 67 and 82 involved them firing the first shots and invading other sovereign nations. They may have had good cause (though probably not in 82) but some feel that Iraq had good cause to invade Kuwait. As the actual fighting in 67 was started by Israel then the defensive argument goes out the window just as much as it does for Iraq.

As an example, in Sweden the police have monopoly on violence. A person has no right to hit another. Not even if their mother has been mentioned in a negative way. If they do that and it goes to trial, they will loose.

 

[rockwool]

now, back to 1967. you have (besides the mounting of troops on the borders, which for its own sake can be argued as a reason to go to war) the blockade of the tiran strait. that is customarily accepted as an act of war. do you want me to dig for a case??? or is it intuitively reasonable why a naval blockade is an act of war??

So, with that logic it's legit for Cuba to declare war on the US. They definatley have a casus belli. But then again, only the part that belives it is going to go victorious out of a war seem to claim casus belli...and the weak leaft to continue to suffer.

Whilst you're wriggling, would you differentiate between magnicide and state-sponsored assasination?

That is irrelevant. Israel has never justified any assasinations.

wars are NOT always started by the one firing the first shots.
imagine tomorrow england blockaded. if england fires the first shots, england would still be fighting a valid defensive war. thats kinda intuitive enough.

No, one must have moderation. Can't start a war just because they line up at the boarder. Greece and Turkey would have started a new war against each other every other year then. They've lined up numerous of times that have ended with pissing contests; fireing on the others side river bank and almost daily aerial dog fights.

if another war had started due to slant-drilling AND the world had recognized that as a valid act of war...

The world hasn't recognized Palestine as a part of Israel, have they? Or find the occupation acceptable? Only the US is behind this. The rest, 180 countries or something, are against it.
Shouldn't the UN be like the US supreem court where majority rules and no one has veto power? Majority rule is the democratic way, time to live by it.

technically lebanon an israel have been at war since 1948.
same with syria.

Great, more technicallities, just what people need.

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

So, with that logic it's legit for Cuba to declare war on the US. They definatley have a casus belli. But then again, only the part that belives it is going to go victorious out of a war seem to claim casus belli...and the weak leaft to continue to suffer.

cuba could have, it could be argued they had the right to.
although you had a "quarantine" vs a "blockade" situation back then, i doubt the US could manouver an argument based on that...

No, one must have moderation. Can't start a war just because they line up at the boarder. Greece and Turkey would have started a new war against each other every other year then. They've lined up numerous of times that have ended with pissing contests; fireing on the others side river bank and almost daily aerial dog fights.

whether you exercise a right or not its up to you, and that is without prejudice to others decision.

The world hasn't recognized Palestine as a part of Israel, have they? Or find the occupation acceptable? Only the US is behind this. The rest, 180 countries or something, are against it.

hello resolution 3379????
at a glance, i notice you have a double standard here... you suggest its wrong "the world hasnt recognized palestine as a part of israel", yet you stated the 47 partition (based on virtually the same grons, world and UN opinion) was invalid exactly for the same reason that now makes a valid argument.

you see... if there had not been a war waged against israel in the area, then UN and world opinion could be a lot more influential. (just like in 47 where is was influential enough to make the partition).
but there was a war, not started by israel, in which, ACCORDING TO THE INVOLVED PARTIES, borders are yet to be drawn.
now, when you have a legally binding agreement like that (under due circumstances like oslo and camp david), it overrides whatever non-involved parties have to say.
in short
agreement between involved parties > what others have to say. (specially if "what other have to say" was rejected before by one of the the involved parties")

Shouldn't the UN be like the US supreem court where majority rules and no one has veto power? Majority rule is the democratic way, time to live by it.

maybe, but thats irrelevant. since it´s NOT.
and secondable, i doubt UN initial purpose was to turn the world into an absolutist ochlocracy.
(although it might led you believe international law, because of its customary nature, can be a form of absolutist ochlocracy, it isnt).

Great, more technicallities, just what people need.

people need to settle their difference based on situation-independant rules.
you cant claim, just because you think somethig is a technicallity, should not be a matter to consider in a solution.

 

[rockwool]

cuba could have, it could be argued they had the right to.
although you had a "quarantine" vs a "blockade" situation back then, i doubt the US could manouver an argument based on that...

whether you exercise a right or not its up to you, and that is without prejudice to others decision.

hello resolution 3379????
at a glance, i notice you have a double standard here... you suggest its wrong "the world hasnt recognized palestine as a part of israel", yet you stated the 47 partition (based on virtually the same grons, world and UN opinion) was invalid exactly for the same reason that now makes a valid argument.

people need to settle their difference based on situation-independant rules.
you cant claim, just because you think somethig is a technicallity, should not be a matter to consider in a solution.

"back then"? do you mean the missile crises in 62?
There has been a blockade on Cuba since 59. When GWB cheated into power the blockade extended to include cultural exchange, among other things, aswell.
A blockade that since the start has hit everything that had to do with economy and forced Cuba to turn to the Warsaw Pact countries as its main trading partners. They allways had the intention and will to trade and have normal exchanges with the US.

Prejudice no, thats totaly a legal term isn't it? But more importantly it shows that a conflict that is really old and hatefull that still don't take to violence! Turkey outgunns Greece by about 4 to 1 (they also have the very important AMRAAM missiles which USA didn't sell to Greece b/c "it would unbalance the conflict" ) and stand in favourable posision with the US but still they have managed to keep their cool. I think that shows allot.

Don't start waving resolutions man. Israel has more against it than any other country and, without checking the facts I can say that the, Palestinians and Arabs have never had a resolution against them vetoed by the US.
But all that is technicalities. The important thing is the wellbeeing of people and they have ALL suffered under the way Israel conducts its peacekeeping! Consider everything, but if it means that people still have to suffer it holds no value in comparison.

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

Don't start waving resolutions man. Israel has more against it than any other country and, without checking the facts I can say that the, Palestinians and Arabs have never had a resolution against them vetoed by the US.

just posting here to tell you doesnt mean a thing.

shining path never had a resolution against, yet it has been acussed of killing 60 thousand people in 20 years...
and so on...
the millions of deaths in sudan sure didnt call as many... so more than being what you suggest, i believe it shows a bit of a bias in the resolutions....

 

[rockwool]

just posting here to tell you doesnt mean a thing.

shining path never had a resolution against, yet it has been acussed of killing 60 thousand people in 20 years...
and so on...
the millions of deaths in sudan sure didnt call as many... so more than being what you suggest, i believe it shows a bit of a bias in the resolutions....

Don't know Peru's issues in particular but I do know Latin America in general and it has shown the same pattern every were; regular army and paramilitarys killing the population and blaming it on the guerillas...right?

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

Don't know Peru's issues in particular but I do know Latin America in general and it has shown the same pattern every were; regular army and paramilitarys killing the population and blaming it on the guerillas...right?

not quite exactly...
although you have the colombia´s AUC, but they have some roots in the drugs wars..
and the armed farmers who defended their communities who got training and arms from the army since there wasnt enough soldiers...

not saying that didnt happen, but widely accepted figures place that very well under terrorist casualties.
and even pro-guerrilla sources still place direct guerrilla casualties well under the number.

i still believe we owe that people a lot for the peace down here.

 

[rockwool]

Colombias AUC went under the name of "Colombias 5th division". That says a lot about how tight they were with the regular army..
Many times wore the uniforms of a sertain guerilla group and slaughtered whole busses and such, so that the campesinos would stop supporting the guerillas...that didn't happen, the pesants new who was to blame. You don't kill your own kind. It's simple self preservation, since one don't feed the dog that bites him, and the different guerillas have massive support from the campesinos around Latin America. They wouldn't have survived for all these years without the people behind them as was shown in Peru, among many Latin American countries, in the mid 60's when the guerilla movements started. They were easily beaten down by the armies just because the indians haden't "woken up yet" from centuries of degrading treatment from their white masters.

Owe what people for what peace, where? didn't follow you there.

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

Colombias AUC went under the name of "Colombias 5th division". That says a lot about how tight they were with the regular army..
Many times wore the uniforms of a sertain guerilla group and slaughtered whole busses and such, so that the campesinos would stop supporting the guerillas...that didn't happen, the pesants new who was to blame. You don't kill your own kind. It's simple self preservation, since one don't feed the dog that bites him, and the different guerillas have massive support from the campesinos around Latin America. They wouldn't have survived for all these years without the people behind them as was shown in Peru, among many Latin American countries, in the mid 60's when the guerilla movements started. They were easily beaten down by the armies just because the indians haden't "woken up yet" from centuries of degrading treatment from their white masters.

Owe what people for what peace, where? didn't follow you there.

thats why i said "although the AUC, but they have roots on the drugs wars". auc is not really representative of irregular counter-terrorism forces in southamerica.

i meant we owe the campesinos who fought the guerrillas a lot for the peace.

 

[blue]

Blah blah blah, you're all blowhards stating the same thing over and over again. MAKE IT END.

 

[rockwool]

Blue! We need the proles to wake up so that we finaly can overthrow our great leader, Big Brother. The way to do that is through information. Talk is good, join in!

 

[N8 v2.0]

Blah blah blah, you're all blowhards stating the same thing over and over again. MAKE IT END.

There is only one lasting solution for the region. Total and complete elimination of either militant Islam terrorists or Israel.

Short of that, there will never be peace in the region. EVER.

History has proven time and time again over the last 60 years that cease-fire agreements are not honored by the terrorists, land-for-peace deals are not honored by the terrorists, pulling out of occupied south Lebanon and Gaza are not honored by the terrorists, and disarmament agreements are not honored by the terrorists.

Force of arms it the only thing they understand and respect.

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

There is only one lasting solution for the region. Total and complete elimination of either militant Islam terrorists or Israel.

Short of that, there will never be peace in the region. EVER.

History has proven time and time again over the last 60 years that cease-fire agreements are not honored by the terrorists, land-for-peace deals are not honored by the terrorists, pulling out of occupied south Lebanon and Gaza are not honored by the terrorists, and disarmament agreements are not honored by the terrorists.

Force of arms it the only thing they understand and respect.

no chit. i´m a deep believer of peace in basically every other scenario, but goddamit, bombs over your head is the only language fundamentalists understand.
mussing about "there must be something better" is plain delusional, specially when people got no clue on what that something might be.

i think is time israel truly takes the gloves off, and really started playing by the same rules.
no other form of threat or response have been proven as effective.

 

[rockwool]

i meant we owe the campesinos who fought the guerrillas a lot for the peace.

What are the guerillas made of if not campesinos? Sure, the regular army is full of them too. 400 years of dehumanization and starvation and people will do anything for some bread; even beat down on and kill their own.

Here's a translation from the Swedish version of William Blum's book "Killing Hope: U.S. Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II" ISBN:91-7007-011-3
Chapter 28: Peru 1960-65
"The fundamental difference, the one that caused a catastrophy for the Peruvians revolting, was that their lines weren't to a mentionable degee reinforced by indian peasants, a group that had very little revolutionary awareness and even less boldness. Four centuries of dehumanization had practicly deprived them of all hope and feeling of the right to revolt, and when that feeling was vaguely awoken, as under Hugo Blanco, the indians were met with an official violence that was devastating.
As common in the Third world as it is ironic, is that most soldiers that are used to control the peasants are them selves of peasant origin. The Peruvian and American military authorities stationed as an utmost cynism soldiers far away from their home areas to reduce their opposition when given orders to fire.
Everything worked fine - even so fine that it took more than a decade before desperate men took to weapons in Peru."

So what peace are you talking about? A peace under starving and dehumanizing conditions?? I see where you get your lack of empathy for the Palestinians from. The tactics of Israel are very similar to the ones used in Latin America, but have only had a tenth of the time to make the conquered people loose all self esteem and hope for future! Doesn't this sort under extreemist/fundamentalist/fascist actions?

 

[rockwool]

ALEXIS_DH if this is true, Israels casus belli is out through the window...

TRANSLATION: According to the Lebanese police force, the two soldiers were captured in Lebanese territory, in the area of Aïta Al-Chaab close to the border, whereas Israeli television indicated that they had been captured in Israeli territory. [fr.news.yahoo 7/12/06]

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/israeli_solders.html

...and what has been a terror war was also started by terrorists.

 

[RenegadeRick]

Reading these threads everyday and watching the news has really started to depress me. The whole situation is the unsolvable conundrum of our time and there is no end that I can imagine. Hate begets more hate and as long as all sides feel they are justified in their actions they will continue to act as they are now.

It's so far beyond the "which came first the chicken or the egg" finger pointing and blaming that it doesn't even matter who did what first. As always the people who will truely suffer are the ones who have no interest beyond getting up, going to work, and taking care of their families.

Amen!

 

[rockwool]

It's so far beyond the "which came first the chicken or the egg" finger pointing and blaming that it doesn't even matter who did what first.

What we do here is share information. I don't know any other way to fight ignorance. As dark as it is today, It can't be compared to the darkness of the middle ages when only priests/monks and nobel men new how to wright and therefore see beyond the borders of their villages. Ignorance is the enemy.

 

[rockwool]

Light to this subject:

"TRANSLATION: Hezbollah has made it clear time and again that it would retaliate by capturing and detaining Israeli soldiers if they entered Lebanon and use them in an exchange of prisoners. Israel has in a deliberate manner sent a commando into Lebanon (Aïta Al Chaab) They came under attack from Hezbollah, who captured two of their soldiers."

"Israel's military response by air, land and sea to what it considered a provocation last week by Hezbollah militants is unfolding according to a plan finalized more than a year ago."

In the years since Israel ended its military occupation of southern Lebanon, it watched warily as Hezbollah built up its military presence in the region. When Hezbollah militants kidnapped two Israeli soldiers last week, the Israeli military was ready to react almost instantly. [SFGate 7/21/06]"


Hizbollah wanted 3 of their members that still are in Israeli jail in release for the 2 tresspassers, and Israels answer was warcrimes.

Want to make what you can for peace with your little means? Spread the light!

 

[LordOpie]