Posted on 04/06/2002 10:46:47 AM PST by Pokey78
You are wrong.
Did you know that I am a Palestinian?
Who says so?
The PLO Charter
Article 5: The Palestinians are those Arab nationals who, until 1947, normally resided in Palestine regardless of whether they were evicted from it or have stayed there. Anyone born, after that date, of a Palestinian father - whether inside Palestine or outside it - is also a Palestinian.
Article 6: The Jews who had normally resided in Palestine until the beginning of the Zionist invasion will be considered Palestinians.
By these two articles- by their criteria-I am a Palestinian
I disagree. The PLO, which is a proxy for other Arab nations and the worldwide Islamic fundamentalist network, is tapping into some very real resentment against Israeli policies. That the PLO is an enemy to civilization does not legitimize the Israeli occupation of the territories.
Second, when the Arab nations attacked Israel in 1967, the West Bank... (was)... part of Jordan
Correct. However, that is not the point. The point is that the people who inhabit the West Bank are opposed to Israeli rule. By any standards of self-determination, that makes Israeli occupation of the WB immoral. How the Bush administration balances this fact with the greater (and more urgent) fact that the PLO is a front for Islamic terrorism, will be a good test of its foreign policy.
Should there be no penalty for starting a war on annihilation and losing?
There can be, but that is inconsistent with all the rhetoric we in the West have always thrown around in various international fora, of the principles of self-determination and what-not.
there is no sign of the PA making any significant effort to form a public government. They build no roads; they set up no real courts; they do little legitimate government activity - not to mention never having been elected. How exactly does the PA work towards Palestinian self-determination?
I never said the PA does. The obstacles before that goal are both the Israeli occupation and the PLO (and it's Arab/European supporters).
Of course, the PLO is also an obstacle to the self-determination of the people who inhabit the occupied territories. I believe our administration is in a position to mediate a solution that works towards the twin goals of security for Israel, and self-determination for the people of the occupied territories. The PLO is irrelevant to this process, IMO.
Looking for a reason to be failed and fired. Bush has given him enough rope to hang himself while giving Israel as much latitude as she needs and then some. If Bush's foot has come down, it has come down on Arafat.
Three years ago the inhabitants of Texas did not wish to be ruled by Clinton.
The Arabs say they are to have self-determination because they are a unique "Palestinian" people. You see that a "Palestinian" people in make believe.
No it doesn't. Indeed, at the time Jordan bombed Israel in 1967 when Israel explicitly told Hussein not to involve himself in the conflict, he put in jeopardy his Jordanian citizens in the West Bank. Israel had every right, therefore to occupy the West Bank which was a hostile state engaged in a war with other Arab states against Israel. Indeed Resolution 242 recognizes this process by not stating explicitly that Israel must return to the green line.
The Arabs rejected Resolution 181 for partition and they have refused to (with the exception of Egypt and Jordan) recognize Israel's right to exist under 242. Therefore Israel has territory she won legitimately in acts of naked Arab aggression. If the de facto Jordanian citizens don't like it then that's tough because it is the stuff of war. But "immoral"? Far from it.
The pressure on Arafat is for words, the pressure (changing daily) on Israel is for detrimental action.
The only issue is whether it's all talk by the administration or are there consequences.
This week's Time did an expose on the homocidal bombers, pictures of each along with the "why do they do it" crap. A federal prosecutor friend pointed this out to me. This friend also remarked that a great deal was being kept from the public as to how out of control our fight against homeland terrorism is, giving credence to what S. Emerson and Pipes have been railing about and the Oprahized ostriches in the media refuse to print. Due to "Ongoing investigations", my friend would say no more.
No more than the occupation of Germany after WWII. Having attempted to invade Israel and losing legitimizes it.For Israel to be safe, given its small size, it has to have at the least, a buffer. Given Jordan's complicity in the attack, and the local populaces support of it, the West Bank is as good as any.
The point is that the people who inhabit the West Bank are opposed to Israeli rule. By any standards of self-determination, that makes Israeli occupation of the WB immoral.
No. the people who inhabit the west bank are opposed to Israel, regardless of their rule. That they are hostile aggressors, legimimizes reasonable action against them...until they knock it off. If they were individuals, they would owe Israel compensation, but as they are not, the land is held as a buffer. They are not held as slaves or prisonors, as they are perfectly free to leave.
There can be, but that is inconsistent with all the rhetoric we in the West have always thrown around in various international fora, of the principles of self-determination and what-not.
Part of self-determination is and has been responsibility for ones actions. When one sets out to harm or destroy another, often ones possessions end up given over to repay the damages. Israel established a buffer zone, but didn't demand reparations. Would you consider it out of line for Israel to take the land in compensation, and demand that the Arab States that participated in the war to pony up monies to compensate the locals for having to move out of it? If not, why not? It would certainly be moral, if impractical.
As I noted before...the Palestinian populace on the West Bank overwhelmingly supported and supports the wars against Israel. Why should they be free of consequences? Self-determination doesn't mean impunity from response to acts of war, nor responsibility for damages caused to another.
The last international legal allocation of territory that includes the West Bank and Gaza Strip occurred with the 1922 League of Nations Mandate for Palestine which recognized Jewish national rights in the whole of the Mandated territory. Moreover, these rights were preserved under the United Nations as well, according to Article 80 of the UN Charter, despite the termination of the League of Nations in 1946. Given these fundamental sources of international legality, Israel cannot be characterized as a "foreign occupier" with respect to the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
There are nearly one million Arab Israelis who vote, hold seats in the Knesset, share in the economy, receive all sorts of welfare, free medical care and in many cases their own schools on the backs of Israeli Jews. There were only one hundred thousand Arabs in Israel at the turn of the century. The flood of Arabs into Israel since then came from Egypt, Syria and what is now Jordan. These are facts derived from Ottoman and British census figures and agreed upon by scholars.
___________________________________
Well you know about all that. You are or were an RN for many years I believe.
You really think he might be Jewish with a name like Mort Zuckerman?? Nahhhhhhhhh.... Tell me it ain't so CrockLady. Your Islamic puppet masters are paying you too much for such incompetence.
Does this help?
State Department Spokesman Richard Boucher explains
why blowing up Israelis different than blowing up
Americans
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
Richard Boucher, Spokesman
Washington, DC; September 27, 2001
...
QUESTION: To what extent does this campaign -- as you constantly review your Middle East
policy, what -- how much influence does this campaign against terrorism have in that? What's the
input? How does it weigh in here? See what I mean?
MR. BOUCHER: No, I don't.
QUESTION: It's obviously a factor --
MR. BOUCHER: We have talked about this on and off over the last few days. We recognize that
there is an influence. Some have said it affects the atmosphere, the Palestinian/Israeli issues
affect the atmosphere of cooperation. But, essentially, there are, on some planes, two different
things. One is that there are violent people trying to destroy societies, ours, many others in the
world. The world recognizes that and we are going to stop those people.
On the other hand, there are issues and violence and political issues that need to be resolved in
the Middle East, Israelis and Palestinians. But we all recognize that the path to solve those is
through negotiation and that we have devoted enormous efforts to getting back to that path of
negotiation.
And we have called on the parties to do everything they can, particularly in the present
circumstance, to make that possible.
I guess that's about as close as I can come to the kind of sophisticated analysis I'm sure you will
want to do on your own. But they are clearly issues that are different, not only in geography but
also, to some extent, in their nature.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.