Posted on 06/24/2002 12:48:28 PM PDT by RCW2001
Bush Middle East Speech Discussion Thread
And Eric, flinching on Lebanon and flinching on settlements two different things in my book.
I'm reading a huge history on Israel, and I just finished the Lebanon campaign.
Everything I've read about Sharon has been negative. I think it would be interesting to read a fair and balanced viewpoint on this great warrior.
That is not true.
Article 49 reads.
…………………………………………..
Article 49
Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive.
Nevertheless, the Occupying Power may undertake total or partial evacuation of a given area if the security of the population or imperative military reasons do demand. Such evacuations may not involve the displacement of protected persons outside the bounds of the occupied territory except when for material reasons it is impossible to avoid such displacement. Persons thus evacuated shall be transferred back to their homes as soon as hostilities in the area in question have ceased.
The Occupying Power undertaking such transfers or evacuations shall ensure, to the greatest practicable extent, that proper accommodation is provided to receive the protected persons, that the removals are effected in satisfactory conditions of hygiene, health, safety and nutrition, and that members of the same family are not separated.
The Protecting Power shall be informed of any transfers and evacuations as soon as they have taken place.
The Occupying Power shall not detain protected persons in an area particularly exposed to the dangers of war unless the security of the population or imperative military reasons so demand.
The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.
…………………………………………..
Forcible is the fourth word. Though not particularly important, a forced transfer is not a deportation, the first clause differentiates them.
Israel and a large number of legal scholars state that the bold face defines the entire article. Others would argue that since it’s not in the last paragraph, it doesn’t apply. It’s clearly a subtle enough argument that positions can be taken on a political rather than legal basis. Which is ultimately the realm it will be resolved in.
The fact that these are essentially unclaimed territories (which given the continued refusal of the Palestinians to conform to accepted norms of conduct could well become a part of Israel) is a far better proof of the legality of the settlements.
One more thing... I just read your profile page... GO REDS!!!. (I'm from Cincinnati)I saw Dave Burba hit a home run for the Indians at Riverfront in front of a crowd that was at least 1/3 Indians fans. I also went to the opening game at Paul Brown Stadium..and sat in the "Dawg Pound South". >:)
Last fall I watched "Jabba the Scott" Mitchell run a rollout (at the speed of continental drift) on 4th and 2 and get blown up for a loss by Courtney Brown and Dwayne Rudd. I was about 50 feet away when it happened...4th row.
You guys need to get rid of Mike Brown. -Eric
Was it the Gaza settlements or the Sinai settlements that were dismantled in regards to the treaty made with Egypt. If you look on a current Gaza map, settlements are popping up all over.Sinai....it went back to Egypt. I personally don't get the Gaza "settlements", Israeli doesn't even have a historical claim to Gaza.
-Eric
And Eric, flinching on Lebanon and flinching on settlements two different things in my book.Sharon was without a doubt a great field warrior. They often make very poor politicians, especially in democracies. Grant is a good example, Patton and MacArthur would probably have been great examples (MacArthur was great in Japan because he had near absolute power). Eisenhower's not a counterexample, he was as much a politician as a warrior even in uniform.I'm reading a huge history on Israel, and I just finished the Lebanon campaign.
Everything I've read about Sharon has been negative. I think it would be interesting to read a fair and balanced viewpoint on this great warrior.
A deep hatred of one's enemies can make for a great warrior but it usually makes for a terrible national leader.
-Eric
Now....this logic reminds me of the gun grabbers stating that the mention of the militia in the First Amendment clearly modifies the entire document, despite the fact that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" clearly stands on its own.
Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive.In the first place, the first paragraph feels the need to specify that "forcible" transfers are forbidden, meaning that not all transfers are forcible. The final paragraph, which not only stands on its own but refers to the precise opposite activity as the first, merely says "transfers".:snip:
The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.
There was a meeting of the Geneva Convention signatories in 1999. Only Israel and the US did not attend. The vote on the interpretation of Article 49 was unanimous: it applies to the settlements. The Mitchell Report also stated that opinion, and Bush re-endorsed it yesterday. So in effect, all the nations of the Convention interpret Article 49 in that manner, except Israel.
-Eric
Actually, the President made it very clear that terrorism has to stop, and I doubt that anyone on these boards disagrees with him there. But he specifically invoked Mitchell on your anschluss lobby. A subtle message, but a clear one.From "Dutch" (the authorized Reagan biography), first hardcover edition, page 465:Only an unsubtle pig uses nazi jargon twice on one thread to describe Jews. Sieg Heil, moron.
(William) Clark further believes that Reagan suffered, in his quiet way, from moral guilt. "I've always felt that he overreacted to the Holocaust - its horrors left such a mark on him that he let his emotions flow into almost any issue involving Israel. As if he were compensating." This did not mean that the President forgave Begin and Ariel Sharon, the Israeli Defense Minister, for encouraging the carnage there (in Lebanon). Revealingly, at the height of Israel's bombardment of Beirut, he invoked race memory in a furious telephone call to Begin:Sometimes when someone is being completely intrasingent, confronting them with what they hate most works. Especially if the shoe fits.I told him that it had to stop or our entire future relationship was endangered. I used the word holocaust deliberately and said the symbol of his [sic] was becoming a picture of a 7 month old baby with its arms blown off.Robert McFarlane, listening, was astonished at the vehemence and rapidity of his speech. So, apparently, was Begin, who called back within minutes to say the attack was being stopped.
-Eric
I recommend Dinesh D'Souza's bio on Reagan, it is ethically written, respectful, and accurate.
Did you have a cite a completely contemptable biography of the great Ronald Reagan? I detest Edmund Morris' way of writing this biography. I stopped reading Dutch as soon as I figured out that Morris was making up completely imaginary characters in order to describe Reagan to the audience. I consider that to be an unethical tactic and a sorry way to write a biography about a truly great man.I knew that Morris had done it before I read the book. Once I finally read it I felt it was a better book than I expected it to be, but less than it could have been.
Regardless, it was the official authorized biography, and Morris had better access to records and recollections than any other biographer. Since neither Clark nor McFarlane was a made up character, and since it's a matter of historical fact that the Reagan Administration pushed for Sharon's removal in the wake of the Beriut invasion, there's no reason to think the incident is inaccurately depicted.
I recommend Dinesh D'Souza's bio on Reagan, it is ethically written, respectful, and accurate.I also prefer D'Souza's book. At times it borders on hagiography (side note: will Hellary's memoirs be considered "autohagiography"?), but considering the subject this is entirely understandable. >:)
Unfortunately, nowhere in D'Souza's book does he discuss our relations with Israel.
-Eric
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.