 |
| |
|
|
CyberGnu
|
 |
of the Virtual Serengeti
Apr 1999
time: 05:19
|
|
quote:
Millions of people around the world depend on alms for life, and many more starve, often in camps. For example, there are refugee camps all over the rift valley in Africa, refugee camps in various parts of Europe, and refugee camps in the Arab world for both Palestinians and others. Have you noticed a lot of riots, let alone suicide bombings, by Iraqis in refugee camps in Saudi Arabia? They have even less hope of achieving their goals than the Palestinians do.
|
? What do they have to do with this? Who would these refugess riot against? The people who feed them?
And even in those camps, they still have hope that the political situation will change for the better.
Israels occupation of palestine has lasted more than 50 years. People have been born in occupation and died in occupation... and for every year that passes, the despair grows...
quote:
Obviously if you view this as a situation in which the Palestinians have to get back all of the West Bank at all costs, then this makes sense. |
Ahh, yes, these greedy palestinains, demanding a whopping 22% of what is theirs! And the audacity to ask for a viable state instead of a bantustan!
Natan, it is in times as these you really make me feel sick...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
CyberGnu
|
|
of the Virtual Serengeti
Apr 1999
time: 05:19
|
|
Ned, the Camp David offered land equivalent to 95% of the palestinian territories, but part of the stumbling block was the quiality of land. Barak substituted lots of land in east jerusalem for pretty much worthless land in the Negev.
And a solid fact is that Barak offered less land in Camp David than what was agreed upon in the Oslo accord... 'Generous deal' my a$$.
Israels occupying status depends on whetehr you are asking about a moral or a practical definition.
Morally, I believe Israel has no right to exist on any palestinian soil. (while I do think that jews should have a state of their own, I fail to see why the land for that state should be stoeln from arabs)
Practially, I realize that Israel is there to stay, and so if Israel would solve the ROR, accept a divided jerusalem and retreat to the green line, I would be willing to settle for Israel granted 'non-occupying' status. So would most europeans.
But it is hard to claim you are a victim when you are occupying the land, killing the people, and hold the key to ending the conflict...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Natan
|
 |
New York State
Sep 2000
time: 00:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by CyberGnu
? What do they have to do with this? |
If you want to explain the Palestinian suicide bombers as resulting from a loss of hope, you have to explain why others without hope do not resort to suicide bombings.
quote:
Who would these refugess riot against? The people who feed them? |
They could try to form a resistance to go back and fight against the Ba'ath. Or, to take another example, the Palestinian refugees in Lebanon could fight against the restrictions on them.
quote:
And even in those camps, they still have hope that the political situation will change for the better.
Israels occupation of palestine has lasted more than 50 years. People have been born in occupation and died in occupation... and for every year that passes, the despair grows... |
Yes, and American blacks were born into slavery and then neo-slavery for centuries, yet few revolts and no suicide bombings. While Saudis who live lives of luxury want to commit suicide bombings in far-away Afghanistan and New York. This is a political tactic based on the hope of success. It represents a loss of hope in achieving the ends through other means, yes, but that's what every change in military or political strategy (arguably, any change in human behavior) means.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Natan
|
|
New York State
Sep 2000
time: 00:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by CyberGnu
Because they are not without hope. The Iraqi refugees in Saudi-Arabia still hope that the US will depose of Saddam. |
Yeah right. 
quote:
And you don't seem to get the lebanon part: It's not lebanons fault that the palestinians are there, so why would they riot against the lebanese? |
So what? It's the Lebanese fault that the Palestinians are forced to live in camps and can't practice law or medicine outside of them.
quote:
Slaves had hope as well. Do you think it was out of the goodness of their heart that the slaveowners allowed slaves to buy their own freedom? Of course not, it made the slaves work an extra day a week, and it kept hope alive... For is it not better to serve for 40 years and then be free than die today? But when you are faced with the choice of serving forever and dying to better the lot of those around you, the choice gets harder. |
A Palestinian has a better chance of immigrating to another country than slaves had of buying their freedom.
quote:
Just out of curiosity, how do you explain the suicide bombers? 'Goverment propaganda' doesn't cut it, people don't kill themselves for that... |
Firstly, of course people do - The Hitler youth, Stalin's loyalists, the Sadamyoun etc. But that's not really the main cause here, it's more general societal and political pressure which goes beyond the government. What we're seeing is religious and nationalist fanaticism, not even that closely related to government activity, which often leads people to take their own lives. Cults like Heaven's Gate, the Kamikaze pilots, the PPS in Lebanon and Syria are some examples of this. If people are willing to kill themselves over religion in the West, where doing so is frowned upon by society, then why is it surprising that a few more percentage wise are willing to do so in cultures or sub-cultures which encourage it, especially when they expect to reap genuine and tangible political benefits?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
 |
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:19
|
|
CyberGnu, What's this "steal" Palestinian land? Is that your point? Israel is the aggressor because it is stealing Palestinian land?
In another thread I asked about how Israel was acquiring title to the settlement property. Natan said that Israel either owned the settlement land from prior to 1948, purchased it from Arabs, or used eminent domain if no property owners were identified. Settlement property land is owned by Israel, fair and square. They have title.
The West Bank is not a state. There is not now and there has never been a Palestinian state. Only a Palestinian state could own unclaimed land. Israel is not stealing land from anybody. Regardless, I understand that the Palestinians can and do make claims in Israeli courts for compensation for property taken by eminent domain.
What the Arab residents of the West Bank and Gaza want is a Palestinian state. They want that state to be in the whole of the West Bank and Gaza. Israel is apparently willing to give the incipient Palestinian state some of the settlement land they now own. But the failure to give all of the land to the Palestinians is not theft. Neither is it aggression.
You may want to make the point that Israel has no right to settle its people in so-called "occupied" territories. However this "prohibition" is a provision in the Fourth Geneva Convention that applies only to conflicts among high contracting parties. These provisions do not apply where one of the parties is not a state, such as we have in the present circumstances. The Treaty in these cases has separate provisions that apply. These separate provisions do not include a clause about settlements.
From a moral point of view, Jews under both Turkish and British Mandate rule had a right to live anywhere in Palestine. They had a right to purchase land anywhere in Palestine. They had a right to "settle" anywhere in Palestine. How could they lose these rights by virtue of aggression by Jordan and Egypt twice, first in 1948 when Jordan and Egypt occupied portions of Palestine, and then later in 1967 when they Israeli's retook the portions of Palestine occupied by foreign powers.
I see no case that the Israeli's are aggressors simply because they are unwilling to give up to a potential Palestinian state all of the settlement land. This presumes, as you said, that Israel stole it in the first place from a Palestinian state. But the presumption is false, therefor the conclusion is false.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
panag
|
 |
MY WORDS ARE BACKED WITH BIO-CHEMICAL WEAPONS
Oct 2000
time: 07:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by CyberGnu
Panang, just occured to me: Have you considered following your own advice and visit the occupied territories? |
hi ,
and now why should we start to talk about that , we go there at least ones a month , you , .......of course not , .......
since you take such views and side's , you really should go there ,......not just staying in a hotel in Tel-Aviv for three weeks or so , .....no , you should start in Eilat and work your way towards the northern frontier , ........true the LIBERATED land , ........
have a nice day
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Roland
|
 |
Auf'm Jahrmarkt :(
May 1999
time: 06:19
|
|
Natan/Gnu: If you tell me what exactly you are looking for, I can make a try at the welt archive.
Ned:
You are giving an excellent summary of the fantasy world most US media create. They usually don't lie (apart from the op-eds and FOX), but they always leave out some important facts.
"I believe that Europe has a better understanding of the United States position on a limited ABM capability."
No. One of the arguments against NMD pre 9/11 was that the dangers lie elsewhere, esp in terrorist groups acquiring weapons of mass destruction against which NMD like MAD is absolutely useless. 9/11 has clearly shown that, and we are slightly puzzled by the US admin still insisting on NMD.
" the draft Kyoto treaty was flawed. It essentially penalized United States and gave the Third World countries a free ride."
It gave the US a gigantic waiver to stay the most energy-wasting country. It was flawed by favouring the US way too much.
"At the time it was originally negotiated by Gore, the Senate voted 99-0 against the treaty."
The only resolution I've read about this (is there another one ?) insisted on getting 3rd world countries into the obligatory system as a condition for ratification. That has partially happened, and the US could have gained more by negotiating bona fide.
"I believe Bush stated that he was signing the steel tariffs to "restore" trade balance. Was this incorrect?"
An extremely lame excuse, yes.
"Europe clearly views the Israelis as the aggressor."
Wrong. From the EU to national governments to the mainstream media, everyone acknowledges Israel's right to defend itself. But in contrast to the US, we do think Sharon is extremely dangerous - not least for Israel itself, and we do not trust his motives.
"This extreme bias against the use of force even in self-defense is deeply rooted in leftism."
The european left has a bias against use of force, but that is slowly disappearing. What we have is a bias against stupid use of force. Hence we support the US in Afghanistan, but are very sceptical about Iraq.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
TCO
|
 |
Richmond, VA
Jan 1970
time: 00:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Roland
"Is "customary law" common law?" |
There are similarities, but I wouldn't overstress them.
Is common law also determined by those same fancy Latin phrases, which you quoted?
Last edited by TCO on 23-05-2002 at 18:17
|
|
| |
|
|
|
TCO
|
|
Richmond, VA
Jan 1970
time: 00:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Roland
"Is "customary law" common law?"
There are similarities, but I wouldn't overstress them.
"And how should countries which don't believe in common law (having a legal tradition or philosophy that recognizes only statutory law) be bound by customary international law?"
That's separate from domestic law. As for domestic application, eg Art 9 austrian const or Art 20 german const simply say that those rules "are part of federal law". |
1. Is it generally accepted among German legal scholars that intenational common customary law is a part of the Federal code? For instance does this rule actually state that "customary law" is invoked or does it apply to written law?
2. Any other countries that have a philosophy of statutory law philosphy? Do they got these rules too?
Last edited by TCO on 23-05-2002 at 18:41
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Roland
|
|
Auf'm Jahrmarkt :(
May 1999
time: 06:19
|
|
"Longer than it has been trendy to try to make "international law" something other than a few treaties..."
I think that modern international law starts with Grotius, and customary law (intertwined with natural law) has been there from the beginning. A quick search turned up this:
http://www.law.emory.edu/EILR/volum...6/bederman.html
"tell me what time horizon is generally accepted for this sort of thing...."
Would have to look it up. Originally I would have said a generation, but the world is becoming faster...
"I really wonder if the elavation of international law to International Law has been for very long, now..."
I genuinely do not understand this "wonder".
"Is common law also determined by those same fancy Latin phrases, which you quoted?"
No there are fancy english phrases for it. 
"... when one of the parties may have had the opportunity to sign the treaty and deliberately decided not to?"
If it adopts it as customary law in state practice, yes. If a state does not want to be bound, it has to object.
"The belief that there is a real field of International Law other than the treaties of states."
I'm not aware of any disputes on the sources of law.
"1. Is it generally accepted among German legal scholars that intenational [strike]common[/strike] customary law is a part of the Federal code?"
What do you mean by "common" ? As for customary law, the constitution explicitly states so.
"For instance does this rule actually state that "customary law" is invoked or does it apply to written law?"
It refers to "allgemeine Regeln des Völkerrechts", which is essentially the non-treaty-based law.
"2. Any other countries that have a philosophy of statutory law philosphy? Do they got these rules too?"
Besides Art 25 germany and Art 9 austria: The preambel of the french const/1946, Art 28 Greece, Art 10 Italy, Art 8 Portugal - and no, I'm not going to skim through all constitutions...
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:19.
Apolyton Time is 00:19. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
23-05-2002 06:21
|