The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Petulance and pandemonium in Petra > Comments

Petulance and pandemonium in Petra : Comments

By David Singer, published 1/7/2008

An occasion for goodwill and mutual respect has been turned into a dummy spit by the Arabs' top diplomat and negotiator.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All
Keith, here is a link to a page on the Geneva Conventions:

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

Now, please tell me where in these there is a prohibition, let alone an express prohibition, on the conquest of land?

To the others, the leaders of Egypt and Jordan signed Peace Treaties for the same reason that many other countries have signed Peace Treaties - it was no longer in the best interest of their Countries to maintain a costly state of war. But, yes it is true they were pressured, both politically and militarily they had no choice.

Of course the leaders of the Countries which asserted their entitlement to the land were entitled to do so, after all, nobody rose from amongst their 'citizens' made any move to deny their sovereignty, did they? More to the point, both Egypt and Jordan were in physical, legal and actual control of Gaza and the West Bank respectively, prior to their loss of the same in 1967. That is an historical fact. They therefore, not the inhabitants of the area (who appear to have accepted such sovereignty), had sovereignty over the areas and thus were legally capable of making binding treaties in relation to the same.

The purported post-conquest grant of sovereignty to the people of the same is quite probably ineffectual, thus the transfer of ownership was completed by the entry into the peace treaties between Israel-Egypt and Israel-Jordan.

Spurious claims of legal support for arguments, where such support does not exist, do not help. If you decide to continue raising such arguments, could you please do some of your own research (NB Just some would be nice, I'm happy to narrow your point down, but a general idea would be nice).
Posted by Haganah Bet, Thursday, 3 July 2008 6:22:41 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Jeez Hag

You are clutching at straws.

Of course conquest of land isn't outlawed but the stealing and settlement of conquered land by occupiers is expressely forbidden. And I am pleased you recognise the GC as one of those norms the world applies. Now I'd expect to see you demand Israel apply it to those illegal settlements.

Viking I agree those actions are as repugnant as the actions of the Israelis, but this article only addressed the Israel question. But I'm glad you agree with me in my disgust at the Israelis too.
Posted by keith, Thursday, 3 July 2008 5:05:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Keith: "...but this article only addressed the Israel question. But I'm glad you agree with me in my disgust at the Israelis too".

Hardly. I'm glad the Jews have regained their rightful and ancestral homeland. I hope they hang on to all the land they have as of now and never give into the Islamic supremacists (who are cranky because they won something by conquest and then lost it).
Posted by viking13, Thursday, 3 July 2008 6:12:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Disingenuity, Keith?

But you continue to state that there can be 'land-stealing' by a State, when that State owns the land, through conquest which as you concede is not illegal. The fact that that land is the subject of a peace treaty with the original owners thereof, means that the land; and the real property in it; has been transferred. That means that, although some of the settlers are dangerous ratbags, they are not criminals and the settlements are not illegal (although they may well be under Israeli law, which prohibits the building of some them) under International Law, nor is the land 'stolen', you cannot steal that which you already own.

But the thing is, none of this is an intractable position, it is a negotiating position, which means that it is the initial postion from which haggling can begin. The same with the settlements, similar settlements were set up and then dismantled in return for the Camp David accords, they are simply bargaining chips (much to the despair and disgust of the settlers). What the article points out is that the inability of the Palestinian delegates to consider compromising (always the bane of discussion and negotiation in the Middle East) will drag the whole, sorry saga out further.

PS I have no liking or anything good to say about Olmert, so please don't bring the despicable creep into the discussion.
Posted by Haganah Bet, Friday, 4 July 2008 5:00:46 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Viking
"'...But I'm glad you agree with me in my disgust at the Israelis too'.

Hardly...."

On this basis you should be equally unconcerned about the illegal occupation of much of Cyprus by Turkey. Or the stealing of land by Arab militias in Darfur. Or the forcing out of Hindus from Kashmir. Perhaps the ethnic cleansing of Christians from Iraq shouldn't rate a mention. In fact you'd be supporting those actions as they are, as you've indicated, the same as the actions of your beloved Israelis. Oh, that's right, the perpetrators you support are Israelis, so anything they do is fine by you.

You dope, you can't so blatantly express such ideas to have it both ways so openly! It leaves you open to ridicule.

Jeez Hag

Back to your old weasel words argument. Why do you need to argue yourself in circles?

And hey thanks! I perused that reference to that international norm that you told the world forms the basis of international law and guess what I found?

' Right of return
Article 49. The second paragraph of Article 49 provides that persons displaced during armed conflict must be transferred back to their homes as soon as hostilities in the area in question have ceased. This right of displaced persons is often referred to as the "right of return" and has been reaffirmed in later international treaties and conventions. State Practice also establishes this rule as a norm of customary international law, according to the International Committee of the Red Cross.'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Geneva_Convention#Section_I._Provisions_common_to_the_territories_of_the_parties_to_the_conflict_and_to_occupied_territories

How'd ya like them apples mate? I'm still laughing ... in derision.
Posted by keith, Friday, 4 July 2008 3:48:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Keith, you did some research? See, just a little bit of work can make the world a whole lot less of a daunting place, yes?

Yes, the Palestinian People have a right of return to the areas granted them under the 1948 Partition Plan. Israel does not stop them doing so.* Those villager's who remained inside the 1948 boundaries are entitled to remain there, but those who decamped to the Palestinian areas under that plan are not so entitled. They are deemed to have chosen to migrate to the Palestinian areas and are bound by that choice.

The noise surrounding the 'Right of Return' is just that, noise. It relates to the ongoing attempts by certain organisations to suggest that it entitles Palestinian's to return to those areas granted to Israel under binding International Agreement. Such suggestions are spurious, especially given that the same bodies make such mileage out of the fact that the same agreement granted areas to the Palestinian People.

But what it boils down to, is that the Palestinian People can have something, or they can hold out for everything and get nothing. The latter suits the Palestinian Authority (Fatah/PLO), as it allows them to continue to serve and accumulate personal wealth at the expense of their fellow Arabs. Quite frankly, the Arab world is incapable of imposing anything upon Israel which Israel is not willing to give, so compromise is necessary in order to proceed. What the article is about is their intransigence upon the subject, please try to keep up.

* With the minor but important caveat that if the person is one who has taken up arms against the State (or actively supported those that have), they are no longer a civilian/refugee and not entitled to the Right of Return, they have demonstrated their unwillingness to live in peace with the government and unless they can 'PROVE' the opposite, they have lost their right to return (well, at least until a Palestinian State is a reality).
Posted by Haganah Bet, Saturday, 5 July 2008 3:07:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy