Is Israel's Security Barrier Unique?

http://netwmd.com ^ | November 16, 2004 | Ben Thein

[robertpaulsen]

"But if you can convince somebody to give you one ..."

Yep. That was the purpose of the Balfour Declaration.

"His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people ..."

Why does every frickin' single discussion about Israel always end up going back 50 years or 5000 years? Why can't you stay on topic?

[UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide]

I went back only as far as the establishment of the current borders to describe the current situation. I don't see what a private letter written in 1917 expressing the unilateral position of the British government at that time has to do with anything today?

[robertpaulsen]

"has to do with anything today?"

Israel is transferring civilians to, and building a wall on, land that is not theirs. Does that help?

Name for me one country, other than Israel, that believes this to be untrue.

[UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide]

I don't see anyone doing anything about it. And last time there was a serious try, in 1973, Israel bloodied them pretty well.

When you say "the land is not theirs", to what do you refer? We are not discussing property rights. Property rights are legal rights in individuals and legal entities enforced by government within a sovereign jurisdiction. You "own" your home and effects against claims by others within your soveriegn's jurisdiction who decides what is yours and what is theirs.

Sovereignty itself on the other hand is not a property right. There is no "enforcer" or judge of sovereignty but the soveriegn itself. That's what the word means, supreme, independent. If there were such an enforcer, an entity such as the United States or Israel would not be sovereign entities. Whoever happens to be sovereign of a particular territory is simply that. Other people's opinions, recognitions and documentations are not relevant unless they plan to do something about it. As long as Israel's army stands sovereign on the West Bank and Gaza it is theirs.

There is not any relevance to treaties. Israel could force someone at gunpoint to sign something ratifying the status quo at anytime, much as Santa Ana as a prisoner of war was forced at gunpoint to sign away northern Mexico at Guadalupe Hidalgo. That would not make Israel any more or less sovereign. The Arab states in effect conceded that fact when their armies vacated the area in 1967.

Aside from countries, I am one who thinks Israel should have the whole enchelada for many reasaons and I put whatever tiny influence I have on world affairs behind that position.

[robertpaulsen]

"When you say "the land is not theirs", to what do you refer?"

Land outside the original 1947 borders that was not acquired by a treaty. This is according to the 4th Geneva Convention, to which Israel is a signatory. This is according to Resolutions 242 and 183 of the UN, of which Israel is a member. You disagree?

So is this now the attitude? As long as Israel's army stands, where it stands is their territory?

[robertpaulsen]

"... much as Santa Ana as a prisoner of war was forced at gunpoint to sign away northern Mexico at Guadalupe Hidalgo."

What???

First of all, we didn't need a gun to force the Mexican government to take the $15 million we paid for that land.

Second, Santa Anna went into voluntary exile while a new Mexican government negotiated peace. His signature is not on the document.

You're thinking of the 1836 Treaties of Velasco, which both parties ended up violating.

[UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide]

Land outside the original 1947 borders that was not acquired by a treaty.

Land has changed hands through war any number of times since - Korea, Tibet, Vietnam. All treaties do after war is ratify the facts on the ground.

This is according to the 4th Geneva Convention, to which Israel is a signatory.

The 1948 war was before the 4th Geneva (1949)

This is according to Resolutions 242

242 was mooted by the Israel-Jordan Peace Treaty (1994) recognizing the present boundary.

and 183 of the UN, of which Israel is a member.

UNSCR183 has to do with Portugal.

[UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide]

First of all, we didn't need a gun to force the Mexican government to take the $15 million we paid for that land.

Mexico was offered large sums of money before and during the war. It required the taking of Mexico City to force them to accept it.

Second, Santa Anna went into voluntary exile while a new Mexican government negotiated peace. His signature is not on the document.

You're thinking of the 1836 Treaties of Velasco, which both parties ended up violating.

I will grant you that point :-)

[robertpaulsen]

"The 1948 war was before the 4th Geneva (1949)"

Ah, but the 1967 War was after. So, does Israel honor the Fourth Geneva Convention or not?

"242 was mooted by the Israel-Jordan Peace Treaty (1994) recognizing the present boundary."

The "present boundary". You got a map of that, Butch? Plus there are other provisions of 242 that would apply to the current day.

"and 183 of the UN, of which Israel is a member.'

183, 181, 338 ... so many resolutions. 237, 446, and of course ES-10/6.

Let's see. Treaty with Jordan -- oh, that's rock solid, that moots 242, everyone must honor that treaty.

Geneva conventions? Israel spits on them. UN General Assembly and Security Council Resolutions? Not worth the paper they're written on.

See a pattern here?

[Travis McGee]

The Treaty of GH would be ruled invalid by the UN if it came to a judgment today. That "treaty" was essentially signed at gunpoint, would be the argument.

If in 20 years the UN demands a "national sovereignty referendum" in the "Aztlan" portions of the Southwest (Kosovo-style) will you support it as legal under international law?

[UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide]

See a pattern here?

Yes, I see a pattern of Arabs repeatedly attacking Jews and Israel without any legitimate provocation since 1929 and when they get their butts kicked they run to the UN to get it all back, aided and abetted by deaf people like you. I'm beginning to wonder what kind of person I'm dabating with. No, wait. I've finished wondering.

And yes, there is a treaty and an attached map which you can google as easily as I. And Chapter VI resolutions are just that and not worth the paper they're written on. (Iraq OTH was Chapter VII'ed)

[robertpaulsen]

"The Treaty of GH would be ruled invalid by the UN if it came to a judgment today. That "treaty" was essentially signed at gunpoint, would be the argument."

Wouldn't you say that any treaty signed at the end of hostilities is "essentially" signed at gunpoint? I don't think the Japanese, for example, were exactly thrilled to sign the 1945 treaty.

"If in 20 years the UN demands a "national sovereignty referendum" in the "Aztlan" portions of the Southwest (Kosovo-style) will you support it as legal under international law?"

In a word, "No".

What is the basis for a claim to return that territory to Mexico (or turn it into a Republica del Norte)? Just because a lot of Mexicans say so?

If the Mexican government wishes to scrap the Treaty of Guagalupe Hidilgo, fine. Give us back our $15 million and we'll just pick up the Mexican War where we left off. Hell, we'll just activate the Texas National Guard and let them do it.

This would have the advantage of pushing the border further south, making it that more difficult for the illegals. (Plus, Texas would regain their claim as the largest state.)

[robertpaulsen]

"without any legitimate provocation"

Oh, I'd say the Palestinians considered the influx of millions of Jews into "their" homeland as provocation. After all, the authority for this was only based on, how did you put it, "a private letter written in 1917 expressing the unilateral position of the British government". Not very authoritative now, was it?

A far as the UN goes, they were respected by Israel only when they served Israel's purpose -- as in designating the 1947 boundaries of the Israeli state. That was followed by, "Thanks. You can go away now."

Again, does Israel honor the Fourth Geneva Convention or not?

[UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide]

Oh, I'd say the Palestinians considered the influx of millions of Jews into "their" homeland as provocation.

Ah Ha! You are showing your hand.

For 50 years Jews came legally to the area, allowed by the Ottomans and then the British. They bought land from willing seller at high prices. (see Hope-Simpson Report and Peel Commission) But at a point when the number of Jews becomes too large, that becomes a "provocation"?

If buying land next door becomes a "provocation" because of race or religion (PRACTICED PEACEFULLY) in your view, then I am wasting my time arguing with a racist Jew-hater who should be banned from this forum.

[UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide]

Again, does Israel honor the Fourth Geneva Convention or not?

The answer is yes. Israel reached a negotiated settlement with Jordan in 1994.

[robertpaulsen]

"But at a point when the number of Jews becomes too large, that becomes a "provocation"?

Well, yeah. That's how the Palestinians felt.

"As immigration accelerated in the 1930s following the rise of Nazism, Palestinians' fears of being swamped heightened and recurrent violence between the two communities increased. Whatever Great Britain did to placate one side inevitably alienated the other."

"The Jewish population had swollen to a third of Palestine's total, but UNSCOP allotted the Jews 55% of the land. Given the interwoven patterns of settlement, Arabs constituted almost half the population of the proposed Jewish state. The Jews accepted partition, but the Arabs did not, in part because of the proposal's inequities, but more fundamentally from the conviction that the United Nations had no right to deprive them of their land against their will."
-- elca.org/jle/articles/contemporary_issues/article.perkins_kenneth.html

"arguing with a racist Jew-hater"

You said, "... without provocation." I responsed with factual history.

I was wondering how long it would take you to start name calling. Not "if" you would -- but "when" you would. You have no argument, I understand. What you do have is hatred and insults.

Too bad. It was a pretty good debate while it lasted.

But, I must say shalom. I don't debate with children. You need to get a grip and grow up.

[UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide]

1) I've sussed you out.
2) You were the first with the snide names (#49)
3) I agree we're done.

One final point - a lot of that "55%" was in the Negev Desert!

[UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide]

One other thing I can't let stand:

"Palestinians' fears of being swamped heightened and recurrent violence between the two communities increased."

Let's be clear, the violence, whether the 1929 Jerusalem "riot" and Hebron Massacre and judenrein, the pogroms of the mid-30's or the fighting just before independence, ALL the violence was repeatedly started by the Arabs without any rational justification and the Jews defended.