The Altera Centauri collection has been brought up to date by Darsnan. It comprises every decent scenario he's been able to find anywhere on the web, going back over 20 years.
25 themes/skins/styles are now available to members. Check the select drop-down at the bottom-left of each page.
Call To Power 2 Cradle 3+ mod in progress: https://apolyton.net/forum/other-games/call-to-power-2/ctp2-creation/9437883-making-cradle-3-fully-compatible-with-the-apolyton-edition
Originally posted by CyberGnu
Ned:
Out of curiosity, what is your stance on Israel's assassination policy? (and for the sake of argument, let's ignore the bluntness of it for the moment).
Bad analogy... Neither side is a 'sheep' here. Israel is the stronger part. The only things the palestinians have are the moral high ground, the law, and the ability to occaisonally pinprick Israel. But even that is more than what a sheep can do to a wolf, is it not?
If one is at war, assassination of enemy commanders is legal. If one is at peace, the enemy "commander" is a simple criminal who must be arrested and given due process before he is executed.
I personally believe that Israel is at war with the terrorists. That is what they believe as well.
Arafat's status is "marginal." I think his condemnation of terrorist acts has gone a long way to saving his own neck.
the madate did end, unequivocably. The very fact that the UN voted for partition shows us that british administratiob was done for, in all areas of the mandate. That srael is now the administrator is based on it MILITARY OCCUPATION of the area, just like Egypt was the administrator of Gaza when it occupied the area militarilly.
And as gsmoove said, whether you find it immflamatory or not, settlemts are a violation of the 4th Geneva convention, makign them illgal, just as harming prisoners of war, or aiming for civilians is illegal. Under the UN, the most impoartant notion is self-determination, and this right, the most fundamental right of all, has been denied the citizens of the West bank and Gaza since 1948 (the Jordanians and Egyptians also violated Palestinains rights). Tha right would include the right to decide who can legally mov in or not. Ther eason that occupying powers are not allowed to resettle their own populations within occupied territories is because in doding so they clearly violate the right of self-determination. The same right Israel has to keep out Arabs from migrating into israel isd the one that pals should have, to stop Jews from moving into their lands (the same right the US, and all states, have to regulate emmigration).
If you don't like reality, change it! me
"Oh no! I am bested!" Drake
"it is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong" Voltaire
"Patriotism is a pernecious, psychopathic form of idiocy" George Bernard Shaw
The settlements are illegal because they create ethnically purified zones, and are thus considered ethnic cleansing.
Umm, nationally purified zones, I think you mean to say (although from my recollection, before the intifadah, plenty of Palestinians were working in settlements).
"I read a book twice as fast as anybody else. First, I read the beginning, and then I read the ending, and then I start in the middle and read toward whatever end I like best." - Gracie Allen
Umm, nationally purified zones, I think you mean to say (although from my recollection, before the intifadah, plenty of Palestinians were working in settlements).
hi ,
and how many are still working there today , .....
So you are against removing all Jews from the west bank? Good.
"I read a book twice as fast as anybody else. First, I read the beginning, and then I read the ending, and then I start in the middle and read toward whatever end I like best." - Gracie Allen
Gepap, well the legalities of what happened in 1948 are clearly still in dispute today. Not only did the Arabs not agree to the UN terms, but Israel did not to the extent of its borders, which really were more akin to front lines. To the extent the fighting ended and Israel found itself in possession of territory, the land became part of Israel. This did not happen after the '67 war, but if it did not, why not?
Whose land was that that Israel captured? The last legal administration was the British Mandate that had passed under UN control. The Arab's could not, by taking the land by force of arms, change this. Neither could or can Israel.
The only problem, is, that under the Mandate, the Jews have rights as well. Their right is the right to settle inside the Mandate borders.
Ned:
As I told LoTM:, the 1950 armistice line was set as the defacto borders of the state of israel. after all, if not, as i told LoTM, all of the mandate, including places like Tel Aviv and haifa, would still count as dsiputed territory.(armistice lines have a long history of becoming borders)
In 1947 Britian gave up its mandate of Palestine. What more proof is needed that it ended?
To the extent the fighting ended and Israel found itself in possession of territory, the land became part of Israel. This did not happen after the '67 war, but if it did not, why not?
Becuase as i said above, the 1950 armistice line the green line gained acceptance as the defacto borders of Israel. The very fact that the UN in 1947 had called for 2 states (as I said Egypt never annexed gaza, and the arab league condemned Jordan for annexing the west bank) is a clear indication that the entire mandate was not meant to be a jewish state, which was bowing to the obvious, since Jews made up 1/3 of the pop. in 1947, and such an outcome would be an utter violation of the right to self-determination given the Palestinians.
If you don't like reality, change it! me
"Oh no! I am bested!" Drake
"it is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong" Voltaire
"Patriotism is a pernecious, psychopathic form of idiocy" George Bernard Shaw
Originally posted by GePap
Becuase as i said above, the 1950 armistice line the green line gained acceptance as the defacto borders of Israel. The very fact that the UN in 1947 had called for 2 states (as I said Egypt never annexed gaza, and the arab league condemned Jordan for annexing the west bank) is a clear indication that the entire mandate was not meant to be a jewish state, which was bowing to the obvious, since Jews made up 1/3 of the pop. in 1947, and such an outcome would be an utter violation of the right to self-determination given the Palestinians.
Gepap: So you are saying that borders can be decided by warfare? Am I understanding you correctly?
Yes, if at the end of the time of fighting, the two sides come to the table, agree to a cease fire, and create lines of armitice.
Sorry oerdin, but no cute quotes form me on this issue.
If you don't like reality, change it! me
"Oh no! I am bested!" Drake
"it is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong" Voltaire
"Patriotism is a pernecious, psychopathic form of idiocy" George Bernard Shaw
Becuase as i said above, the 1950 armistice line the green line gained acceptance as the defacto borders of Israel. The very fact that the UN in 1947 had called for 2 states (as I said Egypt never annexed gaza, and the arab league condemned Jordan for annexing the west bank) is a clear indication that the entire mandate was not meant to be a jewish state, which was bowing to the obvious, since Jews made up 1/3 of the pop. in 1947, and such an outcome would be an utter violation of the right to self-determination given the Palestinians.
I think we are simply not communicating here very well. I do not dispute that Israel was created from the Mandate and that its cease fire "borders" are in fact borders. The question is not what is the status of the land within Israel, but the status of the land within the Mandate that is not within Israel.
Clearly, the Brits left in '48. But, when they left, who had responsibity for the administration of the Mandate ouside Israel? Since there was no government there, I suggest it was the UN. In otherwords, the status did not change the day the Brits left. It was still an UN Mandate and whoever found themselve in control had to administer the territory under the authority of the United Nations.
Clearly, the Brits left in '48. But, when they left, who had responsibity for the administration of the Mandate ouside Israel? Since there was no government there, I suggest it was the UN. In otherwords, the status did not change the day the Brits left. It was still an UN Mandate and whoever found themselve in control had to administer the territory under the authority of the United Nations.
The status did change, as Britian got its mandate from the League of Nations, not the United Nations.
It was only becuase it was a UN madate that the UN was able to make it partition plan, utterly ignoring the self-determination of those people living there. And the partition plan called for th creation of 2 states, not one, and for Jerusalme and bethlehem to be administered internationally, which is why the vast majoirty of states will not recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital offically.
If you don't like reality, change it! me
"Oh no! I am bested!" Drake
"it is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong" Voltaire
"Patriotism is a pernecious, psychopathic form of idiocy" George Bernard Shaw
Originally posted by GePap
Yes, if at the end of the time of fighting, the two sides come to the table, agree to a cease fire, and create lines of armitice.
Sorry oerdin, but no cute quotes form me on this issue.
So even if one side is totally defeated, a la Germany 1945, and they are forced to sign the new borders then it is ok?
So even if one side is totally defeated, a la Germany 1945, and they are forced to sign the new borders then it is ok?
Yes, but no state could be utterly defeated and made to disappear, unless the victor makes citizens out of the population of the defeated.
If you don't like reality, change it! me
"Oh no! I am bested!" Drake
"it is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong" Voltaire
"Patriotism is a pernecious, psychopathic form of idiocy" George Bernard Shaw
Tweet
Comment