Who Shot Mohammed al-Dura? (long)

[Dinner]

You realize that by this logic it would be A.O.K. for Israel to take all of the occupied territories it wanted, leave the remander to the PA and expell "enemy nationals" from the area?

[GePap]

Actually, no, since expelling foreign nationals would violate the whole "make them citizens" part I stated. It also of course, violates the rights of the people being expelled.

So no, by my logic, you statement does not work.

sorry.

[Ned]

Originally posted by GePap
Ned:

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.

Somehow you agree that Palestine was a UN Mandate, but do not agree that terms of the Mandate laid down in 1920 by the League of Nations, continued to apply. The fact that the UK, the administrator in charge, left in 1948 did not change the essentials.

I do understand how you can dispute this.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by GePap
Actually, no, since expelling foreign nationals would violate the whole "make them citizens" part I stated. It also of course, violates the rights of the people being expelled.

So no, by my logic, you statement does not work.

sorry.

Gepap: You said if they annexed the entire country, but, if their is a rump state left then it seems it would be allowed. Just like the Soviets and Poles did to Germans in 1945.

[gsmoove23]

Ned,

The UN Mandate ended in 1948, no ifs ands or buts. The partition was the completion of the Mandate, the conclusion and the western world wiped their hands of the mess. Any following government was under no obligation to follow any previous letters, mandates or whatever. The previous League of Nations Mandates referred only to UK administration. What is the problem you're having with this? Don't just believe us, you'll find few if any thinkers on the subject using your logic because it doesn't work.

What should also be mentioned is that Israeli Arabs, full citizens of Israel are not allowed to live in the settlements. It is an inherently racist policy against the Palestinians and the arabs of Israel.

gsmoove, calling the settlements illegal under the 4th Geneva Convention is inflammatory because it is extremely biased against Israel. It assumes as fact issues that have not been legally determined.

How would you feel if you were on trial for murder and the prosecutioin, instead of calling you the "accused," called you the "murderer.".

The UNSC is a proper place to deliberate on these issues when dealing with convention issues as their is currently no other institution that could deliberate on the subject. There is no proper court that handles such issues but the UNSC which member states have recognized by signing on to the charter. Furthermore, when the resolutions are voted upon there is a report done and interested parties are given the opportunity to defend their positions.

Again, calling it illegal is not inflammatory if it is true and certainly one should not worry about being inflamatory when the policy is highly inflammatory in its own right.

[gsmoove23]

Originally posted by Oerdin


Gepap: You said if they annexed the entire country, but, if their is a rump state left then it seems it would be allowed. Just like the Soviets and Poles did to Germans in 1945.

This is ethnic cleansing as clear as can be and not acceptable. The only instance where it would be acceptable is in order to rectify ethnic cleansing when it has been done and only after a reasonable amount of time (sorry zionists, centuries is too long). Certainly this will work in favor of the earlier more established settlements in the West Bank.

[Zevico]

Firelad is 100% right....Palestinian gunmen should get better weapons training!

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Jaakko

The Galil rifle comes in both 5.56 and 7.62 configurations, so bullet size proves nothing by itself.

IIRC the Galil comes in 5.56 NATO (aka .223 Remington) and 7.62 NATO (aka Winchester .308). The AK's in question (AKM IIRC) come in 7.62 Soviet, which is a carbine round much smaller than the 7.62 NATO. While bullets are named for their diameter, they vary considerably in shape, length and composition as well.

You are correct that some of the Pals have M-16s, but AFAIK none of the Israelis use Soviet weaponry as standard issue. So if the kid was shot by a 7.62 Soviet round, it was either fired by the Pals or by unconventional Israelis units.

Oops, it looks like MtG got there before me!

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Eli
Thanks shmanks. Show us the money.

Don't you mean keep showing us the money?

[Eli]

Originally posted by Sikander
Don't you mean keep showing us the money?

That's obvious, i'm talking about the "risk bonus".

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Eli


That's obvious, i'm talking about the "risk bonus".

You mean the production bonus you get for holding an entire continent in the game Risk? Well clear out those enemy armies in the West Bank and Gaza and we'll see if we can scrounge up a continent bonus for you guys.

[Ned]

gsmoove, perhaps we can go about this in a slightly different way. Prior to 1948, all residents of Palestine were citizens of Palestine. After 1948, is it your position that the Jews Palestine lost their Palestinian citizenship?

[GePap]

Originally posted by Oerdin


Gepap: You said if they annexed the entire country, but, if their is a rump state left then it seems it would be allowed. Just like the Soviets and Poles did to Germans in 1945.

First of all, germany is hardly the "Rump state".

Second: states can renegotiate borders, even under durress. the great tragedy that followed WW2 was not the change in borders but the mass movements of millions out of their homes and property. Borders can change all they want, but that mass movement of people i do not think is morally acceptable. And the reason that peoples are forced to move is this notion of "national" self-determination. I have no porbem wth the self-detrmination part, but I have huge porblems with the "national" part, and want nothing of it.

[Panag]

Originally posted by Ned
gsmoove, perhaps we can go about this in a slightly different way. Prior to 1948, all residents of Palestine were citizens of Palestine. After 1948, is it your position that the Jews Palestine lost their Palestinian citizenship?

hi ,

and what to do then to all the other none Jews who where living there , or who are living there , .....

intresting how some people who know everything there is to know about us tend to forget them , ....

"palestine" sjee , them romans turn around in ground , they would never have thought that the name they gave to a piece of land would be the conflict so many years later , .....

allas , gsmoove you forget one thing "palestine" runs from libanon over syria , jordan Israel and ends on todays suez canal , ....

care to explain that to those gov if ya give it back , ....



have a nice day

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ned
gsmoove, perhaps we can go about this in a slightly different way. Prior to 1948, all residents of Palestine were citizens of Palestine. After 1948, is it your position that the Jews Palestine lost their Palestinian citizenship?

Ned, there was no Palestine. There was a Mandate of Palestine. When the partition plan was announced, but more importantly when the Jews decalered the new state of Israel, they were stating that they were not Palestinians, but Israelis. they gave up the notion of being Palestinians. Do th settlers call themselves Jewish Palestinians? or Israelis?

Now, personally, I think the partition was a terrible plan and idea, but it creates the new legal definitoons we must work under.