Car Bomb in Jerusalem - Tens of casualties

[Natan]

Originally posted by GePap
The UN can't pass such a resolution because it conflicts with its basic Charter. Thus the example is invalid.

Where does it say that UN resolutions which contradict the Charter are invalid? I’m curious.

Israel already got peace with Egypt, and Syria is dragging its feet. But east jerusalem never ahd anything to do with either of those nations anyway, only for a while with Jordan, who also already delcared peace.

Right. Syria is dragging its feet, and Jordan doesn't want Jerusalem anyway.

And whay would you say the US doesn't?

I assume that our decision not to guarentee free medical care, employment, vacation, etc. is not simply an oversight.

Intentions change daily, rights and laws rarely.

Laws are made, broken, and remade all the time based on intentions. The UN was created because we thought it suited our interests and the USSR concurred; it was ignored because we decided on second thought it didn't, and if it ever becomes a serious organization instead of an occasional propaganda sideshow, it will be because states intend it to be such to serve their interests. I think it makes more sense to deal with these interests and intentions directly than to pretend that they are based on a special kind of "laws" which just happen to change every few years and are only enforced when convenient.

Israel saw egypt as the most powerful enemy with the biggest army, so they had to be put out first

Syria is closer to Israeli population centers though.

(you seem to no realize that this crisis took months, and israel is small enoguh to shift forces in a few weeks)

You seem not to realize that Nasser explicitly stated that the sole issue was Palestine, and not the straits of Tiran. I don't think he even mentioned Syria.

Jordan, which during the crisis aligned itself with Nasser, both was also a big threat, shelling Israel once the war begun, and owned the biggest prize.

King Hussein was hoping to stay out of it, but made the bad gamble of shelling Israel's airfields in the hopes that this would appease his allies without provoking an Israeli response.

After the may crisis begun, Syria took the back-burner.

Which is when Nasser should have realized that the Soviets had duped him.

And obviously, Camp david shows that that was not true, and that peace, if given a chance, can happen.

Peace happened because Sadat reversed the Arab position in an act of great bravery. The other Arab states did not boycott Egypt for doing what they had all agreed on.

As for 242, it does have some ambiguity, but unfortunitelly for israel, its interpretation is shared only by the US.

And by the British author of the resolution. The ambiguity was quite intentional, and the UN has to pass another resolution if it wants to change the meaning.

Recognition is everything in international politics, which is why every government does all it can (just like Israel did with the PLO) to stop rebel groups from being recognized. Once you are recognized, you get to sit at the table and be heard.

Israel had already been recognized by all the non-Arab states. Furthermore, agreeing to discuss what concessions will be made does not sound to me like a concession. Again, the Arabs wanted to get a tangible without even promising the intangible. Naturally, Israel was sceptical.

Who are your enemies? The Palestinians? Why are they your enemies?

They're not my enemies. They're Israel's enemies.

Perhaps when you come to comprehensive answers to those two questions you will see the wrongness of Israel's position.

Israel's enemies at the time were Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Jordan, and the PLO. Later, Egypt and then Jordan dropped out of the coalition against Israel, and the PLO finally came around, at least officially, in 1993. Israel was naturally a bit unwilling to trade a tangible for an intangible on the grounds that the UN would protect it if the deal was broken.

Firts, i still don't give a damn about that guy, or any guys, statement to the press- statements can change, agreements can only be followed or borken.

Yes, and it makes an awfully big difference which one occurs. I think it would be absurd, having acknowledged that agreements can be broken, to say that the text of the agreement rather than the statements of those in charge of following or breaking it, are the guide as to which will be done.

As for israel, it never kept up the agreed timetable of withdrawls. thats how israel violated it.

I’m looking at the text of the accords on the Al-Mashriq website (http://almashriq.hiof.no/general/300/320/327/oslo.html), but I don’t see any withdrawl obligations which Israel hasn’t kept - withdrawl from Gaza and Jericho, completed in 1994, withdrawl from parts of Hebron and other cities, completed in 1997. Maybe you could point out the specific provision you’re reffering to?

You had said that the PLO had not recognized Israel. You were wrong. As for terrorism, thats a different cup of tea.

So it was lying when it renounced terrorism, but not when it recognized Israel? I don't see how I'm supposed to tell the difference.

Do you have the text of the actual PLO declaration? Was there such a declaration?

Wrong again. Security Council resolutions that call for cation usually are. The big deal with israel is that the US has always blocked resolutions that call for anti-israel action (veto power).

Just like every other veto power would block action against its allies. That's one of the reasons it's hard to take the Security Council seriously as a moral authority, it serves only the interests of its members. Arguing that the SC only doesn't work because of its members isn't really an argument in favor of it.

besides, the very right of Israel to exist within the international community was granted by the UN! The UN recognizes the right of states to exist, which is why we got the Gulf (kuwait) and Korean war (South Korea).

No, the Gulf war and the Korean war happened because the US made them happen. The UN was simply a nice propaganda sideshow. Ditto with Israel. Your confusing the act with the justification. Don't think the US, Israel, or anyone else needs the UN to endorse its actions to act. It's just convenient when you're able to twist enough arms in the UN to score points.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Natan

Where does it say that UN resolutions which contradict the Charter are invalid? I’m curious.

That is asking me where the constitution says that one can't pass an unconstitutional act, a dumb question.

Right. Syria is dragging its feet, and Jordan doesn't want Jerusalem anyway.

Good to see we agree on something

I assume that our decision not to guarentee free medical care, employment, vacation, etc. is not simply an oversight.

I have yet to see anyt memebr of the UN demand all members do so. These are economic clauses of the UN rights declaration that , as the institution is set up, will never be enforced. Too bad for the israeli position that those that speak about important human rights abuses do matter.

Laws are made, broken, and remade all the time based on intentions. The UN was created because we thought it suited our interests and the USSR concurred; it was ignored because we decided on second thought it didn't, and if it ever becomes a serious organization instead of an occasional propaganda sideshow, it will be because states intend it to be such to serve their interests. I think it makes more sense to deal with these interests and intentions directly than to pretend that they are based on a special kind of "laws" which just happen to change every few years and are only enforced when convenient.

Yet again with the stupid "laws are made to be broken"! No, they are not. That someone breaks them is something that commonly happens. Was the anti-incest law made to be broken? What about the murder law, theft, rape, cannabalism, wife beating? I guess with such a maxim you find nothing wrong with beating a kid, raping him and then eating him? Come on! My guess is that you would think that previous action horrible and reprehansible, becuase not only is it illegal but also immoral. The Un has flaws, but it is the system we have, and since it does promote fundamental values which the US and most of the world agree with, it is what we should go with. As far how often the law changes- there have been no major revisions of the UN charter.

Syria is closer to Israeli population centers though.

But a weaker army

You seem not to realize that Nasser explicitly stated that the sole issue was Palestine, and not the straits of Tiran. I don't think he even mentioned Syria.

You seem to ignore the fact that he , as a politician, has constituencies to play with, and that Nasser was not perticularly friendly with the al-Attassi government in Syria at that time.

King Hussein was hoping to stay out of it, but made the bad gamble of shelling Israel's airfields in the hopes that this would appease his allies without provoking an Israeli response.

So we agree yet again

Which is when Nasser should have realized that the Soviets had duped him.

What he should have realized has nothing to do with what happened. Israel should have realized that the Palestinian citizens of the occupied terrritories would not clear out like most in 1948. Stupid them I guess....

Peace happened because Sadat reversed the Arab position in an act of great bravery. The other Arab states did not boycott Egypt for doing what they had all agreed on.

So maybe israeli leaders should get the balls Saddat had- but i guess they don't want to get shot like Saddat....

And by the British author of the resolution. The ambiguity was quite intentional, and the UN has to pass another resolution if it wants to change the meaning.

Over time, the Israeli position has become less and less accepted because it is based on various questionable values.

Israel had already been recognized by all the non-Arab states. Furthermore, agreeing to discuss what concessions will be made does not sound to me like a concession. Again, the Arabs wanted to get a tangible without even promising the intangible. Naturally, Israel was sceptical.

But Israel was not at war with Panama. As for tangibles, Israel was not very willing to move on that front at all at that time, with Eshkol initially refusing the entire thing. Modern war makes land more and more irelevant- and peace and recognition more and more important.

They're not my enemies. They're Israel's enemies.

Israel's enemies at the time were Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Jordan, and the PLO. Later, Egypt and then Jordan dropped out of the coalition against Israel, and the PLO finally came around, at least officially, in 1993. Israel was naturally a bit unwilling to trade a tangible for an intangible on the grounds that the UN would protect it if the deal was broken.

Yet israel has no right to the tangible at all. It does have a right to the intangible.

Yes, and it makes an awfully big difference which one occurs. I think it would be absurd, having acknowledged that agreements can be broken, to say that the text of the agreement rather than the statements of those in charge of following or breaking it, are the guide as to which will be done.

I still don't give a damn. Laws are not meant to be broken, but statements can always change- as did Saddats. That is what matters and gets things done. If you want to be stuck in where we arte, continue to sulk about those statements- I myself care only to move forward.

I’m looking at the text of the accords on the Al-Mashriq website (http://almashriq.hiof.no/general/300/320/327/oslo.html), but I don’t see any withdrawl obligations which Israel hasn’t kept - withdrawl from Gaza and Jericho, completed in 1994, withdrawl from parts of Hebron and other cities, completed in 1997. Maybe you could point out the specific provision you’re reffering to?

I am refering to withdrawl of certain percentages of land also- Israel never met its stated goals there.

So it was lying when it renounced terrorism, but not when it recognized Israel? I don't see how I'm supposed to tell the difference.

As Siro asked earlier- why lie about such a thing? More importantly, now that they made that their official position, you can hold them to it. That is what matters most in terms of the future.

Do you have the text of the actual PLO declaration? Was there such a declaration?

I have the Speech Arafat made to the UN in 1988 talking about that statement. It is now on record. It was made on december 15, 1988.

Just like every other veto power would block action against its allies. That's one of the reasons it's hard to take the Security Council seriously as a moral authority, it serves only the interests of its members. Arguing that the SC only doesn't work because of its members isn't really an argument in favor of it.

Is the UNSC moral? NO, thats not how it was set up. Yes, the powers of big nations have preponderance, which is why they agree to be there. But the UN is the system we as humans to resolve problems in a system of sovereign states. If you are so moral about it, argue for a change in the UN or the sovereign state system, don't argue that there should be no system at all, or that it should be ignored.

No, the Gulf war and the Korean war happened because the US made them happen. The UN was simply a nice propaganda sideshow. Ditto with Israel. Your confusing the act with the justification. Don't think the US, Israel, or anyone else needs the UN to endorse its actions to act. It's just convenient when you're able to twist enough arms in the UN to score points.

Back in 1990, either the USSR or China could have said no, but they didn't. Everyone saw that what Saddam had done had crosed a line.

On a new note: Is the Israeli occupation acceptable to you? Do you think israel has a right to do it, to keep the occupied territories? What do you belive the rights of the Palestinians are and why? These are the fundamentals that matter.

[Tom201]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov

Think about it, what other state is going around assasinate ppl? Well maybe some dictatorships...

Psst - everyone's doing it.

Well could be. I generally dont trust any goverment. But it is not morally justified. I dont support it - u know the courts exist for some reason. Otherwise we all could just have a military dictatorship.

Originally posted by Sirotnikov
Let's just say I read some things about how exact is the info GSS and Mossad have... and you'll be amazed what people can know even without Echelon on their side

Hm either u work for one of them, or they revealed some info... hm do intellegence agencys ever do this? ...
I hope u dont gonna assasinate me for being not a 100% on Israeli site

Originally posted by Sirotnikov
There are 100 times more arrests than assassinations - but those aren't reported as much.

Hm, thats lead to 2 questions:
1. When are they arrested? On the Checkpoints, while they are in Israel or are any arrested yet on Palastine territory?
2. How much Palastine u have in Israeli Prisons?

Ah and cose u always stress that u are in a war - are these military prisoners or civil prisoners?

Originally posted by Sirotnikov
And finally, many arrest attempts have ended in a bad way. Sometimes many Israeli soldiers died. It's easier to send in a rocket.
[...]
the difference is, that if an israeli soldier kills a terrorist with a gun, he has to manage to escape. He probably won't because the entire 3 million palestinians are on his tail.
[...]
Israel gives some ****.
Though agreeably not too much.
Israel should give a **** abuot thier own civilians first.

I agree that it is easier to send a rocket. But thats not the point. Assasinating ppl. is not some game. u dont look for the easiest way, u look for the one that is most effective for your goals (I still believe that these goals include not to kill civilians).
A rocket is effective on one part of the goal (killing the target) but highly uneffective on the other (not killing innocent ppl.)
Hm, this week I was impressed on that single Palastine sniper that took out 9 ppl. and didnt got caught.
Israel is more proffesionall than the Palastine cant they use snipers to assasinate ppl.? I mean you are very long range with a sniper usually easy to escape (not that I tested it ).

I still demand risking own soldiers instead of killing civilians. If the risk is too high u cant do the assasination. End of story.

Originally posted by Sirotnikov
I don't care!

There have been 10 months time to help Israelis before we started destroying buildings. They didn't use that time. Tough luck.

So u gave your belive in a solution without total war already up?


Ok now the quotes from the other thread

Originally posted by Sirotnikov

When a police man trys to arrest me for some crime I commited it is morally justified when I shot at him?

It is justified accrding to the talibani beliefs to shoot back.
It is justified according to your will to not be jailed to shoot.
No one pretends living by some "global morals".

Hm I think u got me wrong here. What I meant was not personal moral. I meant moral in general. Hitler liked his plan of Holocaust. It was ok for him, But in general means it was not moral (I guess we agree here).
Or I maybe shoot the policeman but maybe feel sorry for him later on. The general Public would say it was not moral justified to shoot him.

I dont know why this is so difficult to understand.

Originally posted by Sirotnikov
I don't see what you don't like about this.

I don't feel bad because I'm checked , nor do I feel humiliated.

I infact feel very good since I know that if I were a terrorist, I couldn't have sneaked in.

It doesn't stop me from going to the mall or enjoying my life.

Its my personal thing what I got in my bag. I give up a bit privacy when some policeman is allowed to control me in detail.
I just feel that it is non of his buisness, what I do or what I carry or whatever. I decide who is my friend and who I tell anything.

Well I think this is more of some personal thingy. U are used to get controlled and dont have a problem with it - I am the opposite of such a position (have sort of a general problem with state authorities)
But well when u can live with it no problem.

Originally posted by Sirotnikov
I agree with the point, but I disagree that israel is radical.
i don't mind police at all.

Hm is there a left wing in the Israel parlament? Or would that left wing more be some sort of a right wing in most other democratic countrys?


Ok some new points:
1. The Teargas that is used in Israel has a much higher dosage than the one that is used in Europe or the US to keep down riots. Teargas in Israel is mainly used against Teenager/Kids throwing stones at soldiers. The effect of the higher dosage is on minors much worse than on adults. Teargas that is used in Israel can lead to blindness. The Health of the Teenagers is atacked their growth can be damaged. If they used normal Teargas that wouldnt be happen.
Why use high dosage Teargas against Kids?

2. Usage of Rubber ammo (well I dont know the right english translation) often inflicts serious injuries. Even some ppl. died from that type of ammo. Again the target are stone throwing teenagers. Why dont Israel use something else, less dangerous?

3. Israel Soldiers dont seem to like journalist that report from the palastins point of view. More than once journalist that reported from the Palastine site got shot in the leg with normal munition to "warn" them.

[Natan]

Originally posted by GePap
That is asking me where the constitution says that one can't pass an unconstitutional act, a dumb question.

I would have done better to phrase the question as "who decides when the Security Council has passed a resolution which violates the Charter." It seems to me that the answer is no one; it's the SC's job to interpret the Charter; and thus there is no protection against abuses by the Security Council.

I have yet to see anyt memebr of the UN demand all members do so. These are economic clauses of the UN rights declaration that , as the institution is set up, will never be enforced. Too bad for the israeli position that those that speak about important human rights abuses do matter.

I don't see a part of the UN charter which says "about articles x, y, and 17, we were just kidding guys." I also don't see one which says "this stuff only applies if a member demands that it apply." But either way, you're changing the issue, the point of bringing that up is to show that agreeing to do something and intending to actually do it are quite distinct things, and the former is not always a good predictor of the latter.
[QUOTE]
Yet again with the stupid "laws are made to be broken"![/QUOTE[
Are you honestly telling me that laws stick in stone? That UN resolutions are passed out of the goodnes of the member states hearts as divinely inspired at the moment of the vote, regardless of their statements and motivations? That their subsequent enforcement of the law is likewise disconnected from reality?

No, they are not. That someone breaks them is something that commonly happens. Was the anti-incest law made to be broken? What about the murder law, theft, rape, cannabalism, wife beating?

Any law which is not enforced was made to be broken - not enforcing a law is effectively cancelling it; it is saying that we were just kidding when we made the law.

I guess with such a maxim you find nothing wrong with beating a kid, raping him and then eating him? Come on!

Do you really mean to suggest that you could do that to a kid if it were legal? That it's the passage of a law saying "don't rape and eat people" is what makes those things wrong? I think that's patently absurd.

My guess is that you would think that previous action horrible and reprehansible, becuase not only is it illegal but also immoral. The Un has flaws, but it is the system we have, and since it does promote fundamental values which the US and most of the world agree with, it is what we should go with. As far how often the law changes- there have been no major revisions of the UN charter.

Right, we just ignore it whenever we don't like it, and that makes it all better. The UN only promotes its member states interests. It will only promote "fundamental values" for as long as its member states want it to, and when it is dead and gone, its member states will continue to promote these values when they want to and will still abandon these values at whim as well. The UN is just a stage for political theater.

But a weaker army

Yes.

You seem to ignore the fact that he , as a politician, has constituencies to play with, and that Nasser was not perticularly friendly with the al-Attassi government in Syria at that time.

So he had to defend the Syrians because he was on bad terms with them?

So we agree yet again

I'm glad.

What he should have realized has nothing to do with what happened. Israel should have realized that the Palestinian citizens of the occupied terrritories would not clear out like most in 1948. Stupid them I guess....

If that had been their miscalculation, they could have returned the territories immediately.

So maybe israeli leaders should get the balls Saddat had- but i guess they don't want to get shot like Saddat....

Arafat doesn't want to either. Nor do most leaders in the Middle East. Most human beings have an aversion to being shot. And for better or for worse, that aversion is often the basis of middle eastern politics.

Over time, the Israeli position has become less and less accepted because it is based on various questionable values.

So the meaning of the law changes because the law was based on questionable values? I'd say that if the UN doesn't clarify what it meant, then the drafter is the best evidence we have as to what the resolution meant. In fact, the Soviet ambassador at the time complained that the exclusion of the definite article meant that Israel could keep some of the territories, so I'd say the meaning has always been clear.

But Israel was not at war with Panama.

I agree again. That is true. But why are you telling me that? Did you mean Egypt? Jordan? Syria? Something else?

As for tangibles, Israel was not very willing to move on that front at all at that time, with Eshkol initially refusing the entire thing. Modern war makes land more and more irelevant- and peace and recognition more and more important.

One could argue that the ease with which agreements can be broken necessitates securing military advantages. But I don't think we're arguing about correct geo-political strategic principles, so I suppose this line of argument is a dead end.

Yet israel has no right to the tangible at all. It does have a right to the intangible.

You asked why Israel was reluctant to negotiate. I told you. Trust me, if the German or Japanese leaders had showed up in 1945 and said "listen, we promise never to do this again, but you have to withdraw from all our lands before we recognize your independence," I don't think the allies would have bought it.

I still don't give a damn. Laws are not meant to be broken, but statements can always change- as did Saddats. That is what matters and gets things done. If you want to be stuck in where we arte, continue to sulk about those statements- I myself care only to move forward.

In short - facts don't bother me. Look, agreeing to implement a law is itself just a statement. When you accept the PLO's statement to the effect that it would agree to resolution 242, but then refuse to accept the statement of PLO factions and leaders to the contrary, you are not moving forward. You are just being inconsistent. Asking me to ignore inconvenient facts for the sake of progress doesn't work in politics any more than it does in engineering.

I am refering to withdrawl of certain percentages of land also- Israel never met its stated goals there.

Where does Israel promise certain percentages? Could you state which part of the agreemen it's in? Which article maybe? I can't find it.

As Siro asked earlier- why lie about such a thing?

1) Because it got a lot of diplomatic gains for lying about it at apparently miniscule military cost.
2) As part of a strategy of gaining a foothold.

More importantly, now that they made that their official position, you can hold them to it.

How can they be held to it? No system exists to do so.

That is what matters most in terms of the future.

No, what matters most in terms of the future is what they will find convenient to do in the future, which could quite easily be different from what they agreed to do in the past. Again, the passing of the UN charter was not a good indication of what its member states would do. Germany's acceptance of Belgian neutrality was not a good indication of its future actions. And so on.

I have the Speech Arafat made to the UN in 1988 talking about that statement. It is now on record. It was made on december 15, 1988.

Could I trouble you to post a link or, if you only have it on disk, to paste the text?

Is the UNSC moral? NO, thats not how it was set up. Yes, the powers of big nations have preponderance, which is why they agree to be there. But the UN is the system we as humans to resolve problems in a system of sovereign states.

It's the system we follow when it happens to suit our needs. But in fact, as we've already pointed out, all nations ignore the UN charter.

If you are so moral about it, argue for a change in the UN or the sovereign state system, don't argue that there should be no system at all, or that it should be ignored.

Firstly, I don't have the power to change these things. Secondly, I do argue that there shouldn't be an open propaganda forum dressed up as a world government. The UN does not provide anything which the five powers couldn't on their own.

Back in 1990, either the USSR or China could have said no, but they didn't. Everyone saw that what Saddam had done had crosed a line.

No, everyone saw that it was convenient to have Saddam beaten up because he was a wild card. Do you really think Gorbachev was smitten with sorrow over the plight of the Kuwaiti people?

On a new note: Is the Israeli occupation acceptable to you? Do you think israel has a right to do it, to keep the occupied territories? What do you belive the rights of the Palestinians are and why? These are the fundamentals that matter.

I think this is a separate issue which would best be discussed after we finish the questions at hand. I think we have to settle the principles of international law before we discuss how they should apply to this case.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Natan

I would have done better to phrase the question as "who decides when the Security Council has passed a resolution which violates the Charter." It seems to me that the answer is no one; it's the SC's job to interpret the Charter; and thus there is no protection against abuses by the Security Council.

Well, who decides if the constitution has been violated? The Supreme court, or more exactly, 5 out of 9 judges. No system is foolproof- but if you get the US,UK, France, Russia, China, and then 4 other countries to agree to anything, my guess is that it will conform to standards, unless they all join some great joint plot....

I don't see a part of the UN charter which says "about articles x, y, and 17, we were just kidding guys." I also don't see one which says "this stuff only applies if a member demands that it apply." But either way, you're changing the issue, the point of bringing that up is to show that agreeing to do something and intending to actually do it are quite distinct things, and the former is not always a good predictor of the latter.

First, these economic rights do no trump soveriegnty, but rights such as life and free politcal expression do. So, the UN can't order anyone to get a free health care system- not how the system works. Most argument in the UN is about defining the chater and its words, not arguing about what should be in it- much like the constitution.

Any law which is not enforced was made to be broken - not enforcing a law is effectively cancelling it; it is saying that we were just kidding when we made the law.

Un security council resolutions can be enforced- a rule that can't be enforced is not a law.

Do you really mean to suggest that you could do that to a kid if it were legal? That it's the passage of a law saying "don't rape and eat people" is what makes those things wrong? I think that's patently absurd.

Right, we just ignore it whenever we don't like it, and that makes it all better. The UN only promotes its member states interests. It will only promote "fundamental values" for as long as its member states want it to, and when it is dead and gone, its member states will continue to promote these values when they want to and will still abandon these values at whim as well. The UN is just a stage for political theater.

Firts, there are people who would- heck, they do when its illegal. As for state interets, in the past decade, and growing ever faster, rights of individuals are gaining strenght over national sovereignty- thus east timor. I think this is good. MOre fundamentally, what other basis for moral action in the international system is there? The argument that cause the UN is not perfect, don't use it leads no where, since unless we get a world government, all systems of states will have to be based on compromises-otherwise, why would states join?

So he had to defend the Syrians because he was on bad terms with them?

He had to defend Syria because not to stand by as a fellow Arab state (no matter what he believed of the gov, or that he resented their extremism) as they went to war with israel would have denied him the position of leader of the Arab world he wanted Egypt to claim. So, to keep the Saudis or Iraqis at bay, he had to 'act tough' against Israel.

If that had been their miscalculation, they could have returned the territories immediately.

But that was their miscalculation. And they did not return them immidately becasue elements in israel , as they do today, argued that it was all rightfuly Jewish, which God ahd not only given to them throught Abraham, but seemed to have done it again through the 6 day war.

Arafat doesn't want to either. Nor do most leaders in the Middle East. Most human beings have an aversion to being shot. And for better or for worse, that aversion is often the basis of middle eastern politics.

Which is bad. I don't like Arafat, though I don't dislike him as much as Sharon. Still, these men are transiatory. Their existance has little to do with the fundamental structural problems of the situation.

So the meaning of the law changes because the law was based on questionable values? I'd say that if the UN doesn't clarify what it meant, then the drafter is the best evidence we have as to what the resolution meant. In fact, the Soviet ambassador at the time complained that the exclusion of the definite article meant that Israel could keep some of the territories, so I'd say the meaning has always been clear.

The 'law' didn't change. The resolution is vague as you said, so both sides have different interpretations of it. Over time, the Arabs have convinced more states of the correctness of their position than the Israeliss have, based on what values they use to explain their position.

You asked why Israel was reluctant to negotiate. I told you. Trust me, if the German or Japanese leaders had showed up in 1945 and said "listen, we promise never to do this again, but you have to withdraw from all our lands before we recognize your independence," I don't think the allies would have bought it.

First of all, unlike germany and Japan, The Arab state still had the capabilities to carry out war- which they showed in 1973 and eventually got Egypt the Sinai again. Second- do what again? Carry out the raids and shelling of Israeli posts? I would say that first, as with the sinai, a UN force to monitor a demilitarized zone could have been set up. Second, yes, i think that egypt and Syria would have agreed to ending such practices.

In short - facts don't bother me. Look, agreeing to implement a law is itself just a statement. When you accept the PLO's statement to the effect that it would agree to resolution 242, but then refuse to accept the statement of PLO factions and leaders to the contrary, you are not moving forward. You are just being inconsistent. Asking me to ignore inconvenient facts for the sake of progress doesn't work in politics any more than it does in engineering.

Statements to the press are , again, transiatory. The PLO as an organization, regardless of the men in it, made a commitment. In 50 years all those men will be dead, but the statement will still be in writing. That's why I look towards the future. As for their statements being fact- that they made it is a fact, that they believe that today may not be (looking at the statements of a single person throught time, you do get to see changes), that they will believ it in the future specualtion. And again, politics is the real of will. Sadat decided to ignore his previous comments, and move to peace- so did Begin. They did it, it can be done, it should be done again.

Where does Israel promise certain percentages? Could you state which part of the agreemen it's in? Which article maybe? I can't find it.

I guess i refer to Oslo two and Zone C lands, at which there was mayor disgareementa sbout the extent of Zone C. Netanyahu cartainly put most provisions on a very slow back-burner.

1) Because it got a lot of diplomatic gains for lying about it at apparently miniscule military cost.
2) As part of a strategy of gaining a foothold.
How can they be held to it? No system exists to do so.

But a system does. The US has not met with Arafat recently and isolates him because they expect him to keep his statementss. Thats how it gets enfoced, through future action.

No, what matters most in terms of the future is what they will find convenient to do in the future, which could quite easily be different from what they agreed to do in the past. Again, the passing of the UN charter was not a good indication of what its member states would do. Germany's acceptance of Belgian neutrality was not a good indication of its future actions. And so on.

But neither are paast actions representavitve of future ones. It seems to me you call for no action- just stick there, since there is endless uncertainty. Well, I don't see it that way- one creates futures. The french and british were wary german unification, but in the end, they let it go. Decisions need to be based on present conditions as interpreted by current values- anything else is guesswork or irrelevant, and thus meaningless for future action.

Could I trouble you to post a link or, if you only have it on disk, to paste the text?

Since I am computer illiterate, It would. It was on the washigton post of 12/15/1988. I got it from the book i mentioned earlier: Smith, Charles. Palestine and the Arab-Israeli Conflict: A history with documents
(Bedford/St. martins: Boston, New York, 2001) ISBN: 0312208286 pg. 453.

It's the system we follow when it happens to suit our needs. But in fact, as we've already pointed out, all nations ignore the UN charter.

They don't ignore it as far as differ in its interpretation. There is a big difference.

Firstly, I don't have the power to change these things. Secondly, I do argue that there shouldn't be an open propaganda forum dressed up as a world government. The UN does not provide anything which the five powers couldn't on their own.

Giving up the ability for action is defeat. second, we have to realize that, if everyone followed principles, there would be no need for government at all, but they don't, so force is needed. In a sytem of sovereign states, one must keep their interests in mind,other wise the system crumbles. So what if only what the big five want is what goes? Thats the system. If you can design mayor structural fixes, or a new and better system, work with what is.

No, everyone saw that it was convenient to have Saddam beaten up because he was a wild card. Do you really think Gorbachev was smitten with sorrow over the plight of the Kuwaiti people?

Well, his being a wild card was the problem, the line he crossed. The US spoke of dem, even thought Kuwait was, and isn't one, but everyone else spoke of sovereignty and they criminality of border changes through force, basic internationally agreed upon beliefs that most states, including the Big one, agree with.

I think this is a separate issue which would best be discussed after we finish the questions at hand. I think we have to settle the principles of international law before we discuss how they should apply to this case.

These last question were not about international law, since this thread sin't about it. I mention international law because I believe that israel is not only breaking basic human right and liberal principles but also international law, and as far as breaking international law, it should be punished for it, and I am angry that my country does nothing to counter this but instead is the sugar daddy.

All law, whether international or not, is based both in priciples and the threat of naked violence. This is a teneous connection, but an inevitable one. No law system is perfect nor fair, but to ignore them because so risks anarchy and war which are endlesly worst. If all palestinians and israelis died tommorrow, there would be peace in the middle east for a little while, until Arab state begun to jockey vs each other- but that would be a horrific solution. So, as we stand, urging all sides to follow their agreements, standing laws and treaties, and the principles behind them is the best solution of all.

[Natan]

Originally posted by GePap
Well, who decides if the constitution has been violated? The Supreme court, or more exactly, 5 out of 9 judges. No system is foolproof

So in short you agree that there is no safeguard and that the Security Council could pass resolutions which call for human rights violations. So I repeat the question, do you endorse unjust SC resolutions?

but if you get the US,UK, France, Russia, China, and then 4 other countries to agree to anything, my guess is that it will conform to standards, unless they all join some great joint plot....

Or in less they have some shared interest in doing a favor for a human rights abuser.

First, these economic rights do no trump soveriegnty, but rights such as life and free politcal expression do.

Where does it say that economic rights are not protected by the UN? And where does the UN even distinguish between the different rights codified in the Charter?

So, the UN can't order anyone to get a free health care system- not how the system works. Most argument in the UN is about defining the chater and its words, not arguing about what should be in it- much like the constitution.

There's not much of a difference between deciding what's in the charter and deciding what the words in the charter mean - they're both ways of deciding what the charter means and calls for.

Un security council resolutions can be enforced- a rule that can't be enforced is not a law.

And a rule which isn't enforced isn't a law.

MOre fundamentally, what other basis for moral action in the international system is there? The argument that cause the UN is not perfect, don't use it leads no where, since unless we get a world government, all systems of states will have to be based on compromises-otherwise, why would states join?

I think states should act based on what they think right rather than looking over their shoulder to see what a bunch of mostly dictatorial regimes think about it. I think that UN resolutions are not "binding" in any sense; they just happen to sometimes coincide with what is right.

He had to defend Syria because not to stand by as a fellow Arab state (no matter what he believed of the gov, or that he resented their extremism) as they went to war with israel would have denied him the position of leader of the Arab world he wanted Egypt to claim.

So it was okay because it served his geo-strategic goals?

But that was their miscalculation. And they did not return them immidately becasue elements in israel , as they do today, argued that it was all rightfuly Jewish, which God ahd not only given to them throught Abraham, but seemed to have done it again through the 6 day war.

No, they didn't return them because the Arab states weren't interested in negotiating over them until a decade later, and then, Egypt got its lands back once it showed it could be trusted.

Which is bad. I don't like Arafat, though I don't dislike him as much as Sharon. Still, these men are transiatory. Their existance has little to do with the fundamental structural problems of the situation.

You don't consider them typical of Middle Eastern leaders?

The 'law' didn't change. The resolution is vague as you said, so both sides have different interpretations of it. Over time, the Arabs have convinced more states of the correctness of their position than the Israeliss have, based on what values they use to explain their position.

I don't think there's any rule that once a bunch of states decide to retroactively change their understanding of a Security Council resolution against the will of a veto power, their interpretation becomes law. Especially since that interpretation contradicts the drafters stated intent and the understanding of the other parties to the resolution.

First of all, unlike germany and Japan, The Arab state still had the capabilities to carry out war- which they showed in 1973 and eventually got Egypt the Sinai again.

I thought your argument was that refusing to negotiate from a position of strength was wrong while refusing to argue from a position of weakness was, if not right, at least understandable? You're losing track of the original issues.

[
Second- do what again? Carry out the raids and shelling of Israeli posts? I would say that first, as with the sinai, a UN force to monitor a demilitarized zone could have been set up.

No, because Syria insisted that negotiations could only take place after an Israeli withdrawl. Why would Syria agree to a UN force if it already had the Golan back?

Second, yes, i think that egypt and Syria would have agreed to ending such practices.

Seeing as they didn't say they would, I don't think you can demand that Israel base its policy on the theory that they would.

Statements to the press are , again, transiatory. The PLO as an organization, regardless of the men in it, made a commitment.

Which they can break. And which many of them think they will break.

In 50 years all those men will be dead, but the statement will still be in writing.

Although apparently the Fatah constitution won't be. But anyway, agreements are easily broken. Remember that "scrap of paper" which Germany threw away in 1914?

That's why I look towards the future. As for their statements being fact- that they made it is a fact, that they believe that today may not be (looking at the statements of a single person throught time, you do get to see changes), that they will believ it in the future specualtion.

Okay, but signing a treaty is just a slightly more formal declaration of intent than a TV interview. But being more formal doesn't necessarily make it more accurate.

And again, politics is the real of will. Sadat decided to ignore his previous comments, and move to peace- so did Begin. They did it, it can be done, it should be done again.

Yes, political goals and strategies change all the time. That's why you have to examine all the things leaders say instead of just whichever ones happen to fit your fantasies.

I guess i refer to Oslo two and Zone C lands, at which there was mayor disgareementa sbout the extent of Zone C. Netanyahu cartainly put most provisions on a very slow back-burner.

What lands was Israel supposed to hand over which Netanyahu didn't? He handed over Nablus, Jenin, Tulkarm, Qalqiliya, and Ramallah - all the Palestinian cities.

But a system does. The US has not met with Arafat recently and isolates him because they expect him to keep his statementss. Thats how it gets enfoced, through future action.

No, the US has not met with Arafat lately because we don't find it convenient to do so. We demand that he do things which he hasn't agreed to and don't mention things he's agreed to do but hasn't.

But neither are paast actions representavitve of future ones. It seems to me you call for no action- just stick there, since there is endless uncertainty. Well, I don't see it that way- one creates futures. The french and british were wary german unification, but in the end, they let it go. Decisions need to be based on present conditions as interpreted by current values- anything else is guesswork or irrelevant, and thus meaningless for future action.

Right, and insisting that the PLO's declaration after enough arm twisting that it will do this or that is definitive is silly. You have to examine all of the statements and actions and try to figure out which is indicative of the true intentions of the players. That Faisal Husseini quote isn't some ancient history, it was said less than a year ago.

Since I am computer illiterate, It would. It was on the washigton post of 12/15/1988. I got it from the book i mentioned earlier: Smith, Charles. Palestine and the Arab-Israeli Conflict: A history with documents
(Bedford/St. martins: Boston, New York, 2001) ISBN: 0312208286 pg. 453.

Thanks.

They don't ignore it as far as differ in its interpretation. There is a big difference.

Oh, I see, we decided that words mean what we want them to. Come on gepap, the charter calls just as clearly for paid vacation and guarenteed education and health care just as clearly as it calls for democracy. This is like saying that Iraq just differs on the part about torture, but really accepts the UN charter.

Giving up the ability for action is defeat. second, we have to realize that, if everyone followed principles, there would be no need for government at all, but they don't, so force is needed. In a sytem of sovereign states, one must keep their interests in mind,other wise the system crumbles. So what if only what the big five want is what goes? Thats the system. If you can design mayor structural fixes, or a new and better system, work with what is.

So why dress up the big five's whims as some sort of imperative commands? It seems to me that you're saying might makes right.

Well, his being a wild card was the problem, the line he crossed. The US spoke of dem, even thought Kuwait was, and isn't one, but everyone else spoke of sovereignty and they criminality of border changes through force, basic internationally agreed upon beliefs that most states, including the Big one, agree with.

We, and everyone one else, were just saying what was convenient and lying through our teeth. The USSR never complained about the violations of South Vietnam's soveriegnty, or South Korea's, and we thought nothing of trying to change North Korea's border by force either.

These last question were not about international law, since this thread sin't about it.

I think it is. 90% of the argument is about it.

I mention international law because I believe that israel is not only breaking basic human right and liberal principles but also international law, and as far as breaking international law, it should be punished for it, and I am angry that my country does nothing to counter this but instead is the sugar daddy.

Yes, you believe that Israel is violating international law and should be punished. I'm disagreeing. That makes for a much cleaner argument that "liberal principles."

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov
you claim bush is worse than him.

No, I don´t claim Bush is worse than Saddam. I claim Bush is more dangerous than Saddam. I don´t care which of both is worse. Unlike you, I don´t claim to care mostly about intent. I only care about results. Most of the time this is the same, though.

you claim iraqis are more free than americans.

Again you intentionally confuse Freedom and Liberty. Freedom means you are living in a state that is independent. Americans want to take away Freedom from Iraq, transforming it into a de facto colony. They want to make all nations client states, or destroy them. They should be opposed by any means necessary. I never claimed Saddam is a champion of Liberty, but it´s none of America´s business.

[Az]

Free- having liberty ; not in bondage; not restricted or impeded;.... --freedom n.

First of all, unlike germany and Japan, The Arab state still had the capabilities to carry out war- which they showed in 1973 and eventually got Egypt the Sinai again. Second- do what again? Carry out the raids and shelling of Israeli posts? I would say that first, as with the sinai, a UN force to monitor a demilitarized zone could have been set up. Second, yes, i think that egypt and Syria would have agreed to ending such practices.

1)well ,that happened only 6 years later . I also think that Germany and Japan would have been able to attack again after 6 years.
2)yes, of course they would have agreed. ...

*person A hits person B*
person B: hey stop it !
person A : Ok.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Natan

So in short you agree that there is no safeguard and that the Security Council could pass resolutions which call for human rights violations. So I repeat the question, do you endorse unjust SC resolutions?

Or in less they have some shared interest in doing a favor for a human rights abuser.

Lets say the US decides to create a law which says: the US government can pick any citizen not involved in Government work at random, hunt them down and kill them, and take all their posetions. If 2/3 of both houses of congress and 5 out of 9 judges of the supreme court are strongly for it, it will become law, period, since all institutional safeguards against something unconstitutional would have failed. By your logic, we then can't trust any US laws, since in theory, this can happen. Well, thats wrong. What keeps balance is the belief that you could not get 2/3 of the congress, and 5 out of nine judges to agree because they all believe in the values of the US, in tis laws and systems, and thus it won't happen. The notion that all five powers, with different aims and values, pluis another 4 states, again, all with different intererts and values, would agree is hard enough. That they would agree in the way you mention, even more inexlicable. Why don't you try giving a plausible such outcome for you theory? I doubt you could find one.

Where does it say that economic rights are not protected by the UN? And where does the UN even distinguish between the different rights codified in the Charter?

Where does it say, i am not sure. But I can tell you that as far as the UN goes, many states care a great deal bout political human rights, but not even the nordic states demand that everyone have free healthcare. So I see this as a mute point for now.

There's not much of a difference between deciding what's in the charter and deciding what the words in the charter mean - they're both ways of deciding what the charter means and calls for.

Oh, there is a great difference. There are only limited meanings for words, so if it says "no unfair trials", people can argue about what is fair and unfair, but no one can say that we can get rid of trials all together. We can debate the menaing of the 2nd Ammendment about guns and how far the right extends, but all agree that the right exists. That is a major difference.

And a rule which isn't enforced isn't a law.

I have never seen a person get a ticket for Jaywaking, but if I ever got one, arguing to the judge that I should not pay cause the law is not comonly enforced would get me nowhere. A law is a law, whether enforced or not.

I think states should act based on what they think right rather than looking over their shoulder to see what a bunch of mostly dictatorial regimes think about it. I think that UN resolutions are not "binding" in any sense; they just happen to sometimes coincide with what is right.

UN security council resolutions are binding upon all the members that have signed the charter. Israel did. As for 'mostly dictatorial", who do you mean? Yes, we all know that the US, France, and Britian, three of the Veto Powers , are such paragons of evil and dictatorship that.. wait, no, they are liberal democarcies, and as such would block pro-dictatorship clauses unless all three agree to like a dictator, which then probably means that either Russia or China won unless its a special case, such as they guys in central asia, and even there, french or UK support is unlikely.

So it was okay because it served his geo-strategic goals?

No, they didn't return them because the Arab states weren't interested in negotiating over them until a decade later, and then, Egypt got its lands back once it showed it could be trusted.

The reason Israel wanted to have 242 read in part not "the territories taken in 1967" but "territories taken in 1967", or leaving out the 'the', was because the first way was too specific. I called for every square inch. The second does not, since Eskhol and Dayan never had any intention of returning all lands taken in 1967. This, the Arab demand for the retun of everything, and the Israeli whish to keep some, is the sticking point, not some intense arab hatred of israel. And praytell how did Sadat show himself to be trutworthy?

I don't think there's any rule that once a bunch of states decide to retroactively change their understanding of a Security Council resolution against the will of a veto power, their interpretation becomes law. Especially since that interpretation contradicts the drafters stated intent and the understanding of the other parties to the resolution.

There were multiple drafters, who wanted to be, as you said, ambigious. You can't then claim they were not ambigous but crystal clear in their intentions. The resoltion has not been changed- what has changed is how the specific words which are ambigious are to be interpreted, and the Arab stance is winning that ideological debate.

I thought your argument was that refusing to negotiate from a position of strength was wrong while refusing to argue from a position of weakness was, if not right, at least understandable? You're losing track of the original issues.

This previous statement was to argue with your previous one. Israel did not want to negotiate because they didn't trust the Arabs (and why should Egypt trust israel after its intrigue with UK and France in 1956, and another invasion in 1967?) but because the two stances (Arabs want all the land back, Israel wants to keep some, if not all) did not join, and Israel felt strong enough to avoid peace discussions. 1973 showed Israel that this second viewpoint was wrong, which is what prompted them to negotiate with Egypt.

No, because Syria insisted that negotiations could only take place after an Israeli withdrawl. Why would Syria agree to a UN force if it already had the Golan back?

First, i view it as a sound request, to ask for another state to give you your land back (there is no map arguments about who owns the Golan rightfully) before further negotiations. Beside, the Syrians have already agreed to 242. it also calls for demiliteraized zones and peacekeepers, like the ones still in Sinai. The Syrian postions has not been that they will move their army in once israel is out, but that they won't negotiate with the Israeli army poised like a dagger at Damascus. The Syrans would agree to peacekeepers during any long-term negotiations if it gets the IDF out of Golan.

Which they can break. And which many of them think they will break.

And Israel breaks it promises and agreements too, including with the US (the US says that israel can't use US weapons in the occupied territories- f-16 and apaches certainly are US made, but the congress and Bush are too weak to point this out). Ask yourself, why should Palesitnians negotiate when members of the Israeli cabinet do call for 'transfer', no matter how against israeli law it is (as you pointed out)? You negotiate to get ahead, not to stay were you are.

Although apparently the Fatah constitution won't be. But anyway, agreements are easily broken. Remember that "scrap of paper" which Germany threw away in 1914?

First, 1939, but second, all agreements can eb broken- so whay make any? By this logic, and it was certainly used by the Israeli right at the time, Israel should have never done Camp David since it would give Egypt back the Sinai, and would weaken israel by the time the new egypttian Hitler came about. So natan , do you believe camp David was a mistake? and if not, why are the Palestinians different from the Egyptians?

Okay, but signing a treaty is just a slightly more formal declaration of intent than a TV interview. But being more formal doesn't necessarily make it more accurate.

Treaties are laws, TV statements can always be 'retracted', so no, they are in no way on an equal footing. And treaties create systems to try to institutionalize the agreement and maintain the same mindset.

Yes, political goals and strategies change all the time. That's why you have to examine all the things leaders say instead of just whichever ones happen to fit your fantasies.

But when do you stop? One must take action at a time, or let it all go to hell.

What lands was Israel supposed to hand over which Netanyahu didn't? He handed over Nablus, Jenin, Tulkarm, Qalqiliya, and Ramallah - all the Palestinian cities.

Zone C, whic are the lands around, but not including settlements, access roads and so forth.

No, the US has not met with Arafat lately because we don't find it convenient to do so. We demand that he do things which he hasn't agreed to and don't mention things he's agreed to do but hasn't.

How is it convienent for the US? Our whole anti-Iraq aim may flaounder in Ramalah, so it would acutally be in our interests to meet him.

Right, and insisting that the PLO's declaration after enough arm twisting that it will do this or that is definitive is silly. You have to examine all of the statements and actions and try to figure out which is indicative of the true intentions of the players. That Faisal Husseini quote isn't some ancient history, it was said less than a year ago.

And what about everyone else. There are lost of more Palestians, how many have been asked? I find sticking so intently by his statements as a way to stall any forward movemnt. what if he came out tommorrow and took back that statement? Would that be enough, or would you still say no? But if you still said no, that would show that your behavior is not based only on his statement, but because it fulfils your previously held beliefs about Palestinians intentions.

Oh, I see, we decided that words mean what we want them to. Come on gepap, the charter calls just as clearly for paid vacation and guarenteed education and health care just as clearly as it calls for democracy. This is like saying that Iraq just differs on the part about torture, but really accepts the UN charter.

I don't agree that ti does so so clearly, and then there is the questrion of interpretation.

So why dress up the big five's whims as some sort of imperative commands? It seems to me that you're saying might makes right.

We, and everyone one else, were just saying what was convenient and lying through our teeth. The USSR never complained about the violations of South Vietnam's soveriegnty, or South Korea's, and we thought nothing of trying to change North Korea's border by force either.

The USSR in 1991 and 1950 were different, first of all. second- all systems must have a way of enforcing. In the state system, no enforcement could occur unless all the great powers are involved. the structure of the UN must conform with current reality (and hopefully work for a different one ahead). But the decisions fo the greta powers must conform with the basic charter of the roganization for any further action. I belive there are diverse enough viewpoints (just as in congress) to asure that what you fear is unsubstantiated.

Yes, you believe that Israel is violating international law and should be punished. I'm disagreeing. That makes for a much cleaner argument that "liberal principles."

But international law is based on liberal ideals. Lets take an example: Israel signed the universal declaration of human rights. it calls for the right of return of all refugees- by not granting this right to Palestinian refugess, is or is not israel breaking what it signed? How would you judge this?

[Natan]

Originally posted by GePap
Lets say the US decides to create a law which says: the US government can pick any citizen not involved in Government work at random, hunt them down and kill them, and take all their posetions. If 2/3 of both houses of congress and 5 out of 9 judges of the supreme court are strongly for it, it will become law, period, since all institutional safeguards against something unconstitutional would have failed. By your logic, we then can't trust any US laws, since in theory, this can happen.

You're not getting my argument. My point was not that the UN should be scrapped because it can pass such a law, but that because it can pass such a law, its rules do not dictate right and wrong. The analogy to US government is, from my perspective, deeply flawed. Firstly, when US laws contradict our moral views, we usually applaud those who break them - hence the glorification of "civil disobedience." The main reason for obeying US law, apart from the personal danger of legal punishment, is to prevent civil war - if every group of citizens that opposed a law were to prevent its enforcement, there would be no country. But if the US government consisted solely of a committee writing up proposals and placing rubber stamps on them to make them law, with no enforcement mechanism, US law would be completely meaningless and there would be no reason to follow US law except in as much as it happened to overlap with what you were going to do anyway. The UN is that committee. I don't think there's anything morally odious about disobeying UN resolutions or the charter, in and of themselves.

Where does it say, i am not sure. But I can tell you that as far as the UN goes, many states care a great deal bout political human rights, but not even the nordic states demand that everyone have free healthcare. So I see this as a mute point for now.

So UN resolutions are void if they are not "cared about?" This is lunacy.

Oh, there is a great difference. There are only limited meanings for words, so if it says "no unfair trials", people can argue about what is fair and unfair, but no one can say that we can get rid of trials all together. We can debate the menaing of the 2nd Ammendment about guns and how far the right extends, but all agree that the right exists. That is a major difference.

That doesn't really help when the range of interpretation runs the complete gamut from what is acceptable, what is in accordance with the UN charter, and what the drafters intended to the exact reverse of all of these things.

I have never seen a person get a ticket for Jaywaking, but if I ever got one, arguing to the judge that I should not pay cause the law is not comonly enforced would get me nowhere. A law is a law, whether enforced or not.

Passing laws and then selectively enforcing them when convenient is an unjust practice.

UN security council resolutions are binding upon all the members that have signed the charter. Israel did. As for 'mostly dictatorial", who do you mean? Yes, we all know that the US, France, and Britian, three of the Veto Powers , are such paragons of evil and dictatorship that.. wait, no, they are liberal democarcies, and as such would block pro-dictatorship clauses unless all three agree to like a dictator, which then probably means that either Russia or China won unless its a special case, such as they guys in central asia, and even there, french or UK support is unlikely.

I'm sure that you'll be telling me that France, America, and the UK have never supported dictatorships in other countries . . .

The reason Israel wanted to have 242 read in part not "the territories taken in 1967" but "territories taken in 1967", or leaving out the 'the', was because the first way was too specific. I called for every square inch. The second does not, since Eskhol and Dayan never had any intention of returning all lands taken in 1967. This, the Arab demand for the retun of everything, and the Israeli whish to keep some, is the sticking point, not some intense arab hatred of israel.

That Israel did not want to have the UN demand that it return all of the territories and that the Arabs hate Israel intensely are not mutually exclusive.

And praytell how did Sadat show himself to be trutworthy?

By going to Jerusalem, showing goodwill towards Israel and the West, and negotiating. As opposed to demanding that Israel withdraw without negotiations.

There were multiple drafters, who wanted to be, as you said, ambigious. You can't then claim they were not ambigous but crystal clear in their intentions. The resoltion has not been changed- what has changed is how the specific words which are ambigious are to be interpreted, and the Arab stance is winning that ideological debate.

Laws do not change their meaning because some people change their interpretation. There has to be a court of law. If most Americans interpret treason to mean conversion to Islam, that doesn't make it treason. If this is how you interpret law, you may as well bring back the lynch mob.

This previous statement was to argue with your previous one. Israel did not want to negotiate because they didn't trust the Arabs (and why should Egypt trust israel after its intrigue with UK and France in 1956, and another invasion in 1967?)

Why exactly did agreeing to have all of its lands returned to it at no actual cost necessitate any trust of Israel on Egypt's part?

but because the two stances (Arabs want all the land back, Israel wants to keep some, if not all) did not join, and Israel felt strong enough to avoid peace discussions. 1973 showed Israel that this second viewpoint was wrong, which is what prompted them to negotiate with Egypt.

How did a war show Israel that it was "wrong" to keep some land?

First, i view it as a sound request, to ask for another state to give you your land back (there is no map arguments about who owns the Golan rightfully) before further negotiations. Beside, the Syrians have already agreed to 242. it also calls for demiliteraized zones and peacekeepers, like the ones still in Sinai. The Syrian postions has not been that they will move their army in once israel is out, but that they won't negotiate with the Israeli army poised like a dagger at Damascus. The Syrans would agree to peacekeepers during any long-term negotiations if it gets the IDF out of Golan.

And Israel's position is that it will negotiate the entrance of peacekeepers, but will not first let the dagger be pointed at the Galilee's heart. Egypt did not lose anything by agreeing to negotiate the terms of the withdrawl and the placement and composition of the UN force, nor did Jordan. Syria is just trying to avoid any demilitirization of the Golan. You might as well say that Germany should not have given the US any assurances but should just have demanded independence in 1946.

And Israel breaks it promises and agreements too, including with the US (the US says that israel can't use US weapons in the occupied territories- f-16 and apaches certainly are US made, but the congress and Bush are too weak to point this out).

If the US isn't complaining, I assume it means we don't mind.

Ask yourself, why should Palesitnians negotiate when members of the Israeli cabinet do call for 'transfer', no matter how against israeli law it is (as you pointed out)?

Firstly, because their "transfer" is a change in economic policies. But more importantly, because they do not view negotiations as a ploy on Israel's part, and even more importantly, they do not run terror organizations.

You negotiate to get ahead, not to stay were you are.

Yes. But if you negotiate as a prelude to war with your negotiating partners, they may not be so eager to go ahead in the same direction.

First, 1939

Haven't you heard of the violation of Belgian neutrality in 1914 which I was reffering to? AFAIK, neither Hitler nor anyone else mentioned a "scrap of paper" in 1939.

but second, all agreements can eb broken- so whay make any?

I'm not arguing no agreements can be maken - I'm arguing that you have to look at whether your partners have any intention of keeping them. What you're saying is that no one should have been the slightest bit apprehensive about Munich.

Treaties are laws, TV statements can always be 'retracted', so no, they are in no way on an equal footing.

Treaties are not "laws" since they are in no way binding.

And treaties create systems to try to institutionalize the agreement and maintain the same mindset.

Or alternatively they just serve as tools for getting what you want. Treaties only hold true for as long as they serve their signatories interests. So when signing treaties, you should consider your opponents future interests and your own.

But when do you stop? One must take action at a time, or let it all go to hell.

I'm not sure what you mean by this.

Zone C, whic are the lands around, but not including settlements, access roads and so forth.

Hmmm? What? Oslo gives Israel control of settlements and their roads.

How is it convienent for the US? Our whole anti-Iraq aim may flaounder in Ramalah, so it would acutally be in our interests to meet him.

The strategy is to put heavy pressure on Arafat to crack down on terror. Also, it is to prevent him for gathering public opinion in the Islamic world behind his cause by travelling around the world. The US just wans to keep the conflict on a low burner.

And what about everyone else. There are lost of more Palestians, how many have been asked? I find sticking so intently by his statements as a way to stall any forward movemnt. what if he came out tommorrow and took back that statement? Would that be enough, or would you still say no? But if you still said no, that would show that your behavior is not based only on his statement, but because it fulfils your previously held beliefs about Palestinians intentions.

Obviously he is not the only reason I believe as I do about Palestinian intentions. But saying that I am just using this as "a way to stall any forward movement" is to say that Churchill was just an enemy of peace - you can't claim that this is not an important question.

I don't agree that ti does so so clearly, and then there is the questrion of interpretation.

I don't think there's much room for interpretation of those clauses of the charter.

In the state system, no enforcement could occur unless all the great powers are involved. the structure of the UN must conform with current reality (and hopefully work for a different one ahead). But the decisions fo the greta powers must conform with the basic charter of the roganization for any further action. I belive there are diverse enough viewpoints (just as in congress) to asure that what you fear is unsubstantiated.

So a SC resolution that violated the Charter WOULD be illegitimate?

But international law is based on liberal ideals. Lets take an example: Israel signed the universal declaration of human rights. it calls for the right of return of all refugees- by not granting this right to Palestinian refugess, is or is not israel breaking what it signed? How would you judge this?

I would point out that the universal declaration of human rights is just a load of hogwash that everyone signs but, as you point out, not even the Scandinavian countries follow. But I would also point out that the vast majority of the Palestinians demanding their right of return are not refugees, but the children and grandchildren of refugees, whose right to return is not guarenteed.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Natan

You're not getting my argument. My point was not that the UN should be scrapped because it can pass such a law, but that because it can pass such a law, its rules do not dictate right and wrong. The analogy to US government is, from my perspective, deeply flawed. Firstly, when US laws contradict our moral views, we usually applaud those who break them - hence the glorification of "civil disobedience." The main reason for obeying US law, apart from the personal danger of legal punishment, is to prevent civil war - if every group of citizens that opposed a law were to prevent its enforcement, there would be no country. But if the US government consisted solely of a committee writing up proposals and placing rubber stamps on them to make them law, with no enforcement mechanism, US law would be completely meaningless and there would be no reason to follow US law except in as much as it happened to overlap with what you were going to do anyway. The UN is that committee. I don't think there's anything morally odious about disobeying UN resolutions or the charter, in and of themselves.

But the UN is more than a committe, it is an organization that provides services in a variety of fields. The SC is the most visible part because it is the Enforcement arm, and it does have the power to force states to act a certain way or threaten punishment. As for law breaking and civil disobediance- we glorify it, but the authorities can still arrest them, and keep the laws in place anyway. Besides, you have yet to show me a single UNSCR that violates HUman rights by approving actionss that violate the Charter.

So UN resolutions are void if they are not "cared about?" This is lunacy.

The Humans Right decalration is not a UNSC resoultiuon, and as such, it can't be forced upon nations- since it would violate sovereingty, the founding priciple of the UN.

That doesn't really help when the range of interpretation runs the complete gamut from what is acceptable, what is in accordance with the UN charter, and what the drafters intended to the exact reverse of all of these things.

I again fail to understand where this argument comes from. Any disagreement so large would preclude the issue from ever becomeing a document in the first place. And the gamut can't run as wide, since any interpretation outside the Charter is null.

Passing laws and then selectively enforcing them when convenient is an unjust practice.

Justice is law- they exist together. Thus, this practice can't be called unjust, but unfair. there is a difference.

I'm sure that you'll be telling me that France, America, and the UK have never supported dictatorships in other countries . . .

Of course they have supported dictators, but they have never passed any UNSC resolutions that gave blank checks to those dictators actions (at most, they stop resolutions against their cronies from getting approved)

That Israel did not want to have the UN demand that it return all of the territories and that the Arabs hate Israel intensely are not mutually exclusive.

Your right, but at the same time, what's the hatred based on? I would posit that it based on the land issue.

By going to Jerusalem, showing goodwill towards Israel and the West, and negotiating. As opposed to demanding that Israel withdraw without negotiations.

Well, Palestinians have gone to Jerusalem too, and as for his call not to ask for pre-conditions, thats not a matter of establishing trust but negotiating from a realist point of view. Asking for valid precodnitions does not preclude trust.

Laws do not change their meaning because some people change their interpretation. There has to be a court of law. If most Americans interpret treason to mean conversion to Islam, that doesn't make it treason. If this is how you interpret law, you may as well bring back the lynch mob.

Why do we have lawyers? Why do we have courts and juries, if Law is so crystal clear? UNSCR 242 is vague- it was, as you pointed out, made vague so everyone would join and agree to negotiate. Thats why it reads 'territories' and not 'the territories 'What has happened is that the Arab viewpoint of what the outcome shouldd look like is now more popular than the israeli. This is a fucntion of the fact that israel has fail;ed utterly to make a convincing argument about its view on the matter. If israel had mande a convincing argument that 'terrritories' does not include all period, they would have the advantage- but the Arabs have shown more reaons why it should be thought to include all territory, just not some.

Why exactly did agreeing to have all of its lands returned to it at no actual cost necessitate any trust of Israel on Egypt's part?

Because Egypt also agreed not to have its troops right at the border and have UN troops there. They are still vulnerable to israeli attack, since Israel does have troops right at the border, as far a s Gaza goes.

How did a war show Israel that it was "wrong" to keep some land?

It showed Israel that believing that it was militarily strong enought to easily defeat the Arabs states, thus makign the cost of keeping those lands low, was wrong.

And Israel's position is that it will negotiate the entrance of peacekeepers, but will not first let the dagger be pointed at the Galilee's heart. Egypt did not lose anything by agreeing to negotiate the terms of the withdrawl and the placement and composition of the UN force, nor did Jordan. Syria is just trying to avoid any demilitirization of the Golan. You might as well say that Germany should not have given the US any assurances but should just have demanded independence in 1946.

And what do you base this statement on? Syria agreed to 242, and demiliteraized zones are in there. So what makes you say that Syria not only demands the IDF out of Golan but the Syrian army immidately in?

If the US isn't complaining, I assume it means we don't mind.

Isn't this what you have argued against? This notion of not enforcing laws? But when its convenient...

Firstly, because their "transfer" is a change in economic policies. But more importantly, because they do not view negotiations as a ploy on Israel's part, and even more importantly, they do not run terror organizations.

As far as I know, 'transfer' is a change in economics simply because it means kicking 2.8 million people out of their homes... But all the time Israel negotiated, it built more andf more settlements and access roads, and cut of economic opportunities for Palestinians more and more. Not the actionss of a peace partner if you ask me, or the Palestinians. Second, there are plenty of Palestinians who view the IDF as a terror organization.

Yes. But if you negotiate as a prelude to war with your negotiating partners, they may not be so eager to go ahead in the same direction.

Israeli intransegence has a big part in bringing the situation to where it is now.

Haven't you heard of the violation of Belgian neutrality in 1914 which I was reffering to? AFAIK, neither Hitler nor anyone else mentioned a "scrap of paper" in 1939.

The scrap of paper reference was always towards Munich and Chamberlain, not the treaty of 1829 and belgian nutrality, AFAIK.

I'm not arguing no agreements can be maken - I'm arguing that you have to look at whether your partners have any intention of keeping them. What you're saying is that no one should have been the slightest bit apprehensive about Munich.

Before going into Oslo, the Palestians had already agreed to recognize israel, follow 242, and several other acts. Hitler had given his neighbors no guarantess, so for me, there was a big difference in the level of trust one would be coming in with. Rabin shook arafat's hand for a reason. That we have violence today is a result of both sides being disingeneous, which is why Oslo was a failure.

Treaties are not "laws" since they are in no way binding.

Treaties are laws as they are binding. Look it up in the constitution.

Or alternatively they just serve as tools for getting what you want. Treaties only hold true for as long as they serve their signatories interests. So when signing treaties, you should consider your opponents future interests and your own.

And how do you judge your opponents future interests? Are we mind readers or magicians? And of course, this one man's statement is far more indicative of the whishses of 2.8 million people than the PLA constitution, just like what Sharon says is gospel about what israel's intentions are....

I'm not sure what you mean by this.

Sometimes actions must be taken in faith.

Hmmm? What? Oslo gives Israel control of settlements and their roads.

No, lands around them.

The strategy is to put heavy pressure on Arafat to crack down on terror. Also, it is to prevent him for gathering public opinion in the Islamic world behind his cause by travelling around the world. The US just wans to keep the conflict on a low burner.

But this strategy has already shown itself to fail. Arafats support is greate now than before the siege, and the violence has increased dramatically, and Bush is now going to try to send Zinni back without full quiet. This is a political, not security issue. Thus, simple security aims will fail.

Obviously he is not the only reason I believe as I do about Palestinian intentions. But saying that I am just using this as "a way to stall any forward movement" is to say that Churchill was just an enemy of peace - you can't claim that this is not an important question.

It's not important enough to derail peace initiatives.

I don't think there's much room for interpretation of those clauses of the charter.

Then we simply disagree.

So a SC resolution that violated the Charter WOULD be illegitimate?

Yes, and unless you can show me one that does, the point will stand.

I would point out that the universal declaration of human rights is just a load of hogwash that everyone signs but, as you point out, not even the Scandinavian countries follow. But I would also point out that the vast majority of the Palestinians demanding their right of return are not refugees, but the children and grandchildren of refugees, whose right to return is not guarenteed.

But you don't grant it to those that deserve it anyway. As for hogwash, it slowly is increasing in significance, which is a good thing. And still, I don't view the economic rights as viatl to the meaning of the document as you do.

[Natan]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by GePap
But the UN is more than a committe, it is an organization that provides services in a variety of fields. The SC is the most visible part because it is the Enforcement arm, and it does have the power to force states to act a certain way or threaten punishment.

[QUOTE]
As for law breaking and civil disobediance- we glorify it, but the authorities can still arrest them, and keep the laws in place anyway. Besides, you have yet to show me a single UNSCR that violates HUman rights by approving actionss that violate the Charter.

The Humans Right decalration is not a UNSC resoultiuon, and as such, it can't be forced upon nations- since it would violate sovereingty, the founding priciple of the UN.

The whole purpose of the UNSC is to enforce the charter. As you've pointed out, all nations agree to the charter. If soveriegnty really trumps human rights, then the UNSC has already violated the charter by violating Iraq's soveriegnty. And let's note that the UN forces pushed all the way into North Korea with the aim of destroying it.

I again fail to understand where this argument comes from. Any disagreement so large would preclude the issue from ever becomeing a document in the first place. And the gamut can't run as wide, since any interpretation outside the Charter is null.

I think this is clearly applicable to Resolution 242 - which can be interpreted as requiring Israel to do anything from withdrawl from a square inch of land in return for full recognition to giving up all of Jerusalem's holy sites for nothing.

Justice is law- they exist together. Thus, this practice can't be called unjust, but unfair. there is a difference.

I suppose Nazi laws were not unjust, merely unfair?

Of course they have supported dictators, but they have never passed any UNSC resolutions that gave blank checks to those dictators actions (at most, they stop resolutions against their cronies from getting approved)

That's because their dictator friends haven't particularly needed UNSC approval for their decisions. But to say that it's impossible they might need it in the future is wrong.

Your right, but at the same time, what's the hatred based on? I would posit that it based on the land issue.

I would posit that it's not based on the amount of land, but that Israel exists on any amount of land one ruled by Islamic law. I think its the pride factor more than anything else.

Well, Palestinians have gone to Jerusalem too, and as for his call not to ask for pre-conditions, thats not a matter of establishing trust but negotiating from a realist point of view. Asking for valid precodnitions does not preclude trust.

Calling for a thousand martyrs to march to Jerusalem, reffering to Hamas's terrorists as our brothers, and sending letters of congradulations to the families of suicide bombers makes trust very difficult, and Arafat's done all of that.

Why do we have lawyers? Why do we have courts and juries, if Law is so crystal clear? UNSCR 242 is vague- it was, as you pointed out, made vague so everyone would join and agree to negotiate. Thats why it reads 'territories' and not 'the territories 'What has happened is that the Arab viewpoint of what the outcome shouldd look like is now more popular than the israeli. This is a fucntion of the fact that israel has fail;ed utterly to make a convincing argument about its view on the matter. If israel had mande a convincing argument that 'terrritories' does not include all period, they would have the advantage- but the Arabs have shown more reaons why it should be thought to include all territory, just not some.

"The world" operating outside the UN framework is no more a court than a lynch mob is. You can't say that a vague term means what more people would like it to mean. As you said, why do we have courts and juries?

Because Egypt also agreed not to have its troops right at the border and have UN troops there. They are still vulnerable to israeli attack, since Israel does have troops right at the border, as far a s Gaza goes.

They'd only be vulnerable if Israel were willing to bomb UN troops, including US ones. I don't think either side is willing to do that under any circumstances.

It showed Israel that believing that it was militarily strong enought to easily defeat the Arabs states, thus makign the cost of keeping those lands low, was wrong.

Alternatively, it showed Israel that the lands were a useful buffer zone and proved to the Arabs that they couldn't beat Israel - Israel penetrated further into both Syria and Egypt than it ever had before.

And Israel's position is that it will negotiate the entrance of peacekeepers, but will not first let the dagger be pointed at the Galilee's heart. Egypt did not lose anything by agreeing to negotiate the terms of the withdrawl and the placement and composition of the UN force, nor did Jordan. Syria is just trying to avoid any demilitirization of the Golan. You might as well say that Germany should not have given the US any assurances but should just have demanded independence in 1946.

And what do you base this statement on? Syria agreed to 242, and demiliteraized zones are in there. So what makes you say that Syria not only demands the IDF out of Golan but the Syrian army immidately in?

If they're willing to agree to a reasonable UN presence, why don't they just agree to it? It seems to me that Israel has a right to ask that its security be guarenteed before it gives up some of that security by turning over the Golan, but it seems absurd to me to say that Syria must have its land back before it says what guarentees it is giving - the former is a serious security concession, the latter does not compromise Syria's security in any way.

Isn't this what you have argued against? This notion of not enforcing laws? But when its convenient...

I've been arguing that in international terms, laws and agreements in practically every case take second place to national interests, and that therefore they are not laws the way national laws are. What makes the rule of law a powerful and important concept is that it really exists; people in free countries really can expect free trials, fair enforcement of laws, and democratic discussion of them. If the rule of law just meant the interpretation useful to the ruler, then it would have no meaning - the rule of law of the Soviet legal code had no moral force.

As far as I know, 'transfer' is a change in economics simply because it means kicking 2.8 million people out of their homes...

That's what "transfer" as advocated by the banned Kach movement means. But what Rehavam Zeevi talked about until his assassination was limiting the number of Palestinian guest workers in Israel to encourage Arab emigration.

But all the time Israel negotiated, it built more andf more settlements and access roads, and cut of economic opportunities for Palestinians more and more.

I get it - if you live next to some one peacefully, it proves you have no intent of making peace with them! And economic opportunities wouldn't have been cut by Israel if the PA hadn't increased terror opportunities. The closures came after the terror attacks.

Second, there are plenty of Palestinians who view the IDF as a terror organization.

So what?

Israeli intransegence has a big part in bringing the situation to where it is now.

I think that the view of the conflict as simply a struggle to find the right formula for division is not correct. For the Palestinians, this is about the whole pie and always has been.

The scrap of paper reference was always towards Munich and Chamberlain, not the treaty of 1829 and belgian nutrality, AFAIK.

AFAIK, it's quite the reverse. At any rate, we can settle this after one of us looks it up, but the Germans did violate Belgian neutrality in 1914 in violation of their treaty obligations. That they did it again in 1939 only proves my point.

Before going into Oslo, the Palestians had already agreed to recognize israel, follow 242, and several other acts. Hitler had given his neighbors no guarantess, so for me, there was a big difference in the level of trust one would be coming in with.

Didn't Hitler promise that the Polish corridor would be his last demand? He reffered to everything as his final demand.

Rabin shook arafat's hand for a reason.

Yes, Clinton forced him to.

That we have violence today is a result of both sides being disingeneous, which is why Oslo was a failure.

No, that we have violence today is a result of Arafat's choice to encourage Hamas.

Treaties are laws as they are binding. Look it up in the constitution.

If they were binding, they would be enforced. They are not. And besides, the American Constitution won't prove any point about international law.

And how do you judge your opponents future interests? Are we mind readers or magicians?

No, but maybe political analysts? Every election, people judge whether the candidates intend to keep their promises.

And of course, this one man's statement is far more indicative of the whishses of 2.8 million people than the PLA constitution, just like what Sharon says is gospel about what israel's intentions are....

As I said, it's not my only point. If you'd like other evidence, I'll provide it, but Faisal Husseini was a rather important man.

Sometimes actions must be taken in faith.

Now you are arguing for "the peace proccess" as a religious belief rather than a logical policy.

No, lands around them.

Where did Israel confiscate lands designated for the PA during the Oslo proccess?

But this strategy has already shown itself to fail. Arafats support is greate now than before the siege, and the violence has increased dramatically, and Bush is now going to try to send Zinni back without full quiet.

That he's trying to do that shows that, as I said, this is part of his strategy rather than a punishment for Arafat's failure to fulfill his obligation. You keep forgetting why examples were brought up in the first place so that you can bash down something I didn't say.

This is a political, not security issue. Thus, simple security aims will fail.

I think the terrorism is very much a security issue.

It's not important enough to derail peace initiatives.

So the question of whether or not the peace iniative will bring peace is not important enough to derail peace iniatives? You're arguing for religious faith rather than political analysis. This is Neville Chamberlain's logic.

Then we simply disagree.

Tell you what, when Congress passes a health care bill mandating free prescription drugs, we'll see whether the officials responsible for implementing it can reinterpret it to mean nothing at all.

Yes, and unless you can show me one that does, the point will stand.

But then I ask, whose intepretation of the Charter?

But you don't grant it to those that deserve it anyway.

Gepap, I have no role in granting or not granting anything to Palestinian refugees. In case you haven't noticed what I've been saying here, I'm not an Israeli. I've never been to Israel. I'm an American citizen, born and raised in this country. I've never even been to the Eastern hemisphere.

As for hogwash, it slowly is increasing in significance, which is a good thing. And still, I don't view the economic rights as viatl to the meaning of the document as you do.

I think its absurd that you just decide what is vital. The Soviets might well have said that the economics were critical while the human rights were secondary, should that just be a difference of opinion?

[GePap]

Originally posted by Natan

The whole purpose of the UNSC is to enforce the charter. As you've pointed out, all nations agree to the charter. If soveriegnty really trumps human rights, then the UNSC has already violated the charter by violating Iraq's soveriegnty. And let's note that the UN forces pushed all the way into North Korea with the aim of destroying it.

Both your examples are based on incorrect notions. The most basic fact of the UN is sovereignty, just like the most basic fact of US law is property rights. When any member (individual or state) behaves in a way such as to violate this (and invading a neighbor surely is) then they can be punished for their acts. There are sactions on Iraq because they a. Invaded Kuwait, which begun a war, and b. Iraq has yet to fully comply with its sentence brought to it at the end. This is thus not a violation of the Law, but an attempt to enforce it.

I think this is clearly applicable to Resolution 242 - which can be interpreted as requiring Israel to do anything from withdrawl from a square inch of land in return for full recognition to giving up all of Jerusalem's holy sites for nothing.

In the UN, it says clearly that territorial changes based on military force and land aquisition by force are unacceptable. This is exactly what Israel did- so, Israel has no right to claim any of the land taken in 1967 any more than if I steal something from you, I then get to claim it as mine. Any land will only become Israeli if an agreement with the other party lets Israel annex it (as such was the case in 1948)

I suppose Nazi laws were not unjust, merely unfair?

Insofar as they were laws, no, they were not unjust. BUt they were based on values I would call dehumanizing and evil. As such, I believe they were wrong. To a smaller degree, I see Israeli law in the same way: based on values I find apprehensible.

That's because their dictator friends haven't particularly needed UNSC approval for their decisions. But to say that it's impossible they might need it in the future is wrong.

I think it is impossible, as far as the system is constructed.

I would posit that it's not based on the amount of land, but that Israel exists on any amount of land one ruled by Islamic law. I think its the pride factor more than anything else.

The PLO begun as secular, the governments of Egypt and Syria have been secular a long time: so any argument basic on islamiscism to explain this conflict is certainly wrong. It is a national dispute, not religious. The question being, why should a Jewsih nation grow by kicking out an Arab one?

Calling for a thousand martyrs to march to Jerusalem, reffering to Hamas's terrorists as our brothers, and sending letters of congradulations to the families of suicide bombers makes trust very difficult, and Arafat's done all of that.

And Sharon's words make his statements that he is for peace just as dubious. The question is, which one of them has at least gone to peace conferences in the past?

"The world" operating outside the UN framework is no more a court than a lynch mob is. You can't say that a vague term means what more people would like it to mean. As you said, why do we have courts and juries?

You call it a lynch mob cause they disagree with your viewpoint. As for what vague terms mean, eventually, in any settlement, the definition will have to be made clear, and as of now, more people back the Arab than israeli one. This is based, i belive, in that the Arab definiton is more sound.

They'd only be vulnerable if Israel were willing to bomb UN troops, including US ones. I don't think either side is willing to do that under any circumstances.

And the same in the Syrian front.

Alternatively, it showed Israel that the lands were a useful buffer zone and proved to the Arabs that they couldn't beat Israel - Israel penetrated further into both Syria and Egypt than it ever had before.

Yes, but israel could not go into Damascus and Cairo and expect victory, not with a large proportion of its population having to be at the front continiously. Israel did well, but it cost them more than they could, in the long run, bear. This is why they decide to make peace with the more successful side, Egypt.

And Israel's position is that it will negotiate the entrance of peacekeepers, but will not first let the dagger be pointed at the Galilee's heart. Egypt did not lose anything by agreeing to negotiate the terms of the withdrawl and the placement and composition of the UN force, nor did Jordan. Syria is just trying to avoid any demilitirization of the Golan. You might as well say that Germany should not have given the US any assurances but should just have demanded independence in 1946.

Again, what statements do you base this on?

If they're willing to agree to a reasonable UN presence, why don't they just agree to it? It seems to me that Israel has a right to ask that its security be guarenteed before it gives up some of that security by turning over the Golan, but it seems absurd to me to say that Syria must have its land back before it says what guarentees it is giving - the former is a serious security concession, the latter does not compromise Syria's security in any way.

The problem is on defining the Golans borders, not on this. again, where does Syria say no?

I've been arguing that in international terms, laws and agreements in practically every case take second place to national interests, and that therefore they are not laws the way national laws are. What makes the rule of law a powerful and important concept is that it really exists; people in free countries really can expect free trials, fair enforcement of laws, and democratic discussion of them. If the rule of law just meant the interpretation useful to the ruler, then it would have no meaning - the rule of law of the Soviet legal code had no moral force.

Democracy does not equal freedom for all, just the majority. Rule of law is based on sometimes undemocratic but liberal values. As for your first statement, this is arguing that it doesn't exist, not that it inherently lacks fairness (I think Slobo is getting a very fair trial). I agree that many nations have yet to talke international law (the US) seriously but that does not mean they can't, or won't in the future.

That's what "transfer" as advocated by the banned Kach movement means. But what Rehavam Zeevi talked about until his assassination was limiting the number of Palestinian guest workers in Israel to encourage Arab emigration.

'Encourage Arab immigration", how nice. Sorry Natan, but I don't look kindly upon race based hiring and telling millions that we won't hire you because of how you are, and i still, unlike you, believe that the call is for more extreme action. Just cause of a movement is banned does not mean it lacks political power.

I get it - if you live next to some one peacefully, it proves you have no intent of making peace with them! And economic opportunities wouldn't have been cut by Israel if the PA hadn't increased terror opportunities. The closures came after the terror attacks.

Live peacefullly? Settlements are illegal in the first place, and many setlers have no intention of peaceful coexistance (if they did, why not try to move into the towns themselves?), so saying that this was peaceful coexistance is for me, ludicrous. Second, I denounce collective punishment. Under what moral code do you state that persons c through z will not be allowed to go outside or go to work because a killed b? That is denying the individual nature of c through z or that they have any rights at all. You speak of laws based on morals- what morals are these?

So what?

So, for many fatah is not a terror organization at all. You can't throw out words and expect everyone to share your definition.

I think that the view of the conflict as simply a struggle to find the right formula for division is not correct. For the Palestinians, this is about the whole pie and always has been.

Of what? Of the occupied territories? I think they are right to demand it all, I don't think Israel has any legal right to a scrap of them. As for the whole mandate; probably the goal of some, but certainly not all, although Israeli actions serve very well in making most palestinians believe that peaceful coexistance with the likes of Kach and Sharon is impossible and that all israelis support them both. Maybe other Israelis should try to show them this is wrong.

AFAIK, it's quite the reverse. At any rate, we can settle this after one of us looks it up, but the Germans did violate Belgian neutrality in 1914 in violation of their treaty obligations. That they did it again in 1939 only proves my point.

So you are saying: since people break rules, have no rules? Yes, people break agreements, but most don't. This is whay broken agreements are so known. there are countless treaties you don't hear about, because they are followed. its like in the local news: When will you hear an anouncement that "no one broke the law today"? You won't, even if it is true.

Didn't Hitler promise that the Polish corridor would be his last demand? He reffered to everything as his final demand.

But after 3 last demands, it gets old. Since the peace process started, has Arafat called for more than the occupied territories with East Jerusalem as a capitol?

Yes, Clinton forced him to.

Well, good for Clinton.

No, that we have violence today is a result of Arafat's choice to encourage Hamas.

Biased statements are not arguments. Neither side was satisfied, nor should have they been, with the progress of the peace process.

If they were binding, they would be enforced. They are not. And besides, the American Constitution won't prove any point about international law.

They are binding, they are enforced, and this applies world-wide. The problem is not that treaties are not binding, but that too many nations have little respect of international law. we would be better of if everyone did have respect for them.

No, but maybe political analysts? Every election, people judge whether the candidates intend to keep their promises.
As I said, it's not my only point. If you'd like other evidence, I'll provide it, but Faisal Husseini was a rather important man.

No, people judge whether promises were kept in the past and make inferences towards future action which may be right or wrong. That Faisal is currently an important man is fine, that we will be in the future, or will continue to hold the same view, you can't say.

Now you are arguing for "the peace proccess" as a religious belief rather than a logical policy.

In a way. Logical analysis can only go so far, since it can at best, give you various possible futures. At that point, one must act to try to reach one of those futures.

Where did Israel confiscate lands designated for the PA during the Oslo proccess?

Not confiscate as opposed to not returning.

That he's trying to do that shows that, as I said, this is part of his strategy rather than a punishment for Arafat's failure to fulfill his obligation. You keep forgetting why examples were brought up in the first place so that you can bash down something I didn't say.

First of all, what previous examples? Second, I neevr meant that sending Zinni back had anythin got do with punishing anyone. You stated that US strategy was to keep the conflict on a low burner. That has failed.

I think the terrorism is very much a security issue.

Terorism is politcal violence. Any true solution must be political, otherwise you just dirve it underground to fester.

So the question of whether or not the peace iniative will bring peace is not important enough to derail peace iniatives? You're arguing for religious faith rather than political analysis. This is Neville Chamberlain's logic.

You only know if an initiative will bring peace if you try it. Again, Faisal isn't Hitler, he certainly isn't the leader nr the only politican in the palestinians camp. From the start, in Mein kampf , hitler makes his aims clear. That the other leadres didn't want to read, their mistake. Again, since 1993 the Palestinians leadership overall has been consistent with its demands, and they don't include the destruction of Israel.

Tell you what, when Congress passes a health care bill mandating free prescription drugs, we'll see whether the officials responsible for implementing it can reinterpret it to mean nothing at all.

Again, you misunderstand. If the law says "you musty give everyone drungs", there is no room for interpetation. If it says "you must give all elderly drugs", then you can ask rightfully: who do we consider elderly? at 60? 65? Thats a valid, and very comon occurence. laws have never been crytal clear, except when a dictator gives them.

But then I ask, whose intepretation of the Charter?

The mayority of the Securtiy council plus all veto members.

Gepap, I have no role in granting or not granting anything to Palestinian refugees. In case you haven't noticed what I've been saying here, I'm not an Israeli. I've never been to Israel. I'm an American citizen, born and raised in this country. I've never even been to the Eastern hemisphere.

You plural, not you singular.

I think its absurd that you just decide what is vital. The Soviets might well have said that the economics were critical while the human rights were secondary, should that just be a difference of opinion?

The Soviets did say that economic rights were key to human rights (which is why all those clauses you mention are in the document in the first place). Second, all human beings are open to express their ideas and state what they view as valid, and have the power to act on them, as long as they follow the accepted system while trying to change it and make it better(which is why this does nto mean Hitler, who was trying to force a new system into creation)

[Az]

a great debate

The PLO begun as secular, the governments of Egypt and Syria have been secular a long time: so any argument basic on islamiscism to explain this conflict is certainly wrong. It is a national dispute, not religious. The question being, why should a Jewsih nation grow by kicking out an Arab one?

One could claim that the countries are secular. But the population is religious and nationalistic . The governments want to have support of the public on the streets. And what better than some religious AND nationalistic fervor ? That's the best mix ever.

Since dictators are not lawfully leaders of their countries, they seek support of the public by unofficial means. Democratic governments do not reply to the public by law ( they're not responsible before the parliament ) , they are only responisible before the law . That's one of the ways that democracy is stronger than a dictature.

Yes, but israel could not go into Damascus and Cairo and expect victory, not with a large proportion of its population having to be at the front continiously. Israel did well, but it cost them more than they could, in the long run, bear. This is why they decide to make peace with the more successful side, Egypt.

yes , it could. especially with the arab forces ground down to dust. That's why the Soviets threatened to intervene , mind you.

and many setlers have no intention of peaceful coexistance (if they did, why not try to move into the towns themselves?),

In some places they did move into towns, into buildings they either bought or built. but that's not the point. What's the connection? did they shoot and kill arabs ? there was only one case of this , and it was Baruch Goldstein. The arabs killed many people .

and why are settlements illegal ? I actually don't know these paragraph in the Geneva Convention , or whatever.

But after 3 last demands, it gets old. Since the peace process started, has Arafat called for more than the occupied territories with East Jerusalem as a capitol?

so , say Hitler demands the suddets , and the Polish corridor together ? will that change the situation ? how ?

So, for many fatah is not a terror organization at all. You can't throw out words and expect everyone to share your definition.

So, for many bananas are not yellow , but purple. And I can't throuw out words , of course.
What I want to say, that I feel you want to say something different. But I can't quite understand it.

[laurentius]

What should we do to stop these terrorists?

"Dozens of armed settlers entered the village of Hawara on Friday morning and caused damage to Palestinian property."

http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=139189&contrassID=1&subContrassID=0&sbSubContrassID=0

What is "International Community" going to do to stop these bandits?