Latest Exploit of the Heroic Palestinians.

[CyberGnu]

Well, Drake, I can only assume that you are either
A) incredibly sheltered, and this is the first sentence you've read in your entire life.
B) not comprehending what a settlement is.

I'm betting on B...

[notyoueither]

It is apt in that people who do bad deeds are the one's responsible for those deeds, not the victims or their families.

The responsibility of Israelis for any of their own misdeeds is a seperate issue, and one that would be clearer if the Palestinians didn't insist in continuing behaviour for which many can have zero sympathy.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Isn't that a might makes right argument? Suppose Iraq invades Kuwait, then never officially end the war, they are allowed to keep what they can take?

They are entitled to keep whatever they can keep after Kuwait's allies are done. Which turned out to be not much.

[ravagon]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger

What war? Can't you tell the Israelis have been busily denying this, just so they wouldn't have the Geneva Convention hanging over their heads?

The Israeli's have one and only one peace treaty with their immediate neighbours - Egypt. In signing this treaty they returned the occupied Sinai to Egyptian control. There is no such state of affairs with either the Palestinian Authority or with their other neighbours. Legally they are in a ceasefire which does not have legal implications either for withdrawing from occupied territories or for combatants captured wearing Israeli uniforms. ie: Wartime situation prevails.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by orange
I agree with you on this, and I disagree with the post Lonestar made, but I can't ignore the fact that no one (that i've seen) has even acknowledge the fact that a little girl is dead for no reason.

I agree with you that it's a tragedy, but I can't agree that there is no reason for it.

She was in a contested area, after all.

I merely pointed out a reason but not a justification.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by ravagon


The Israeli's have one and only one peace treaty with their immediate neighbours - Egypt. In signing this treaty they returned the occupied Sinai to Egyptian control.

They are at peace with Jordan are they not?

[nationalist]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


You failed to answer my question. What is the legal basis for it?

I don't know of any specific convention that allows for the retention of land aquired during a defensive war, but I don't think that there is one prohibiting it either. Plenty of historical precedent for the retention of the land. Alsace-Lorainne to France after WW1 is another example.

[Drake Tungsten]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
USSR didn't occupy any of the captured territory per se. Even if they did, it would be like saying, since people kept slaves before, it would be fine for you to keep slaves.

This isn't true. The USSR did annex some German territory, namely Konigsberg and the portions of East Prussia that surrounded it. Russia still controls these areas. Maybe the Germans in that area should start killing Russian settlers?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Probably the same basis that led to the occupation of Germany and Japan for many years after WWII.

IIRC, neither Germany and Japan were occupied for any extended period of time.

Originally posted by notyoueither
I believe it's called right of conquest, but I'm not a lawyer.

IANAL, I just want to know if the international laws has been changed.

[nationalist]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten


This isn't true. The USSR did annex some German territory, namely Konigsberg and the portions of East Prussia that surrounded it. Russia still controls these areas. Maybe the Germans in that area should start killing Russian settlers?

Those Russian barbarians! The Germans should send a few teenaged girls strapped with explosives to teach them a lesson!

[CyberGnu]

notyou, the difference is that the palestinians did not go into the settlement to specifically kill that girl. They went in there to kill settlers, which they are considering combatants without uniform. The girl was killed during the raid.

And so the problem remains: The settlers are not the victims here. The girl was, and the party culpable for her death are her parents.

Try to look at it as a paralell to the siege at Waco (leaving the discussing whether the feds had any business trying to arrest Koresh in the first place). The agents who killed children in the compounds were declared not guilty of murder. The culpable party were David Koresh and the other adults in the compound.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
This isn't true. The USSR did annex some German territory, namely Konigsberg and the portions of East Prussia that surrounded it. Russia still controls these areas. Maybe the Germans in that area should start killing Russian settlers?

So, are the Germans contesting this? Is there a conflict between the two countries? Are Russians actively building settlements while the Germans protesting against these? Are the Russians treating the Germans like second class citizens?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by notyoueither
They are at peace with Jordan are they not?

I think so. They have some sort of formal relation.

[ravagon]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger

Isn't that a might makes right argument? Suppose Iraq invades Kuwait, then never officially end the war, they are allowed to keep what they can take?

You're posting too fast! slow down!
If the war did not end then (I think) they theoretically occupy that territory. Under the UN however can "intercede" in legal wrangling over a peace treaty. In that particular case - giving the US/Allies the go-ahead to eject Iraq from Kuwait.
Had the Iraqis set up a puppet Kuwaiti Government - after completely eliminating the original, hence leaving no Government in exile - then they could have negotiated a peace treaty and afterwards, and totally unrelated of course , have had their puppet Government scede Kuwaiti territory. Whether the UN would have accepted this though is anybody's guess.

[CyberGnu]

The legal basis for it is the geneva conventions. I think it is the fifth amendment, but I'm not entirely sure.

Brief history:

WW1: great horror and suffering

post-WW1: the leaders of the major powers in the world sat down to ensure that a second WW could not happen. the basic premise: aggression is not a valid way to expand. Two factions emerged. The faction advocating policying the world with treaties won out.

WW2: Germany shows how much those treaties were worth. Great suffering and horror.

post-WW2: the leaders of most of the world sit down again, this time affirming that aggression should be met with active resistance.