The Israeli "peace process" is over and the Palestinians are SOLEY to blame

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by MrFun


Do you know how many countries in the world today, would have to concede a good part of their territory then?

For starters I guess this means United States has to concede its southwestern region back to Mexico.

And the United Kingdom will have to concede Gribaltar back to Spain and the Falkland Islands back to Argentina.

The Falklands never belonged to Argentina. They'd have to give them back to Spain, if anyone.

The same int'l law/consensus says that the post-WWII/post-colonial borders are legitimate. It sucks coming late to the terretorial aggrandizement bonanza, but that's how it works.

[Tassadar500]

Originally posted by Last Conformist
The Falklands never belonged to Argentina. They'd have to give them back to Spain, if anyone.

The same int'l law/consensus says that the post-WWII/post-colonial borders are legitimate. It sucks coming late to the terretorial aggrandizement bonanza, but that's how it works.

After the US takes control over the land formerly known as Canada, we'll see what happens.

[Elok]

There's something wrong with the title of this thread. Several things, actually. The Israeli peace process has always been over. It has been in a constant state of perpetual failure; that it failed again is not news worthy of recognition. If the Washington Post issued tommorrow's paper with the headline "No Jews, Arabs murdered in last two weeks," THAT would be news. As it is, nah.

This also cannot be the fault of THE Palestinians. It appears to have been the fault of an irrational angry mob composed of a modest number of Palestinians. While, for all I know, some bozo in their hierarchy encouraged the action, there's no evidence that this was a planned attack. It's just a textbook case of ethnic hatred flaring up, though not surprisingly so given the circumstances.

As for choosing the temple's location in a different spot, I believe that exact spot has deep spiritual significance for both faiths due to events they never planned; that spot is the original site of the ancient Temple built by Solomon, and the point from which Muhammed is said to have ascended into heaven. I think. Whatever the exact reason is, I know it's "holy ground" due to historical factors. You might as well suggest that we commemorate another "Historic Battlefield at Gettysburg" so somebody can build a strip mall on the real estate it occupies now. Absurd. If you want to write anti-religious screed it can be done elsewhere, this thread is obnoxious enough as it is with the arguments over which of two groups is evil based on inherited guilt.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Last Conformist
The Falklands never belonged to Argentina. They'd have to give them back to Spain, if anyone.

The same int'l law/consensus says that the post-WWII/post-colonial borders are legitimate. It sucks coming late to the terretorial aggrandizement bonanza, but that's how it works.

The post-colonial border originated from . . . . . .

come on, guess . . . . . .

from the colonial era.



The borders of colonies were drawn up in the nineteenth century and early twentieth century with no regard to the history of the people in each of the colonies.

For example, I'm betting that the diverse ethnic groups within Iraq would strongly disagree with you in thinking that the borders of Iraq, which are only borders drawn by European powers, are NOT legitimate.

Why should white people decide what makes borders legitimate, rather than the people who actually LIVE in the countries that were formerly colonies?
(excluding aggressive conquest by former colonies)

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Last Conformist
The Falklands never belonged to Argentina. They'd have to give them back to Spain, if anyone.

Yes they did. The U.S. destroyed an Argentine station there in the 1830s. The islands were unihabtied until GB showed up and colonized the place in the 1870s.

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by MrFun




The post-colonial border originated from . . . . . .

come on, guess . . . . . .

from the colonial era.



The borders of colonies were drawn up in the nineteenth century and early twentieth century with no regard to the history of the people in each of the colonies.

For example, I'm betting that the diverse ethnic groups within Iraq would strongly disagree with you in thinking that the borders of Iraq, which are only borders drawn by European powers, are NOT legitimate.

Why should white people decide what makes borders legitimate, rather than the people who actually LIVE in the countries that were formerly colonies?
(excluding aggressive conquest by former colonies)

You appear to labouring under the mistaken notion that I'm speaking about how things should be rather than about how they are.

[chequita guevara]

You had to quote his whole post for that?

[MrFun]

Fine -- but it is still ridiculous to single Israel out for claiming its conquests are illegitimate while we ignore the multitude of antecedental conquests of other countries, some of which are more powerful than Israel.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by MrFun
Fine -- but it is still ridiculous to single Israel out for claiming its conquests are illegitimate while we ignore the multitude of antecedental conquests of other countries, some of which are more powerful than Israel.

Since 1945, conquest has been illegal. Any signatory to the U.N. has this as part of their law. Israel joined the U.N. in 1948, thus it's 1967 conquests are not legal.

Israel is not being held to a different standard. Morocco was forced to reliquish Western Sahara. Iraq was forced to give up Kuwait. Indonesia was forced to give up East Timor.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Since 1945, conquest has been illegal. Any signatory to the U.N. has this as part of their law. Israel joined the U.N. in 1948, thus it's 1967 conquests are not legal.

Israel went on the offense in order to defend itself in the Six Days War. Israel basically attacked before allowing its neighbors to invade first.

The aggressors had reaped what they had sown -- loss of territory that is crucial for Israel to occupy in order to retain its own sovreignty.

[chequita guevara]

Your lies have already been refuted, MrFun.

[MrFun]

Right -- it was so obvious that Israel's neighbors had nothing but benevolent feelings towards it.

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
You had to quote his whole post for that?

Yes. Duh!

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Israel is not being held to a different standard. Morocco was forced to reliquish Western Sahara. Iraq was forced to give up Kuwait. Indonesia was forced to give up East Timor.

Morocco is still holding on to West Sahara, and isn't gonna let it go anytime soon.

[chequita guevara]

Benevolence has nothing to do with it. The facts are against you. Furthermore, even if we were accept the invaders' version of history, self-defense only allows you to occupy a territory until the conclusion of hostilities.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Last Conformist
Morocco is still holding on to West Sahara, and isn't gonna let it go anytime soon.

I thought they'd been forced out and that there were elections in WS. Guess I was wrong.

http://cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/wi.html