Document: Iran funding both sides of Iraqi civil war

[germanos]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
But all you got out of his press conf was the above.

But of course youre not antiIsrael, just making legitimate criticisms. Of course.

I was not refering to this press conference, but to an article in a Dutch newspaper where Sneh was clearly keeping other options open.

And just what do you mean with that last sentence?
Be straightforward if you want to make accusations.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by germanos


I was not refering to this press conference, but to an article in a Dutch newspaper where Sneh was clearly keeping other options open.

And just what do you mean with that last sentence?
Be straightforward if you want to make accusations.

It seemed that of all the current news about Israel, (and yes I thought you got that from the press conference) theres plenty indicating the moderation of the current Israeli govt, and that it is pursuing peace. And that you cherrypicked the news to make Israel look bad. Which is unfair, and worthy of criticism as being anti-Israel. A criticism im not supposed to ever make, as its unPC, cause you know, we eevil Zionists are totally thinskinned and equate ANY criticism of Israel with being anti-Israel. Well, theres fair criticism, and unfair criticism, and your critiicsm seemed quite frankly unfair.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by lord of the mark



Can this even be a "colony" by the way? I thought under international law a colony had to be overseas.

that would be an odd definition.

It would give a huge sort of moral advantage to eurasian mainland countries over island countries.

Are you sure that non contiguous territories that aren't overseas don't also qualify as colonies?

[germanos]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


But this is what you said "Meanwhile, his superior, Amir Peretz, has given the go-ahead for the building of a new colonist settlement on the west-bank. "

The distinction is important, as Israel is commited under Oslo not to create new settlements in the West Bank. Their only commitment to not expand existing settlements was under the Road Map, which is basically dead, in the absence of Pal compliance to its provisions on disarming terrorists.

Clearly there is a need to negotiate a new road map, under new conditions. If the Pals dont want this settlement to go forward, they can negotiate about it.

Can this even be a "colony" by the way? I thought under international law a colony had to be overseas.

To me this distinction is not important. Establishing settlements on the west bank, or Gaza for that matter, is plain wrong (and illegal under international law, IIRC), be they old abandoned ones or new.

And I'm not getting into a game over the word colony (which I didn't use by the way ). Over here the people in the settlements on the west bank are referred to as colonists. I'll be happy to use another term if you want.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by germanos


To me this distinction is not important. Establishing settlements on the west bank, or Gaza for that matter, is plain wrong (and illegal under international law, IIRC), be they old abandoned ones or new.

And I'm not getting into a game over the word colony (which I didn't use by the way ). Over here the people in the settlements on the west bank are referred to as colonists. I'll be happy to use another term if you want.

1. Its illegal to establish settlements on territory that belongs to another country, which is occupied as part of a war. Under the Geneva Conventions. The West Bank, however is not recognized as part of another country. It was annexed by Jordan in 1948, an annexation that hardly anyone in the world recognized. And of course Jordan no longer asserts a claim to the land. The PA asserts a claim, but the PA is not a state, and has never been one. In fact the land is disputed and the Geneva convention on occupation is not applicable. Now its probably in the best interests of all that most of the West Bank become a Pal state, and negotiations will eventually lead to that outcome. But in the meanwhile Israel has the right to move people there, subject only to agreements like the Oslo accords.

2. Why not just call people who move to settlements, "settlers"? Like everyone else does.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Geronimo


that would be an odd definition.

It would give a huge sort of moral advantage to eurasian mainland countries over island countries.

Are you sure that non contiguous territories that aren't overseas don't also qualify as colonies?

Im not sure about non-contig terrs.

It does give a moral advantage to eurasian countries. That was the idea, way back in the 1950s and 1960s when resolutions against "colonialism" were passed at the UN. To aim them against UK, France, Belgium and Portugal, and to exempt the USSR, not to mention all the 3rd world states that had areas that were eager for self-determination, from Biafra to the Celebes.

[germanos]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


1. Its illegal to establish settlements on territory that belongs to another country, which is occupied as part of a war. Under the Geneva Conventions. The West Bank, however is not recognized as part of another country. It was annexed by Jordan in 1948, an annexation that hardly anyone in the world recognized. And of course Jordan no longer asserts a claim to the land. The PA asserts a claim, but the PA is not a state, and has never been one. In fact the land is disputed and the Geneva convention on occupation is not applicable. Now its probably in the best interests of all that most of the West Bank become a Pal state, and negotiations will eventually lead to that outcome. But in the meanwhile Israel has the right to move people there, subject only to agreements like the Oslo accords.

2. Why not just call people who move to settlements, "settlers"? Like everyone else does.

1: Israel has the RIGHT to move people to the west bank?

2: fair enough.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by germanos


1: Israel has the RIGHT to move people to the west bank?

Yes. Legally they do.

There are of course legal opinions that disagree with the one ive articulated, and which will probably soon be posted by GePap, Guev, Sandman and others.

But if you think that Israel has not formulated its own legal case, then your media have sheltered you from one side of the story (and you probably think Dutch media lean pro-Israel)

[germanos]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
(and you probably think Dutch media lean pro-Israel)

This is the third time you make baseless, and wrong, assumptions on my behalf.

I'll move on.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by germanos


This is the third time you make baseless, and wrong, assumptions on my behalf.

I'll move on.

Im sorry if I offended you by making a guess about your view of the Dutch media.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by germanos


This is the third time you make baseless, and wrong, assumptions on my behalf.

I'll move on.

evidently you havent moved that far on, since you quoted me in your sig file. Yyou really think thats sig worthy, you really think that Israel does not assert a legal case wrt to the status of the territories?

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by dannubis


Clap Clap Clap !!! Encore !!

You know nothing on how I feel about all the issues you mentioned above. I just say that you have absolutely no business in judging others, Israeli. Change the ways of your own governement first.

Of course I know how you feel about these issues.
You're a typical biggot eurocom.

I'm sure I could easily use the search function to corroborate my claims regarding the Iraq war.

I invite you to provide quotes of yourself supporting the liberation of Iraq and the removal of saddam.


You on the other hand - have no idea what I think about the Palestinian issue. You assume for yourself what you want. How convenient.


My government is doing all it can to avoid killing palestinians, except disbanding....

On the strategical level, it has been selling off territory, property, international legitimacy, and even the right to self defence, in hope that some way, somehow, we could appease the arabs.

Israel has been a large donor for the palestinian territories, beyond its basic legal dues as a 'occupiers'. It has built homes, schools, universities, mosques - from nothing.

In 1990, the palestinians were among the most developed arab societies in the middle east, possibly outside of small oil countries (qatar etc).

[Ned]

The most "valuable" information from this story is that Iran is (still?) backing AQ. This clearly implies, at a minimum, a truce between the radical Shi'ites of Iran and the radical Sunni's of AQ. It also suggests that Iran might be funding AQ generally, not just AQ in Iraq.

The second most valuable piece of info is that Iran is not backing the Ba'atists. This is a hopeful piece of news.

But surely Syria is backing their brother Ba'athists.