Just because Britain called something Palestine, does not make that a country or state nor does it make its people Palestinian. To create a Palestine you would be creating another Arab state - nothing more, nothing less. There is no common culture between gaza and ramallah.

There has also ALWAYS been a jewish presence in the region. Areas which are called settlements like Hebron have had an unbroken Jewish presence for a very long time. The zionist ideal did not start just suddenly. And when you claim everything was calm until a point, it was not. Jewish villages were being massacred, Jews were not allowed in certain areas.

Furthermore, that is not what resolution 242 says. If you're going to start bringing up things you've probably seen on fliers and news cites, read the actual resolution. According to the Economist:

"But what if, for the sake of argument, the main Security Council resolutions on the Arab-Israeli conflict had been Chapter Seven resolutions? The problem would then arise that Resolution 242 of 1967, passed after the six-day war and frequently cited in the double-standards argument, does not say what a lot of the people who quote it think it says (see - articlehttp://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?story_ID=1378595).

It does not instruct Israel to withdraw unilaterally from the territories occupied in 1967. It does not condemn Israel's conquest, for the good reason that most western powers at that time thought it the result of a justifiable pre-emptive war. It calls for a negotiated settlement, based on the principle of exchanging land for peace. This is a very different matter."

-Rudey
--When you're in Egypt say hi to the "Palestinians"

Rudey, I'm not so sure that you know what you're talking about. Have you actually read anything about Res 242? Do you know the history behind it? I'm guessing not. Rather than spout off what you've been told, why not actually investigate? I can tell you are pretty intelligent, so why not put that good brain to use??
"Exchanging land for peace." Sounds like "Give them back their land to prevent further problems." The actual language of the resolution states that Israel has no right to land acquired through conflict. Whether or not you view that as a condemnation of the attacks is up to you. But it does say that the land was not theirs to keep. Sort of like when one kid steals another kid's toy. Mom or Dad intervenes and gives it back to who it belongs to. The other kid is pissed, but that's life. Don't take what isn't yours.
The Economist is not a scholarly resource anyways. Unless it is, there is always a chance for misinterpretation, bias, and other journalistic hangups. I did like your citation of Polin. Granted, even scholars have their biases, but at least he disclosed in an intelligent manner.
Oh and I'll have far too much to do in Egypt to do you any favors. My deepest apologies.

Who should that land go back to? Jordan and Egypt? Actually there was the return of land to many Arab countries following the war.

The resolution also does not specifically discuss what lands because the diplomats involved in drafting it intentionally left it that way. So I don't know where you got the 48 borders from. Too bad the Arabs chose not to accept the 1948 borders and instead their leaders launched war after war to shift the anger of their people.

And while the resolution does discuss land for peace, it is only through negotiated settlement. Has there been one? Yes there was with countries like Egypt. No there wasn't with an entity called Palestine and since there is no negotiated settlement, Israel is not violating international law.

What are you arguing with there? Aside from telling me I'm intelligent, I don't know anything else that has validity in your post.

Israel is there. Israel is not violating any international law and that is why the U.N. has not done anything against Israel other than put unjust pressure on it because of its large Arab influence. Whether you like that or not, doesn't interest me really. It is my opinion that Israel should give nothing back and unleash with all its might to completely demilitarize the region - but that is my opinion and we're not arguing over that. If you have something to say as to why Israel is violating international law please let me know.

-Rudey
--There is nothing the Economist misinterpreted but you can say that instead of looking at the facts.

Alright I've listened long enough.....

If everyone called the region Palestine between 1922 and 1948 then guess what, that's why people say Palestine existed. As for if they still exist..... that's debatable according to international laws and precedants (ala the nation vs state critera).

As for Isreal violating international laws..... I can think of two.
1) Use of mechanized military equipment against insurgents hiding amongst civilians (refugees), or the use of military forces outside of the recognized borders against citizens of another country or region; both violate the Geneva Convention and International Law (as laid out by the UN and the Hague). Hey Germany did they same thing and they were condemed for it, but Sharon gets elected.
2) Settlements - violates both UN resolutions and the Oslo Accords.

As for "Palestine" violating international laws..... another two.
1) Funneling of state funds and humanitarian aid towards terrorist organizations, and the tacit approval of said terrorist groups by the reconginzed authority.
2) Using civilians as human shields against reprisals for attacks on citizens of another country or region; violation of the Geneva Convention and Internation Law (as laid out by the UN and the Hague).

As for why the UN has never done anything..... US veto. The US has consitently used it's veto (more than any other nation on the security council including France or Russia) to defeat motions ment to take economic, political, or legal action against Isreal. It can be argued that the US is protecting it's intrests in the region by protecting a staunch friend. Conversly the US has also vetoed a number of resultions regarding "Palestine", and I'll admit I don't understand the reasons behind these vetos.

Once again there was no state and no nation. If you can find something on that please let me know. Actually why don't you just call it Trans-Jordan. There is no debate here simply because you chose to say it's debatable.

a) I didn't talk about the settlements or the use of weapons. You just suddenly had to throw that in there. I was talking about a completely different issue.

b)You also do not understand the difference between the different kinds of UN actions because if you did you wouldn't have brought up US vetoing power and if you knew anything about the history of the region you would know that Arab countries often voted against UN motions against Israel because they made mention of them as well in there. You're right about one thing, you don't "understand the reasons" behind anything and you didn't address the issue.

See Cooper, you know nothing about the region. Most people claim ignorance and say "I don't know" - you have to brag about knowing though. Stick to bragging about your Canadian military experience as opposed to bragging about something you don't know a single thing about - maybe that will get you somewhere in your country. I've "listened long enough" too and your next post I won't read since you've been on ignore (I was foolish enough to look at your post this time) and I won't care to see you talk about things I wasn't addressing nor issues that you don't understand.

-Rudey
--Thank you Cooper - you are a source of pride to all Lambda Chis.

Alright, I tried to remained civil and I tried to stick to the issues without resorting to insults or trying to take cheap shots, unfortunately you could not restrain yourself to the bounds of debate.

You asked:
"If you have something to say as to why Israel is violating international law please let me know. "

I responded with two examples, and two from "Palestine". As for the UN, the US has veto power over security resolutions for any action (hence the security council). If for example a motion was presented to the UN calling for the deployment of peacekeepers anywhere, that is a security issue and the US can veto it. If a motion calls for a embargo against a nation, the US can veto it. If a motion calls for the withdrawal troops or the demilitarization of a region that is a security issue and once again the US can veto it.

Apparently you do not understand the workings of the security council and the concept of veto power.... if one of the five permanent members veto a motion then it is defeated..... and the US is a permanent member of the security council. Also for your hopeful education here is a link to a list of all the vetos that the US has used regarding Israel:
http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/UN/usvetoes.html


Now as for debate that has been going on in this thread, I found two links that may be of interest to the parties involved in the debate.

Here is a link to the UN proposed partitioning of Palestine in 1947:
http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/History/partmap.html

And for furthering the debate here is a link to the text of Resolution 181:
http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/History/partition.html

Rudey please note that I took these from the Jewish Virtual Library, so you cannot question the source (I hope). These are also links that I could see no discernable bias in the actual document… now I know there are other documents on the site, but I wanted to present these because they deal with some of the arguements that have been presented.

If further debate of this issue is needed, why not make a separate thread to specifically deal with it.


PS> Rudey, you're asinine and juvenile attacks are not only uncalled for but a little sad. I've never attacked your service to your country (or lack there of), nor have I taken shots at your GLO membership or pride (whatever GLO that happens to be).

Actually if you were following what I was talking about you would know that I was refering to Israel violating proposition 242. So you did not know what I was referring to and talked about something that wasn't discussed. So what were you arguing about? You just wanted to argue and brag about what you knew.

Once again Palestine never existed. You didn't respond to a single thing I said but just threw a link out there. Arab countries took over the land, Israel took over some of the land, proposition 242 said to negotiate the return of the land including the borders and left out a definite clause in the statement, negotiations were made with arab countries and land like the sinai was returned. Never in that time did Palestine exist. You can't argue with that so you just post links. 242 never condemned Israel since that was an act of self-defense, did not request Israel withdraw unilaterally, and called for a negotiated settlement.

There are two motions but I guess you like to be embarassed. There are chapter 6 and chapter 7 resolutions and resolutions against Israel fall under chapter 6 which the US vetoes but regardless chapter 6 motions are non-binding. Again what are you arguing with?

You just need to show off how smart you are but everyone reads what you write and just laugh. You even comment in threads about the American presidential race. Always commenting, never knowing.

-Rudey
--I never would insult your GLO...I think Lambda Chi is great but it doesn't mean I have to think you are great.

That's not a valid criticism because "insurgents hiding amongst civilians (refugees)" is against international law. The failure of the international community, and specifically of Arab nations to not only curtail such actions, but in some cases support internationally illegal Palestinian tactics often leaves Israel with the choice to either do nothing and be attacked, or retaliate.

International law is not clear because Israeli actions can often be interpreted as simultaneously being within the letter of that law, as well as violating it. Where the actions of Palestinians often differs is that there are actions taken by radical organizations that are in violation with international law, and not permissable by any international law.

I wonder what country these people are a citizen of since he likes to pretend to know the law.

Russel don't listen to him. He knows nothing. He talks about Israel violating the Oslo Accords and pretends he knows the laws, the history and the region.

-Rudey
--He likes to pretend to know things...reality for some is very sad outside of the make pretend world.

I'd say we settle this pissing contest once and for all...go check out a map from the pre-WWII era. Say the 20s or 30s, specifically. Look a little bit NE of Egypt. What does it call that country?

Nice idea. Palestine was a geographical area, but certainly not a self governing nation during that time. The area was under British control during most of that time. I'd have to look up the exact dates, but I'd say the British invaded and took control of the area around 1916 as a result of the Sykes-Picot Agreement and had the area under control by 1918. Prior to that agreement, the Brits and French had promised the Arabs most of that area in exchange for their revolt against the Ottomans. The Ottomans had ruled the area since the 1500's. The promise of Arab rule was not kept at that time. The British ruled the area with little challenge from 1918 until the middle of the 30's when the Arabs put up a short revolt. In 1937, the Peel Commission Report recommends that Palestine be turned into a Jewish State and an Arab State. Again, this did not happen. Shortly after, Jewish settlers began making new, but limited headway in the area under the MacDonald White Act. The first Jewish settlers had actually shown up in the area in the late 1800, early 1900's. This might be a bit simplistic, but Palestine was never a nation during this time. No pissing contest.

It wasn't a country. Polin's quote makes that clear. Why don't you call it Trans-Jordan then?? That would be a country. Maps created in Arab countries now call it Palestine too but that really does mean nothing. Heck the badge on Arafat's arm is of "Palestine" and it includes ALL of Israel and not just the Arab sections. And if you want to go further back in time we can call it judae and samaria. This isn't a pissing contest and there is nothing to be biased about. That is the fact.

It's sad but if nobody had chosen to invade Israel on the day of it's birth, there would be a COUNTRY called Palestine. Instead it became Jordan and Egypt. And in 1976 if Israel hadn't had to fend for itself, that area would not have switched over into Israeli hands - it would have remained part of Jordan and Egypt and those countries could deal with it. But I doubt the world would care about that. They didn't seem to care up until 1976 when everything changed. There was no pressure on Egypt and Jordan to release the land - none. Even now Syria occupies Lebanon but what pressure is there on Syria to end that occupation? Syria would be occupying Jordan if it wasn't for the Israelis massing their military along the border and letting Damascus know it would be eliminated if it stepped foot into the kingdom.

I'm not arguing about who is right or wrong in Israel. I'm arguing about a simple historical fact about the non-existence of a country called Palestine. Who is right or wrong is an entirely different matter.

-Rudey
--And Moe.ron/Arya I like how you changed the name of this thread to Palestine-Israel; even though Palestine did not exist for some reason you put that name first.

It was a "geographical area" with a different name prior to that.

-Rudey
--That's just a term we throw around that's meaningless in my opinion.

That is meaningless but for anyone that is interested in historical fact, they can look at This thread

-Rudey