The Middle East part 2

[walker 0]

hardly IIRC it does not go into palestinian territory more than 10km's

Hi Monkey Lib Front

10 kms or 10 m makes no diference an internationaly recognised border is an absolute.

France does not build 10 kms into Spain.

Mexico Does not Build 10 kms into the US.

India Does not build 10 kms into Nepal

Simple solution: Move the wall to the internationaly recognised border: Problem solved. Next

Kind Regards Walker

[bn880 5]

I concurr with Walker.

[Apollo 0]

Quote[/b] ]hardly IIRC it does not go into palestinian territory more than 10km's

At some points it goes well over 50 kilometers into Palestinian lands ,depends on the place ,hower the argument is that even 10km is to far anyway ,afterall an average of 10 kilometers over a border that is a few hundreds kilometers long will easily result in a few thousands of square kilometers land lost for the Palestinians ,take into account that this lost land also include's vital water reservoirs ,towns or fertile agricultural land then it's a considerable loss for the Palestinians.

And then you havn"t seen Sharon's final plans for the region.If he could decide it ,he would split the west bank up in 3 parts surrounded by israeli settlement.

sSaying that it "only" goes 10 km into Palestinian territory is a worthless argument ,it shouldn't be on Palestinian territory in the first place ,period!

[Monkey Lib Front 10]

hardly IIRC it does not go into palestinian territory more than 10km's

Hi Monkey Lib Front

10 kms or 10 m makes no diference an internationaly recognised border is an absolute.

France does not build 10 kms into Spain.

Mexico Does not Build 10 kms into the US.

India Does not build 10 kms into Nepal

Simple solution: Move the wall to the internationaly recognised border: Problem solved. Next

Kind Regards Walker

hey let's not get pedantic here, i was merely commenting on your quip of how it goes through the kitchen, tbh i could care less about Israel and Palestine, they are both as bad as each other.

[DB-ERAUPilot 0]

Simple solution: Move the wall to the internationaly recognised border: Problem solved. Next

in a PERFECT world maybe.... ever the saying "Give a mouse a cookie..he's gonna want a glass of milk"

[walker 0]

Simple solution: Move the wall to the internationaly recognised border: Problem solved. Next

in a PERFECT world maybe.... ever the saying "Give a mouse a cookie..he's gonna want a glass of milk"

DB-ERAUPilot

Exactly why you dont even give people 10 metres outside the internationaly recognised border I am glad to see you agree with the:-

Simple solution: Move the wall to the internationaly recognised border: Problem solved. Next

After all as you said

Quote[/b] ] "Give a mouse a cookie..he's gonna want a glass of milk"

Kind Regards Walker

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

I am sure they can need some german assistance. We still have some experience East german specialists on how to build the wall correctly, where to place the mines and the guard towers. On the other hand we have some civillian specialists that know how to build tunnels, self-made planes and bridges to cross the wall.

[mr_rOk 0]

@ schweizer

hahahahahahaha....good one!

[Colossus 2]

hardly IIRC it does not go into palestinian territory more than 10km's

Hi Monkey Lib Front

10 kms or 10 m makes no diference an internationaly recognised border is an absolute.

France does not build 10 kms into Spain.

Mexico Does not Build 10 kms into the US.

India Does not build 10 kms into Nepal

Simple solution: Move the wall to the internationaly recognised border: Problem solved. Next

Kind Regards Walker

Totaly agree with you walker.

Simple solution: Move the wall to the internationaly recognised border: Problem solved. Next

Hope Sharon is reading this, becouse BI members can really

solve problems  

[Placebo 29]

Merged the Israel wall thread into here.

With Israel being in the middle east and all

[bn880 5]

Merged the Israel wall thread into here.

With Israel being in the middle east and all

Bah, so is Iraq and Afghanistan.

Colossus, Sharon and others _know_ how they could solve problems to achieve peace, but they are filled with hatred for the other side, in addition to greed for land/water.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

The problem is so easy to identify

Listening to the west (EU) implies "giving in"

"giving in" may be interpreted by the other side as "weakness"

Hope any of the 2 sides understands that "giving in" in europe is considered as "a sign of wisdom & stregnth"

[bn880 5]

Giving in? Hmm, Im not sure that stopping agression etc. is giving in, it's stopping a mass revenge and occupation. I would not say Israel would be giving in if it respected Internationally recognized borders, among other things. It would be wise behaviour though, unlike recent history...

For the resistance/terrorists, stopping their attacks would be giving in, because the Palestinian lands are occupied etc etc, you know the story, and the wall is a big hit to the Palestinians because of its insane placement.

[Colossus 2]

Colossus, Sharon and others _know_ how they could solve problems to achieve peace, but they are filled with hatred for the other side, in addition to greed for land/water.

It was more a hope that war could be so simple

to solve, sadly enough thats not the truth.

If it was no such thing as hatred on our little planet Earth

then world history would be MUCH more different then it is to day.

[bn880 5]

Therefore the solution is simple, act in a way to reduce the hatred, which requires understanding.

I agree with you, but i will say we are not the only living creatures who have hatred in their societies(social groups)... so it is still natural/primal behaviour. I think for me personally, as I was growing up, I was mislead by schools and parents to believe people actually "evolved" past some of their primal behaviour/misunderstanding. Lately though(several years) as I watch what's going on I realize its a bunch of BS, things are as they were a thousand years ago at least in some places/minds.

Happy happy joy joy.

[Pukko 0]

With Israel being in the middle east and all

Something that also the English national (football) team führer - Sven Göran Ericsson - has found out. He has started coaching the Israeli/Palestinian "Peace Team" consisting of 8 Palestinian & 8 Israeli boys + their respective 'sub coaches', instead of the English senior lads  

http://www.gothiacup.se/eng....&Id=102

If you want to see him during the opening ceremony of the just started youth football tournament "Gothia Cup" here in Gothenburg (and also fail to understand what Svennis and the journalist says in Swedish ), then look at the video on this page:

http://svt.se/svt/jsp/Crosslink.jsp?d=10694&a=230304

btw, this is how most of us Swedes look like right now, but maybe this particular guy is motivated to hurry up from the mud to meet the Greek girls

EDIT- Fixed image links since they just uploaded the 04 opnening ceremony pics - still can't find a pic of Svennis with the team though.

[shinRaiden 0]

That's wonderful, news like that should be run more often. One of the funnest restaurants in Jerusalem is a Roman themed place, owned by an Israeli Jew and a Palestianian Muslim. There was a restaurant up in Haifa that was owned by another Israeli Jew and a Lebanese muslim, until it was blown up by Palestinians. Many Druze and Bedouin serve in the IDF, the Druze especially as the elite security because of their personal integrity. As was posted earlier, even some of the concrete for the fence is coming from PA contractors. I was there for the 2000 Jubilee with European, US, Indonesian, Palestinian, and Israeli pilgrims, and we didn't have any troubles.

iirc, just before 67, King Hussein of Jordan was told privately that if he stayed home, he'd get to keep the entire west bank, to the 48 line, including the old city. Half-way into the 67, Egypt and Syria told him if he joined in, he'd get divies all the way to the sea. Well, that was a crappy hand he bet on, and lost all the land and picked up a couple million refugees. Now why was Arafat working out of Beirut and Tripoli in the 80's? Because Hussein didn't want any more war, and chased Arafat out of Amman at gunpoint. You don't hear about any reigns of terror in Jordan, and if you look at the border, there really ain't a whole lot of troops there. That's because there isn't any need for heavy deployments, unlike other areas.

[Brutal_Impact 0]

Im not a big fan of either side.

I just expect more from a "civillized country"

Israel ignores international law. They torture prisoners.

I remember watching the news and it talked about how a Apeche helicopter blew up a car, then when dozens of people came to see if the person was alive, it shot about 5 more missles into the crowd of Civillians. This is just the tip of the iceberg.

Isreal sponsored groups that had 12 year old soldiers (SLA). Tons of stuff.

Sure the Palastinians are not much better, but dont you expect more from a civillized country?

[Placebo 29]

I just expect more from a "civillized country"

Israel ignores international law. They torture prisoners.

Maybe they should declare them "non-combatants", much simpler then

You can't flame-bait Canadians in one thread, flame-bait Israelis in another thread and not get the same back about your new home's actions, that's called hypocrisy, one of the things you're so against in your Anti-Canada thread.

[Brutal_Impact 0]

I just expect more from a "civillized country"

Israel ignores international law. They torture prisoners.

Maybe they should declare them "non-combatants", much simpler then  

You can't flame-bait Canadians in one thread, flame-bait Israelis in another thread and not get the same back about your new home's actions, that's called hypocrisy, one of the things you're so against in your Anti-Canada thread.

I am against that "enemy-combatants" law, I think its horrible.

Still, even though they are that, there is no evidence of a severe torture policy.

Isreal is open with the fact that they will do ANYTHING to get information out of somone.

[shinRaiden 0]

In response to the Israeli High Court ruling, which preceded the advisory ruling from the dis-attached World Court, the IDF is submitting proposals for three alternate fence paths that would be significantly closer to the 67 line. Jerusalem Post

Quote[/b] ]Security officials said Tuesday that the planners' decisions were based on the criteria established by Israel's Supreme Court in a ruling last month, and that last week's world court decision on the barrier was not a factor.

As the Israeli Courts have repeated confirmed the legal standing of the Palestinians, and for example in this mentioned ruling ordered that 75% of the fence condemnations be canceled and the location for the fence re-planned, and also in light of the lack of any binding interest of the World Court (they only submit recomendations to the Security Council for round-filing), was that appeal to the World Court anything more than a PR stunt? Because if it was, as I suspect, the rest of the world once again was proven to be the suckers that we are.

Reading in the General Assembly resolution calling for the Advisory, with

Quote[/b] ]Recalling relevant General Assembly resolutions, including resolution 181 (II) of 29 November 1947, which partitioned mandated Palestine into two States, one Arab and one Jewish,

and

Quote[/b] ]Gravely concerned at the commencement and continuation of construction by Israel, the occupying Power, of a wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem, which is in departure from the Armistice Line of 1949 (Green Line) and which has involved the confiscation and destruction of Palestinian land and resources, the disruption of the lives of thousands of protected civilians and the de facto annexation of large areas of territory, and underlining the unanimous opposition by the international community to the construction of that wall,

Which line is the UN referring to? The original partition had one line, but that didn't quite match with the 1949 Armistice line.

And as if this issue had not already been addressed...

Quote[/b] ]Recalling further relevant Security Council resolutions, including resolutions 242 (1967) of 22 November 1967, 338 (1973) of 22 October 1973, 267 (1969) of 3 July 1969, 298 (1971) of 25 September 1971, 446 (1979) of 22 March 1979, 452 (1979) of 20 July 1979, 465 (1980) of 1 March 1980, 476 (1980) of 30 June 1980, 478 (1980) of 20 August 1980, 904 (1994) of 18 March 1994, 1073 (1996) of 28 September 1996, 1397 (2002) of 12 March 2002 and 1515 (2003) of 19 November 2003,

The resolution calling for an advisory opinion came from a resolution originally calling for continued roadmapping, and was added at the request of the Arab States, and not by the Palestinians at the UN

Quote[/b] ]22. Meanwhile, on 19 November 2003, the Security Council adopted resolution 1515 (2003), by which it “Endorse[d] the Quartet Performance‑based Roadmap to a Permanent Two‑State Solution to the Israeli‑Palestinian Conflictâ€. The Quartet consists of representatives of the United States of America, the European Union, the Russian Federation and the United Nations. That resolution

“Call[ed] on the parties to fulfil their obligations under the Roadmap in cooperation with the Quartet and to achieve the vision of two States living side by side in peace and security.â€

Neither the “Roadmap†nor resolution 1515 (2003) contained any specific provision concerning the construction of the wall, which was not discussed by the Security Council in this context.

23. Nineteen days later, on 8 December 2003, the Tenth Emergency Special Session of the General Assembly again resumed its work, following a new request by the Chairman of the Arab Group, on behalf of the States Members of the League of Arab States, and pursuant to resolution ES‑10/13 (letter dated 1 December 2003 to the President of the General Assembly from the Chargé d’affaires a.i. of the Permanent Mission of Kuwait to the United Nations, A/ES‑10/249, 2 December 2003). It was during the meeting convened on that day that resolution ES‑10/14 requesting the present Advisory Opinion was adopted.

And in places the reading gets downright funny:

Quote[/b] ]38. The Court would point out that lack of clarity in the drafting of a question does not deprive the Court of jurisdiction. Rather, such uncertainty will require clarification in interpretation, and such necessary clarifications of interpretation have frequently been given by the Court.

In the past, both the Permanent Court and the present Court have observed in some cases that the wording of a request for an advisory opinion did not accurately state the question on which the Court’s opinion was being sought (Interpretation of the Greco‑Turkish Agreement of 1 December 1926 (Final Protocol, Article IV), Advisory Opinion, 1928, P.C.I.J., Series B, No. 16 (I), pp. 14‑16), or did not correspond to the “true legal question†under consideration (Interpretation of the Agreement of 25 March 1951 between the WHO and Egypt, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 1980, pp. 87‑89, paras. 34‑36). The Court noted in one case that “the question put to the Court is, on the face of it, at once infelicitously expressed and vague†(Application for Review of Judgement No. 273 of the United Nations Administrative Tribunal, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 1982, p. 348, para. 46).

Consequently, the Court has often been required to broaden, interpret and even reformulate the questions put (see the three Opinions cited above; see also Jaworzina, Advisory Opinion, 1923, P.C.I.J., Series B, No. 8; Admissibility of Hearings of Petitioners by the Committee on South West Africa, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 1956, p. 25; Certain Expenses of the United Nations (Article 17, paragraph 2, of the Charter), Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 1962, pp. 157‑162).

In the present instance, the Court will only have to do what it has often done in the past, namely “identify the existing principles and rules, interpret them and apply them . . ., thus offering a reply to the question posed based on law†(Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, I.C.J. Reports 1996 (I), p. 234, para. 13).

And the next paragraph is really confusing...

Quote[/b] ]39. In the present instance, if the General Assembly requests the Court to state the “legal consequences†arising from the construction of the wall, the use of these terms necessarily encompasses an assessment of whether that construction is or is not in breach of certain rules and principles of international law. Thus, the Court is first called upon to determine whether such rules and principles have been and are still being breached by the construction of the wall along the planned route.

So the GA is asking what the legal consequences 'are', despite the fact that a 'permanent member of the security council repeatedly casts negative votes'.

<pause>I'm not disagreeing with or agreeing with US policy here, I'm about to make a point about the nonsense of this exercise</pause>

Sounds like the Arab States, maybe, or maybe not, at the behest of the Palestinians are attempting to put pressure on the US political process through channels and the media. In the Israeli Courts, the Palestinians are getting immediate relief. In the UN, /dev/null is garuanteed to happen, because US policy for the forseeable future is to act in defense of Israel on the Security Council.

If the Arab States had put their money where their mouth is into the schools and such, rather than using the Palestinians as their glove to punch Israel, I think that there would be a good chance that this fence would have hit a bunch more roadblocks earlier on. If they were serious about stopping it, why are their lawyers in The Hague instead of Jerusalem? By the time the UN could think about doing something, the wall would be up, and then it would be a 'fact'.

Now on the other hand, Sharon says he is moving forward with withdrawal from Gaza and plans for dismantling the West Bank settlements. Until those are dismantled, Israel has a security obligation to those citizens. Even if you regard them as criminals, a state still has the obligation to defend criminals. And because the settlements are already built, that adds extra layers of litigation and negotiations. In all fairness, if the fence were to be built protecting the settlements, it honestly would be doubtful that there would much push to remove the settlements, and pull back the fence.

Now this is the icing on the cake:

Quote[/b] ]Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat has instructed mayors of Palestinian cities and other PA officials to stop holding meetings with liaison IDF officers and representatives of the Civil Administration, Army Radio reported Tuesday.

Senior security officials believe that the PA chairman's move is out of fear that Israel might wrap up a deal with local PA officials over security and civil arrangements related to the construction of the West Bank security barrier.

PA local authority officials and city mayors continue to meet their Israeli counterparts despite Arafat's instruction, security officials believe.

I never knew diplomatic legal briefs could be such fun reading. This is pretty good, almost as good as the SCO briefs.

[Bernadotte 0]

This is significant.

< < Mohammad Dahlan

Arafat 'ruining his people' says protege

Quote[/b] ]...

In an interview with the Kuwaiti newspaper Al Watan he said: "Arafat is sitting on the corpses and destruction of the Palestinians at a time when they're desperately in need of a new mentality."

All of the funds which foreign countries had donated to the Palestinian Authority, a total of $5bn "have gone down the drain, and we don't know to where," he added.

Mr Arafat's policies had brought about a situation in which Palestinian lives were in ruins. "The Palestinian situation is not putting up with any more corruption, and there is no escape aside from reforms that Arafat himself has authorised," Mr Dahlan said.

...

Mr Dahlan, 43, has broad support in the Gaza Strip and is respected by Israel and the United States.

...

In recent months Mr Dahlan has been tentatively setting out a platform on which to oppose Mr Arafat.

In a succession of interviews he has said that the Palestinians must choose whether they want war or peace with Israel. War has clearly failed, he says, leaving peace as the only viable option.

In contrast to Mr Arafat's strategy of ambiguity, condemning violence but doing nothing to stop it, Mr Dahlan said the authority should pre vent attacks on Israel for its own sake.

[bn880 5]

Oops

http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common....00.html

Sharon approves for the building of 1000 new Israeli homes in settlements.

[Bernadotte 0]

Very significant comments made by the senior aide to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon:

Quote[/b] ]"The significance of the [Gaza] disengagement plan is the freezing of the peace process.  And when you freeze that process you prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state, and you prevent a discussion on the refugees, the borders and Jerusalem."

"Effectively, this whole package called the Palestinian state, with all that it entails, has been removed indefinitely from our agenda. And all this with authority and permission. All with a presidential blessing and the ratification of both houses of Congress."

"The disengagement is actually formaldehyde.  It supplies the amount of formaldehyde that is necessary so there will not be a political process with the Palestinians."

-- Dov Weisglass

But how can you achieve peace without a peace process?

Could it be that the Prime Minister doesn't really want to achieve peace?

The US has asked Israel to clarify the statements.

Meanwhile, news sources are reporting the story as follows:

Israel: Palestinian State Shelved with U.S. Blessing   -- Reuters

Israel: Thanks to the U.S., Palestinian state is ruled out  -- Al-Jazeera

Now, take either of these headlines and try to convince potential Al Qaida recruits that America is not the enemy.  Good luck!!  

[billybob2002 0]

Al shows its bias, again...

Quote[/b] ]They, moreover, fear that Sharon might feel free to do as he pleases while Bush is busy with his re-election campaign, where he is in bad need of the Jewish votes,

That is some bullshit because the jewish "vote" has majority of the time voted a clear majority for the dems...

Quote[/b] ]Israel: Thanks to the U.S., Palestinian state is ruled out

Love the title... want to inflame things....

Furthermore, Al-piece of crap forgot to mention this....

Quote[/b] ]Weisglass told Israel Radio later he did not mean Israel would never negotiate with Palestinians, only that it would not do so until they "wipe out terror." Otherwise, he said, a Palestinian state would only endanger Israel.

or

Quote[/b] ]Bush declared that Palestinians could not expect to obtain statehood unless they stamp out militant attacks on Israel.

Stick to Reuters and not Al-piece of crap or use less "bias" news links from Al-piece of crap...