| Kasz216 said: Can you even have a gripe with them over that? I think that some settlements NEED to be kept. Think about it this way. You and someone else are having a disupute about some money. A third party creates a settlement. You agree... the other person gets his friends and tries to take all the money by force. You and your friends win. What are the chances now that you want to go through with it as listed? Maybe it's me, but if you go against a proposed deal and then declare war... you should lose at least some of what you had. Just letting people declare war and then get what they had coming anyway is just a REALLY bad precedent. |
There are several points that are wrong in this post.
1) Punitive measures after wars cause trouble. Think Treaty of Versailles, which is a good deal less severe than annexing land.
2) Annexing land is blatantly against international law
"The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies."
That's part of the Fourth Geneva Convention.
3) Even is you accept that some sort of punishment is necessary for the six day war, don't you think depriving the Palestinians of nationhood for fifty something years is punishment enough without also annexing half of what little land they have left
4) It's arguable as to whether the Arabs are fully to blame for the six day war. Certainly both sides were gearing up for war for a while and the Israelis were the ones who (very cleverly) struck first by attacking the Egyptian air force. Or even before that by attacking the city of As-Samu.
Also, the international community is well against you on this one. Even America under George Bush was against the settlements.
