By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Rath on 07 November 2010
Edit Thread
Kasz216 said:
Rath said:

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.

1)  That's a really silly point.  That's like saying cars are bad because of some car accident.   The treaty of Versailles was actually a lot MORE severe then a mere annexing of say 1-10th of land.  It completely destroyed the german economy.

Given the choice of having the New Zealand Economy destoryed or giving up half the land north of Auckland which would you choose?

 

2)  Good thing they aren't really annexing land.  Palestine isn't a country... thanks to the Palestinian leadership.  The international community.  The actual complaints of the international community aren't really based on a legal basis just a "what we want" basis.   Which is partly why the UN doesn't work, the other part being they don't bother to enforce anything.

3)  No.  Because it wasn't a punishment.   It was a choice the Palestinians made... and still make to this day.  They've had plenty of oppurtunities to sign good and fair deals... but instead the politicians have followed a policy of "Let the people suffer so Israel looks bad, then we can get more."   It's like someone has had enough of a punishment for something they did because they went on an intentional hunger strike. 

4)  It totally isn't arguable.  The Israeli's said yes, the Palestinian's said no.   Everything hinged on that no.


1) I think you underestimate the amount of land

Also annexing land is about as serious a thing as you can do to a country, it's permanent damage unlike more transient economic damage. In any case, my point was that punitive measures after wars only lead to bad blood and more problems.

2) You're most definitely and inarguably wrong on some points in this one.  Palestine is an occupied territory, exactly what the Geneva Convention refers to. Even Israel doesn't dispute that these are occupied territories, it just disputes that it is annexing them.

3) I can't actually believe that you're arguing that the Palestinian people still need to be punished for the six day war. It amazes me.

4) You really believe the Israelis did not provoke the six day war in the slightest? They did all sorts of things - armored tractors on disputed land, the Samu incident. Neither side was innocent in the lead up to that war.