Obama tells UN he sees 'no shortcut' to Isreali-Palestinian peace....

[QUOTE="Cow4ever"]

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]

If Israel has a legal claim to the land then why hasn't one International court affirmed this? You can't show me one legal body of international standing that has ruled that these territories are a part of Israel. The law couldn't be more clearer on this matter. Per UN resolution 2625, "No territorial acquisition resulting from the threat or the use of force shall be recognized as legal." Yes, Israel was attacked, but that doesn't justify anything as far the law is concerned. It is illegal to acquire territory through force.

As for the Jerusalem Embassy Act - it was passed in 1995. The US embassy was suppose to be moved to Jerusalem no later than 1999, per the act. It's now 2011. No president has actually implemented the law. The US embassy remains in Tel Aviv.

And to allow for the annexation for almost all of the settlements in East Jerusalem for absolutely nothing in return is a huge concenssion.

-Sun_Tzu-

And before a discussion can be had terms have to be defined. International law is what defines these terms. And if UN resolutions aren't enough for you, section 3, article 42 of the Hague convention states "Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army." No distinction is made between land acuired in a war of aggression or in a defensive war. If a country acquires land through force, that land is occupied territory.

Even Israel considers the land occupied, at least privately. They even gave an order immediately after the war that the Geneva conventions apply (this was shortly rescinded).Theodor Meron, who was legal counsel for the Israeli government at the time, issued a memo to the Prime Minister stating that that the building of settlements on the territory in question is in clear violation of the fourth geneva convention.

5. This is what Europe looked like after the hague convention

Although unrelated to Israel, doesn't this mean we have to make some changes to Europe?

[QUOTE="Darkman2007"][QUOTE="worlock77"]

It's as much of a democracy as the UK is. And they have diplomatic relations with Israel, including mutual embassies in ether country, open travel between the two, and a free trade zone between them. If that's not an ally I don't know what is.

worlock77

I can't comment on Syria's government. Admittedly I know little about it. But we consider the United Kingdom a democracy, yet the Monarch retains the power to refuse to sign bills passed by Parilement into law. The Monarch has the power to dismiss and appoint the Prime Minster, to dismiss members of Parliment, to dissolve the Parliment itself. The Monarch commands the armed forces, has the power to declare war, the power to make treaties with other nations, to issue and revoke passports, and the power to create corporations.

[QUOTE="Darkman2007"][QUOTE="worlock77"]

It's as much of a democracy as the UK is. And they have diplomatic relations with Israel, including mutual embassies in ether country, open travel between the two, and a free trade zone between them. If that's not an ally I don't know what is.

worlock77

I can't comment on Syria's government. Admittedly I know little about it. But we consider the United Kingdom a democracy, yet the Monarch retains the power to refuse to sign bills passed by Parilement into law. The Monarch has the power to dismiss and appoint the Prime Minster, to dismiss members of Parliment, to dissolve the Parliment itself. The Monarch commands the armed forces, has the power to declare war, the power to make treaties with other nations, to issue and revoke passports, and the power to create corporations.

[QUOTE="Cow4ever"][QUOTE="ohgodohman"]Well, they didn't teleport, Einstein.ohgodohman

MOD EDIT - Please do not quote censor bypassing. Remove the bypasses, or you risk moderation for perpetuating them. Thanks.

Ok ok now finally we have some international law, I have some points though: 1. It doesn't say an occupation necessarily is illegal. 2. Technically if for example Syria attacked Israel and took back the Golan then Syria would be occupying the Golan no? Cause if a country acquires land through force, that land is occupied territory right? 3. I'm not sure it's legally binding. 4. Regardless of this law, you think that any country can attack another country and then should be given territory back? That'd mean that there are no real consequences to wars of aggression.

Cow4ever

Occupation isn't necessarily illegal, but the building of settlements on occupied land by the occupying power is illegal. And as far as what I think about a country getting its land back after launching a war of aggression - it depends entirely on the situation. But the most important thing in my view, is that the annexation of land and the redrawing of borders is something that has to be done at the negotiation table, not on the battlefield.

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="Darkman2007"] by that account, Syria is a democracy since President Assad was elected , just like the president of the US. of course this would be stupid , since in Syria, the only choice was Assad, and it was a simple , yes/no answer, and I can assure you nobody voted no. and those do not signifiy alliance, thats simple terms of the peace treaty. however, out of all the Arab countries, Joran is the one closest to Israel, there is no doubt about that, there is some military cooperation , and the Hashemites have relied on Israel before, even before the peace treaty.Darkman2007

I can't comment on Syria's government. Admittedly I know little about it. But we consider the United Kingdom a democracy, yet the Monarch retains the power to refuse to sign bills passed by Parilement into law. The Monarch has the power to dismiss and appoint the Prime Minster, to dismiss members of Parliment, to dissolve the Parliment itself. The Monarch commands the armed forces, has the power to declare war, the power to make treaties with other nations, to issue and revoke passports, and the power to create corporations.

That the current Monarch has not chosen to exrecise those powers does not mean that she does not have them.

[QUOTE="Cow4ever"]Ok ok now finally we have some international law, I have some points though: 1. It doesn't say an occupation necessarily is illegal. 2. Technically if for example Syria attacked Israel and took back the Golan then Syria would be occupying the Golan no? Cause if a country acquires land through force, that land is occupied territory right? 3. I'm not sure it's legally binding. 4. Regardless of this law, you think that any country can attack another country and then should be given territory back? That'd mean that there are no real consequences to wars of aggression.

-Sun_Tzu-

Occupation isn't necessarily illegal, but the building of settlements on occupied land by the occupying power is illegal. And as far as what I think about a country getting its land back after launching a war of aggression - it depends entirely on the situation. But the most important thing in my view, is that the annexation of land and the redrawing of borders is something that has to be done at the negotiation table, not on the battlefield.

It is unfortunate the US supports a country like Israel. I'm no expert on the subject, but they have no right to build on lands that aren't theirs. Also add the fact that they are pretty racist country from what I can see. I'm not talking about the people, but really the government.

[QUOTE="Darkman2007"][QUOTE="worlock77"]

I can't comment on Syria's government. Admittedly I know little about it. But we consider the United Kingdom a democracy, yet the Monarch retains the power to refuse to sign bills passed by Parilement into law. The Monarch has the power to dismiss and appoint the Prime Minster, to dismiss members of Parliment, to dissolve the Parliment itself. The Monarch commands the armed forces, has the power to declare war, the power to make treaties with other nations, to issue and revoke passports, and the power to create corporations.

worlock77

That the current Monarch has not chosen to exrecise those powers does not mean that she does not have them.

It is unfortunate the US supports a country like Israel. I'm no expert on the subject, but they have no right to build on lands that aren't theirs. Also add the fact that they are pretty racist country from what I can see. I'm not talking about the people, but really the government.

sherman-tank1

the idea of the state in Israel being racist is somewhat ludicrous, unless of course you can tell me why they are racists.

and there is a difference between occasional discrimination or institional racism , and state policy btw.

if youre talking about treatment of the Palestinians , this has nothing to do with race or ethnicity, its political/security related, the Palestinians would have been treated the same (given politics) wheter they were Arab , Chinese or Europeans with Blond hair and blue eyes.

if its treatment of Arabs within Israel , its institutional racism at most, and that happens everywhere, you could even compare it to the treatment of African Americans in the US , the law doesn't specifically impose restrictions on them , but sometimes racism creeps in through the civil service.

Occupation isn't necessarily illegal, but the building of settlements on occupied land by the occupying power is illegal. And as far as what I think about a country getting its land back after launching a war of aggression - it depends entirely on the situation. But the most important thing in my view, is that the annexation of land and the redrawing of borders is something that has to be done at the negotiation table, not on the battlefield.

-Sun_Tzu-

[QUOTE="Darkman2007"][QUOTE="worlock77"]

I can't comment on Syria's government. Admittedly I know little about it. But we consider the United Kingdom a democracy, yet the Monarch retains the power to refuse to sign bills passed by Parilement into law. The Monarch has the power to dismiss and appoint the Prime Minster, to dismiss members of Parliment, to dissolve the Parliment itself. The Monarch commands the armed forces, has the power to declare war, the power to make treaties with other nations, to issue and revoke passports, and the power to create corporations.

worlock77

That the current Monarch has not chosen to exrecise those powers does not mean that she does not have them.

It is unfortunate the US supports a country like Israel. I'm no expert on the subject, but they have no right to build on lands that aren't theirs. Also add the fact that they are pretty racist country from what I can see. I'm not talking about the people, but really the government.

sherman-tank1

[QUOTE="sherman-tank1"]

It is unfortunate the US supports a country like Israel. I'm no expert on the subject, but they have no right to build on lands that aren't theirs. Also add the fact that they are pretty racist country from what I can see. I'm not talking about the people, but really the government.

Darkman2007

Well I'm going to bed now boys. Happy debating

[QUOTE="Darkman2007"][QUOTE="sherman-tank1"]

It is unfortunate the US supports a country like Israel. I'm no expert on the subject, but they have no right to build on lands that aren't theirs. Also add the fact that they are pretty racist country from what I can see. I'm not talking about the people, but really the government.

sherman-tank1

U.S. should pull all it's support of Israel. I honestly don't care which side comes up the "winner" at the end of this conflict but the amount of support the U.S. has shown for Israel is disgusting to say the least. With all the international and humanitarian laws that Israel has broken I'm surprised the U.S. still supports them unquestioningly.Moriarity_

well I edited my previous post to explain the 2 things i hear most as reasons for why Israel is racist apparenty , you might want to read that. why do they build settlements? the question is who builds them. the answer to that is the Yesha council , ie the settler movement, the governement doesn't actively encourage settlement building, but it doesn't stop it either, exactly because the settler movement has political power , partially due to Israel's democratic system , whose big flaw gives alot of power to the minority. different governments at different times have taken a different approach to things, Menachem Begin was not unhappy about them , Sharon took all of the settlers out of Gaza. ie , just like in any democracy, different leaders have different views, that change frequently.Darkman2007

[QUOTE="Darkman2007"]well I edited my previous post to explain the 2 things i hear most as reasons for why Israel is racist apparenty , you might want to read that. why do they build settlements? the question is who builds them. the answer to that is the Yesha council , ie the settler movement, the governement doesn't actively encourage settlement building, but it doesn't stop it either, exactly because the settler movement has political power , partially due to Israel's democratic system , whose big flaw gives alot of power to the minority. different governments at different times have taken a different approach to things, Menachem Begin was not unhappy about them , Sharon took all of the settlers out of Gaza. ie , just like in any democracy, different leaders have different views, that change frequently.sherman-tank1