The rules of the Cro Magnon society are hardly acceptable as the rules of the current so called "civilized" society. We have laws and such now, and the world is not anymore the place where the biggest ape can take whatever he wants. (Although the US is trying hard to be that ape...)

For some countries it is the way things are, not for all. There are many countries that could attack other countries but they still don't.

Like it's been said, the UN don't have the necessary military capability (because at the moment it's the only thing people seem to reason with) to enforce its decisions and maintain the world peace. That doesn't mean that the nations shouldn't follow the rules. There are authorities in where I live, but they are not around all the time to maintain the rules. So I could beat someone up if I wanted to, but I still don't. Why? Because I choose to live by the rules of the society. That's what countries should do also, and many actually do. Sadly, there will always be some bullies around who will only obey the rules when they are no longer the strongest ones.

It is for some countries who have decided that the rules don't apply to them.

You seriously claim that the Palestinians' demand to get their land back is the same as giving the whole of South America back to the few remaining natives, or the US to the few remaining natives? You talk of principles here, but the Palestinian situation and these "other" situation are not the same thing. Many of the Palestinians for whom the land was taken still live today, and they want their land back. I haven't heard of any large movements in the US to give the whole of the US back to the natives. The society is also not the same as it was before. Things change, what might've once been approvable may not be so today, in the modern society. Very old errors can also be hard, or impossible to fix.

__________________

I believe peopke are confusing Law with Justice. They are not mutually exclusive, but there are scores of situations where one could argue that´s exactlly what is happening.
I also believe there´s some confusion regarding the Israeli-Arab wars. Israel is still holding the Golam heights and some other pieces of territory that was not theirs, but this has little to do with the palestinian´s plight.
The palestinians did not invade Israel, nor have they participated in any state sponsored wars.
Also, one should not take the word of organizations such as Hammas and Hezbollah as if they spoke for the entire palestinian population. Although these groups preach the extermination of the jewish people, we can hardly pin that cliché on the entire population.
What we are discussing here, is a few settlements that were established after the 1967 border agreement by the UN, and that Bush has greenlighted Sharon to keep. It has nothing to do with lost territory by the egyptians, the syrians or the jordanians. These territories are deep inside Cysjordanian land(west bank), completely encircled by Israeli land. I just thought we should clear that out.
The issue here is wether Sharon has the right to shit all over the peace agreements, and wether Bush has the right to hand him the toillete paper. It´s quite simple.
We have heard Bush claiming several times that he was very much interested in ending the palestinian/israeli conflict, but his recent actions state otherwise.
It´s also pointless to argue anyone´s birthrights and ancestral rights over the land. It´s not the main point anyway. The palestinian people already lived there, they didn´t come from elsewhere. they weren´t put there as a result of some Society of Nation´s agreement, they were just there. And then came the israelis and pushed them off those lands. That is proven, it´s a fact. Wether the israelis had a similar right to live there or not, is purely academical. The fact is, in order to make room for the millions of jews originating from all across Europe, they had to expell the inhabitants of that land. And this is a true example of what i talked about earlier: The law commanded the Israelis to move in, but where´s the justice in that?

The Society of Nations, and later the UN commited a huge mistake, and they still haven´t admited to doing so, over 50 years later.
In the rush to evict the jews from Europe, we created a huge problem. Althought the Allies were fighting WWII under the save-the-jews banner, the fact is that no one really wanted them, so they dumped the proverbial hot potatoe on someone else. In this case the palestinians, who had no way to prevent it, or even had a say in it. They were just stuck with it.

__________________
"Quincitilius Varus, give me back my legions!"
Emperor Augustus of Rome.

Isn't Israel a sovereign nation, capable of doing what she wants in any instance?
How is that construed as, "Israel may take whatever land it wishes."
What's the distinction? What is the law/rule that allows 1.2 million Arabs to live in Israel but forbids the rest?
So you don't think Hamas is trying to kill every Jew?
Then, there's that little thing about blowing up civilians. But hey, all's fair in love and war, right? I can't even begin to fathom how you believe there is no moral difference between Hamas and Israel.

__________________
In this country, we don't need reasons to make things legal; we need reasons to make things illegal. - Startup

You asked me who made the rule, not whether it's an acceptable rule today. Acceptable and actual are completely different things. And, as I said, a law that is not enforceable is as good as no law at all.
Are you saying there are no living Mexicans or Native Americans? They want their land back too, and they have organized movements to lobby the nation in order to accomplish their goals. The only difference between them and the Palestinians is the fact that they aren't blowing up children. Maybe that's why you haven't heard of them. Maybe that's why they don't get as much press as the Palestinians. Maybe they should start blowing up civilians so they can get some press and make people aware of their plight.

__________________
In this country, we don't need reasons to make things legal; we need reasons to make things illegal. - Startup

Yes. But why should the US approve of Israel carrying out actions which are illegal?

In light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli population centres, it is unrealistic that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949, and all previous efforts to negotiate a two-state solution have reached the same conclusion,"

Bush is not saying that Israel can take whatever land it wishes, he is saying that she can keep some of the land that is disputed. This is how most analysts are interpreting the above statement.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3627465.stm

Im not sure what the exact law/wording is here. I do know that any Jew, anywhere in the world, can easily immigrate to Israel, a process known as aaliyah. This is not the case for the millions of Palestinian refugees living in camps and in diaspora. The right of return is a big issue amongst the Palestinian groups.

No.

Well, there is also that little thing about military occupation, checkpoints, military courts, detentions, targeted assasinations, etc...I think that suicide bombings flow from this kind of oppression. That doesent mean that I approve of such tactics or think they are effective.

I did say "moral difference between the political objectives" of Hamas (Islamic state) and the political reality that is the Jewish state of Israel.

If this is what you meant, then I might agree. This is a far cry from "greenlighting" someone or something. The US is not giving its permission for Israel to do anything. It doesn't have to, Israel is a sovereign nation.
By your own definition of what constitutes legal and illegal land rights, the armistice lines of 1949 are illegal. This land was gained by the British through war.

Aside from that, Israel did not set out to gain land through war. She protected herself, and in that protection she gained land. If the various Arab nations had not attacked her she would have what she had in 1949. We can go on and on about this, but you'll never convince me that an agressor has a right to be returned to parity, like some deadly game of "do-overs". They screwed up, they should have to pay the consequences.
Again, Bush is not saying Israel can or cannot do anything. Israel can do whatever she wants.
Well, that's unfortunate. But it sounds like Israel's problem. Perhaps if she wasn't constantly worried about the next suicide bomber she could be more open with her borders. If a couple billion people were standing on my front door waiting to come in and kill me, I'd probably check a few ID's at the door too.
Wow.
Right. The Palestinians have numerously been given exactly what they've asked for and have consistently turned it down in favor of demanding even more.

I'll grant that both parties are to blame for the cycle of violence, but I'll bet Israel didn't start it. If anyone can point me to a link that proves otherwise I would love to read it.
The political objectives of Hamas is to wipe Israel off the map. Representatives have stated it numerous times, it's in their charter, they won't stop until Israel is gone. Do you honestly believe that if everything were returned to the UN mandated borders that Hamas would be happy with a Jewish state right next door?

You seem to be a very intelligent person NH0P, I would really like to know how someone of your intelligence could possibly believe this.

__________________
In this country, we don't need reasons to make things legal; we need reasons to make things illegal. - Startup

Greenlighting is useless and not needed for the above stated reason. However, the fact of the matter is that Israel wouldn't fuck with the Palestinians if the US would not be prepared to help Israel out if another Muslim state were to attempt to kick her ass. In that respect the US does "permit" the events to unfold.

If the US ever wants to truly end the cycle of violence, all she has to do is to stop money and arms from flowing to Israel and stop sticking up for Israel in the UN. A couple of sanctions would do wonders I bet!

__________________
_____________________________________________

Yes, this is what I mean. Also, yes, Israel is a sovereign nation, and can do what she wants. That doesen't change the fact that the US is giving its permission for Israel to do certain things in this instance. Whether Israel chooses to follow this advice is another matter. It is important to remember though that Israel is the #1 recipient of US financial and military assistance in the world. If the US chooses to defy US "advice", there may be serious consequences. This, plus the fact that the US is the world's preeminent superpower, does give us a certain amount of leverage here.

In this case, US statements suggest that as far as we are concerned, we have no problem if Israel carry out actions that are illegal under international law. Aside from the moral implications of this, how do you think this affects our reputation as a nation which encourages the rule of law? How about our role as an "honest" broker for peace in the Middle East? What kind of message does this send to the Arabs and the world? I wonder if this is likely to make the Iraqis have more confidence in us as occupiers and liberators.

Its not *my* definition, its internationally accepted definitions that we are talking about here.

Also, the 1949 armistice lines dont have anything to do with the British; they refer to the first Arab-Israeli war. The British, while victims of terrorism during their occupation of Palestine, did withdraw in a legally acceptable manner, codified in UN GA181 resolution

It is indeed unfortunate. However, the Palestinian refugee problem has been around for a long time,(since 48) much longer in fact than the tactic of suicide bombing, which started in the mid 90's.

They have?

If the political objective of Hamas is the destruction of Israel, why would I beleive that they would be satisfied with a return to UN mandated borders and a "Jewish state next door"?

The goal of Hamas is the liberation of Palestine, all of it. The PLO, or Fatah, has accepted the idea of a 2 state solution. I wouldn't be surprised if these actions spell the death of the whole idea of the 2 state solution. In my opinion the one state solution is the better idea, though I would like to see it achieved through nonviolent means. (maybe like the civil rights struggle of MLK) I hope the Palestinians can get their act together and start acting in a more effective manner.

Advice is not permission.
So? You think we have a lot of leverage in the Muslim world? The US will never abandon Israel as long as it is a democratic and free society. As long as millions of Arabs surround her and threaten to kill her we will protect her. We would do the same for any nation; we promised to do as much in 1948. So did the rest of the free world.
You keep talking about international law. The real arbiter of these contested lands is UN Resolution 242 which stipulated that Israel withdraw "from territories occupied in the recent conflict". It also required that Arab nations recognize Israel's right to exist and the "termination of all claims or states of belligerency". Egypt, Syria, Jordan, and Lebanon have all agreed and their land has been returned. Until 1988, the PLO wouldn't even recognize Israel's right to exist, much less cease its aggression toward Israel (and yes, there were terrorist activities as early as 1929). As we can see, the PLO and organizations like Hamas have never ceased to threaten Israel. As such, Israel is well within international law to maintain control over the contested lands; not only because the Palestinians have yet to live up to the Resolution, but also to protect herself.
Like we will ever have the confidence or the good will of the Arab/Muslim world. As long as we support Israel's right to exist, we will forever be on wrong side of Islam.
Huh? The British began establishing a "Jewish State" as early as 1917. They took this land from the Ottomans and gave it to the Jews. Wasn't that "illegal"?
Actually, I was wrong. They got everything they demanded in the Oslo Accords except the elimination of Israel. When they returned for Oslo II their demands had changed.
I thought you had said earlier that Hamas was a humanitarian organization whose goal was NOT the destruction of Israel. Did I read that wrong?
Amen. But there will never be a one state solution.

__________________
In this country, we don't need reasons to make things legal; we need reasons to make things illegal. - Startup