SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Lou Weed who wrote (226218)4/5/2007 5:57:10 PM
From: Nadine Carroll  Read Replies (1) of 281500
 
Nobody ever said Jordan had to hold the land in limbo when they held it. Who howled when Jordan annexed the land and changed its name from Transjordan to Jordan? That only happened when Israel took it.

The Geneva Conventions do not deal with today's realities, neither for land that was taken in a defensive war with a previously occupier who then first refuses to negotiate the land for 30 years, then gives up all claims to the land. The Conventions are talking about land with a legitimate owner to whom it should be returned.

Once again I ask, who is that? For whose legitimate interest should the land be held in limbo?
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News