Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 : War -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: GUSTAVE JAEGER who wrote (1670)	6/6/2001 12:11:25 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Respond to of 23908

The right of return, which is contained in UN General Assembly Resolution 194 of December 1948, cannot be so easily dropped. Why can't it be dropped easily? It was made null and void by the occupation and annexation of the West Bank, INCLUDING EAST JERUSALEM, by Jordan, thus making all Palestinians subjects of the Kingdom of Jordan. Once Jordan annexed that territory and Palestinians accepted such a status, the UN resolution ceased to exist. We certainly didn't see the UN issuing their resolutions against Jordan, now did we? In fact, that annexation was apparently requested by Palestinian leaders on the West Bank. jerusalemites.org "The idea of the merger of Jordanian and Palestinian territories was carried out by King Abdullah of Jordan in 1950 when he arranged a parliamentary vote for the unification of Transjordan and Palestine upon the request of the Palestinian leaders of all factions in the West Bank." And this link offers some insight as to how Jordan occupied and annexed the West Bank: mfa.gov.il As for Palestinians who had lived with Israel proper, nothing prevented them from staying as so many other Arabs chose to do. Right now Israel is 20% Arab, which certainly subverts the claim that Palestinians were the victims of mass expulsions (note the operative MASS). Israel is not without its burden of guilt for not exactly encouraging Palestinians to stay, and having bulldozed the homes of certain individuals who sought to participate in the destruction of the country. But don't exonerate the Arabs for their guilt in perpetuating the plight of the Palestinians. The Palestinians are stuck in the middle Gustave, with neither willing to permit their obtaining an autonomous state. Jordan certainly doesn't want one, because it might provide a base for undermining their Hashemite rulership. And btw, no matter how many nifty toys we have to play with, you'll never completely eliminate the need for, or the deterrent influence, of having a nation of well trained reservists. When all the toys have been expended, the JDAMS dropped, the B-2s worn out, the Apaches grounded for lack of spare parts, there will always be a need for some rifle packing grunt to secure territory. Hawk

To: GUSTAVE JAEGER who wrote (1670)	6/6/2001 12:54:38 PM
From: Zeev Hed	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 23908

Gustave, I believe that if one accepts the "right of return" of Palestinians to the pre 67 borders, you will establish a dangerous international precedent. The aggressors (the Arab nations in this case, in 48, 67 and 73), can, when defeated, in an effort to make territorial conquests (throwing the Jews to the Mediteranean), always and legitimately, ask to come back to the territory they lost. No risk in trying to conquer territories since you get it all back. Furthermore, such a precedent will provide a legal precedent for the right wing extremists in Germany to demand back Silisia and parts of Prussia which are currently under Polish and Russian control (Breslau, Danzig (now Gdansk) and Koenigsberg (now Kaliningrad)), Greek to reestablish their prior presence in Turkey and of course complicate what is already quite complex in other parts of Europe. If you feel such a "right of return" is OK after 53 years, why not 55 years. I am sure you are quite familiar with movements within the German societies acting to achieve exactly that, some even would like to get back Alsace Lorraine. I believe that International law has established quite clearly that an aggressor risks losing some of its territory, and that risk should be visible to all aggressors, otherwise, what will prevent them from trying again and again? They surely have shown that avoiding war to preserve the lives of their citizens is not very high on their agenda. No, the establishing a "Right of Return" , will destabilize Europe to such an extent that the Balkan conflicts will look like "Children Play". Zeev