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: Thomas M. who wrote (7055)	10/17/2001 3:58:06 PM
From: goldsnow	Respond to of 23908

also by immoral methods).. War is always fought by immoral methods...The trick is to keep winning, as Israel can't afford to lose

To: Thomas M. who wrote (7055)	10/17/2001 4:11:57 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 23908

Sure... they arrested them in agreement with the Oslo accords.... But then they released some 2,000 of them several years ago and much of the violence has perpetrated by them. I guess Israel should release all of its radical fanatics as well?? How about just letting them do what they want and not interfering? Jewish extremists against Palestinians fanatics?? Heck... why not?? Hawk

To: Thomas M. who wrote (7055)	10/17/2001 4:24:39 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 23908

Btw, Tommie Boy.... I have a homework assignment for you.. I want you find WHERE in International Law, or the Rules of War, dictate that ANY NATION is required to return land from which hostile action was perpetrated against it. International Law does state that no nation has a right to expand its borders through conquest, and thus, we saw Israel return the Sinai once a peace treaty was consumated with Egypt. Since there has been NO peace treaty between Syria and Israel, the issue of the Golan Heights remains open. (Israel's "land for peace" strategy). Of course, some have made a valid claim that Egypt's blockade of Israelis access to the Red Sea prior to the 6-day war in 1967, was essentially an act of war. Thus, Israel really had every right to continue to occupy the Sinai in order to prevent another such blockade. But the West Bank belonged to Jordan, which had annexed it in 1948. And in 1967, despite being implored by Israel to remain neutral, King Hussein attacked Israel FROM THE WEST BANK. It was captured from him and Israel demanded a peace treaty be in place before returning it. But Hussein was smart and decided to disclaim ownership of the West Bank, thus leaving the question of a Palestinian homeland for Israel to resolve rather than having to assume that responsibility for Jordan. And once disclaimed, the West Bank essentially become Israeli territory, and delivered to them the right to determine how they would deal with it. Telling Israel that they have to establish territory they rightfully won as a result of being attacked, and continues to remain vital to the nation's security has no basis in international law. And btw, forget posting UN resolutions. They are political interpretations of international law, which vary with the people serving in the General Assembly. Find me the actual international agreement that governs such matters. Only THEN will I accept your "interpretation" that Israel's occupation is illegal. Btw, here's a few hints for you "uti possidetis" "terra nullius" (pertinent to the period when Jordan disclaimed ownership of the West Bank). Hawk