Golan: Israel troops fire on pro-Palestinian protesters

I am no supporter of israel by any stretch of the mind, in fact I pray for the day when the state is abolished and crushed under foot.
But as long as they hold the title to the land, they were just defending their land.
These folks who were shot died in vain.
They should have armed themselves and made this act an invasion, instead they ran blindly into israeli bullets.
What did they think would happen?
Especially with the israeli track record.
Not the best plan in my opinion.

Originally posted by maloy
What LAW would that be? And what if one acquired the land in question as a result of a failed conquest attempt by country whose land was acquired?

I don't have the page on hand, but you can do some research and confirm it yourself. But it is a well known international law, you have to be some real fool to not know you can't gain land by military conquest, it's not the middle ages anymore. You can confirm it if you still don't believe me.

To answer your second question, I believe whichever nation starts the conflict, should not have the right to claim another nations land. But that's a personal opinion..Not law.

Originally posted by budski
International law - you should try reading it sometime.

When the big boys like Russia, China, US, and EU start to follow international laws directly as they are writtern, everyone else can too. Until then international laws are just guidelines open for interpretation - especially to the side that carries the bigger stick. That is how the world operates. Don't like it? Tough luck, go find a bigger stick.

Originally posted by budski
Or, maybe, if someone came into your house and declared it was their own, we should let them have your house?

Sure they can go ahead and try. And I have the right to shoot any trespassers within my house who I perceive to be a danger to myself. And I do have the means to shoot the trespassers. Otherwise I would invite the local law enforcement to come down.

And here lies the difference between national and international laws. National laws have a set scope and jurisdication, and in most cases can be effectively administered by authories. International laws have neither.

Originally posted by g146541
I am no supporter of israel by any stretch of the mind, in fact I pray for the day when the state is abolished and crushed under foot.
But as long as they hold the title to the land, they were just defending their land.
These folks who were shot died in vain.
They should have armed themselves and made this act an invasion, instead they ran blindly into israeli bullets.
What did they think would happen?
Especially with the israeli track record.
Not the best plan in my opinion.

They don't hold title to the land - they don't hold anything except in a military sense.

What they do is forceably eject people from their homes, then move their own people in.

Mostly european, with a smattering of americans, which is where most israeli's come from.

So, just how is it their land?

It's not - they are an occupying army, with expansionist policies.

reply to post by BiGGz


Actually I can. As I stated, the resolution ending the 6 day war was specific about territory being returned. The arab governments did not sign onto the resolution, so there is no offical resolution to the 6 day war.

Sainai was rreturned.

The remaining areas were to be returned when peace was established with Israel, and those governments refused.

Israel has a right to defend itself, especially from groups that are not invovled in the conflict. If you read the artcile, it states groups that support palestinians. It would be no different than groups of armed mexican crossing into the US to support illegal immigrants who have been arrested.

We would have a right to defend ourselves.

ISrael is not an angel,, and neither are the palestinians.

The law you are citing about not being able to annex territory is a technicality in this case, beause Israel has not annexed it (with the exception of East Jurusalem), they are occuping it, which is permissible under international law. Isreal does not have diplomatic relations with Syria, and vice versa, and since they (syria)( never signed onto the Un resolution ending the 6 day war, Israel has every right under international law to occupy it until a treay is established.

However, if you are going to invoke international law, then make sure you spread it out, because its not just Israel that is in violation of it.

In for a penny, in for a pound.

If you are going to hold the palestinians to a differnt standard when it comes to violation of international law, then be prepared for international law to be ignored by the party that its being unfailry applied to.

reply to post by maloy


It's strange how it always comes down to the same message from certain political mindsets - "what's mine is mine, and if I can take some more off someone else, I will"

Anyone would think we didn't want world peace, because that would mean the end of certain ways of continuing the alleged wealth, that is in fact built on a house of cards.

Originally posted by budski
reply to post by maloy

 

It's strange how it always comes down to the same message from certain political mindsets - "what's mine is mine, and if I can take some more off someone else, I will"

Anyone would think we didn't want world peace, because that would mean the end of certain ways of continuing the alleged wealth, that is in fact built on a house of cards.

This is als the mindset of certain arab countries, groups and palestinians.

As I said, its a 2 way street here. Both sides are acting irresponsible.

Originally posted by BiGGz
Golan heights was captured during the Six-Day war. Meaning Israel militarily conquered it by force and held onto it after the war. That is illegal in the international law. So in translation, Israel holds de facto control of the Golan heights, but not legitimate ownership. The Golan Heights is still part of Syria and has to be returned one day by law.

You don't need to teach me Middle East history. I know it well enough, or else I would not bother to speak on the subject matter. The Six-Day war was started by a number of countries, including Syria, with intent to capture Israel's territory and potentially eliminate Israel's population. And it is not the first time it happened. So Israel, after defeating the aggressor, felt the need to secure a strategic area. It may not be in conformance with international laws, but neither are a lot of things many countries, including the US, are doing around the world.

Russia held on to half of Germany for 45 years, and permanently transfered Kaliningrad to its control after WWII. Go ahead and tell them that they are violating international law, and see if they care. They care more about the fact that tens of millions of their people died at the hands of an aggressor.

Originally posted by BiGGz
Palestinians or Syrians crossing the border into the Golan heights was not them breaching Israels border, but them breaching the makeshift border between the Syrian Golan and Syria.

They knew well enough that this is a well defended no-mans land, and they will get shot for it.

Let's try this experiment - try and cross the border from Cuba into Guantanamo Bay, and see what happens. That too is a makeshift border.

Originally posted by BiGGz
So again, Golan Heights is a military occupation and conquest. It is illegal.

And because it is illegal - lets all go and get killed for acting stupid and playing the fire. That'll show them. That'll make it right. Or not.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
The law you are citing about not being able to annex territory is a technicality in this case, beause Israel has not annexed it (with the exception of East Jurusalem), they are occuping it, which is permissible under international law. Isreal does not have diplomatic relations with Syria, and vice versa, and since they (syria)( never signed onto the Un resolution ending the 6 day war, Israel has every right under international law to occupy it until a treay is established.

I'll say this 1 last time, then I'm leaving.

Acquiring land by military conquest is AGAINST INTERNATIONAL LAW.

There is no more debating this, because it is against the law. Stop trying to find a way around the law, because IT IS AGAINST THE LAW!

God, I feel like I'm arguing with a bunch of orthodox Jews

Originally posted by maloy
You don't need to teach me Middle East history. I know it well enough, or else I would not bother to speak on the subject matter. The Six-Day war was started by a number of countries, including Syria, with intent to capture Israel's territory and potentially eliminate Israel's population. And it is not the first time it happened. So Israel, after defeating the aggressor, felt the need to secure a strategic area. It may not be in conformance with international laws, but neither are a lot of things many countries, including the US, are doing around the world.

Apparently you don't know to much because the Six-Day war was started by Israel striking Egypt and Syria first and foremost.

reply to post by BiGGz


So you agree that the US should leave Guantamo Bay? And what if we stretch history a little bit - should the US give California and Texas back to Mexico?

A simple Yes or No.

reply to post by budski


I would agree with you but,...
These people ran into israeli weapons.
This is the equvalent to the chickens running into the foxhole.
It had to end badly, these people stupidly sacrificed their lives.
Like I said, I don't support israel but even I see the wrong that was done.

reply to post by BiGGz


Military Conquest is not against the law when its done under Article VII Chapter 52 Un Charter.

A country has a right to self defense. The territory captured, again with the exception of Jerusalem, was not annexed. It is to be reutrned with the conlcusion of peace treaties and recognition of ISraels right to exist, which has not occured.

The UN Charter specifically states a country has a right to self defense, and nothing under Un charter or itnernational law can trump that right. There is no treaty between Syrian and ISrael, which means there is no violation of any international law present.

Out of curiosity, where are all the arguments against illegal wars and occupation towards the arabs who tried several times to wipe israel off the map? Again, your one sided argument is showing through here. There is enough to spread around to all countries present in the MIddle East, as well as a few supoerpowers as well.

Singaling out Israel and ignoring what the other countries do is the exact argument people make against the US and other western governments when it comes to ISraeli actions.

Some research for you -
UN resolutions dealing with the 6 day war

Specifically UN 242

Originally posted by Xcathdra
Some research for you -
UN resolutions dealing with the 6 day war

And here's some research for you:

en.wikipedia.org...

(i) Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict; (ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force." [3]

Just felt obligated to share that.......

Originally posted by BiGGz
Apparently you don't know to much because the Six-Day war was started by Israel striking Egypt and Syria first and foremost.

If you look at the Six-Day war only in the context of the six days of intense fighting then yes it was. If you look at the historical context, the war was started in 1948, and to this day is being fought. Ask this of both Israelis and Palestinians, and they will tell you the same thing. Israel saw it as a preemptive strike, establishing measures to enable its continued survival. The Yom Kippur War of 1973 reinforced this idea, and proved that Israel's actions were important to their self-defense. That is not to say this Israel didn't make critical political mistakes.

I am not trying to make a judgement on whether Israel capturing Golan Heights was legal or righteous. But the current situation is what it is - and to make an attempt to cross the no-mans land in Golan Heights is calling for trouble. You may be a dedicated vegetarian, and can walk into a tiger's cage to protest the fact that a tiger is not a vegetarian. What would you prove? Is you life worth it?

And lets be real. These Syrians aren't staging these border crossings because they woke up and had an overwhelming feeling that they must do something like this. Somebody organized them, most likely somebody with a pressing political agenda. That somebody knew that people would die, and most likely paid the protesters. And that somebody didn't go to cross the border themselves - they are sitting in an office or a Presidential residence, and admiring the slaughter that they instigated.

Originally posted by maloy
Here is the situation, and a simple truth:
No country in the world will allow its territory to be penetrated by hooligans and vandals, or anyone else for that matter.

O rly?

Sergei Mikhailov: Gangster

Mikhailov sent his soldiers all over the world to set up base he himself decided to go to Israel. Israel is a popular residence among Russian mobsters because it has a certain rule: Jews from all over the world may return to Israel and can not be refused even if they are on the run from the law.

Sex trafficking in Israel

Thousands of women are being smuggled into Israel, creating a booming sex trade industry that rakes more than USD one billion a year, a parliamentary committee said on Wednesday

Mcmafia
Chapter 5: Aliyah
Just read the first page even.

reply to post by maloy

You don't need to teach me Middle East history. I know it well enough, or else I would not bother to speak on the subject matter. The Six-Day war was started by a number of countries, including Syria, with intent to capture Israel's territory and potentially eliminate Israel's population.

Let's let the General's Son teach you some history friend...

reply to post by FEDec


And what is your point. That some criminals get away with certain actions, while others are arrested or shot? No country in the world has the means to stop criminal actions and enfore all of their laws, but they all make a strong effort to do so.

Originally posted by JR MacBeth
Let's let the General's Son teach you some history friend...

I don't let people teach me history. I especially don't let people with questionable credibility and motives teach me history. I read and learn it myself. I read the information provided by both sides, as well as neutral sides.

Alright friend? Or do you want me to summon somebody to teach you history?

Originally posted by maloy
reply to post by FEDec

 

And what is your point. That some criminals get away with certain actions, while others are arrested or shot? No country in the world has the means to stop criminal actions and enfore all of their laws, but they all make a strong effort to do so.

My point is that for a country with such a high security budget an inordinate amount of crime occurs. Which would suggest cooperation between criminals and Israeli government and security forces