Egypt might help maintain order in Gaza

[Black Baron]

That is correct, we do not need gaza, and we do not want gaza. We want to get rid of it. Unfortunately our parlament is -120 c degrees (as the number of the members) and has the equivalent iq of 1000 blind butchers- 2.

[promethius9594]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Israel is party to the UN Treaty, which forbids annexing territory. Promethius (and perhaps Black Baron, no sure) I can see no real argument that Israel has rights to Gaza -- other than those based on conquest, which as I said Israel agreed to eschew.

except there is a difference between annexing territory and assuming it by conquest in a defensive war. essentially, if palestine had left israel alone then israel would not have any valid claim to taking the gaza strip, but by attacking they changed the situation such that for israel to take the gaza strip it could no longer be considered simple annexation of territory.

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by promethius9594: except there is a difference between annexing territory and assuming it by conquest in a defensive war.

No there isn't.

[Black Baron]

There is a difference, TL. The one who lost must pay. It is the way of war in our history. The lost side either pays amends/contribution or its lands are confiscated. The situation to day shows us clearly that we already confiscated somewhere around 10% of the territories, permamently. The rest, could be returned due to political and security problems.

That is however beside the point.

Gaza was taken from Egypt. There was no "palestine" back then. Egypt does not want it. As the matter of fact no one in the world wants it. It is a total useless area with no resources and infrastructure and with loads of poor fanatics. We return it not because of our good will (like we returned Jericho to arafat), but because we do not want to own such a bothersome thing. While our claim is just, it is the same as the claim of ownership over mud pile. Best let it go.

[Timber Loftis]

Well, fair enough on why you don't *want* it.

But, in 1967, the UN Treaty said nothing about confiscating land as war repairations. Whatever your traditions were before then, the agreement your country signed said they can't take the land -- regardless of whether Egypt wanted it or not. Sovereignty is paramount -- and no act on this Earth or in heaven can make the Gaza, or the other 10% Israel intends to keep, the rightful property of Israel. It is illegally-gotten gains, but like other wrongs in history, the world will never make Israel own up to it.

[promethius9594]

timber, bone up on governmental law a bit. annexing territory has to do with expanding borders through a peacetime political move. my city annexes territory all the time. when it comes to conquered land, annexing has nothing to do with it.

the annexation clause was put there to appease the neighboring nations. those nations broke their end of the deal, so i dont see how israel SHOULDN'T get a piece of the spoils. if they want to let that spoils go, then thats their choice. the fact that they gave anything back was not necessary, but a show of good will. if a treaty was broken already, regardless of the term annex OR conquest, then israel had no need to stand by it either.

[Timber Loftis]

Countries under the UN Treaty have to abide by the treaty whether or not they are dealing with countries that are not parties to the UN Treaty. But, Egypt was a party at the time, anyway, I believe, so you point still fails.

[Timber Loftis]

UN Treaty:

Article 2: 4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

Since it references the purposes, here they are:

The Purposes of the United Nations are:

1. To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;

2. To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self■determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;

3. To achieve international co■operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion; and

4. To be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends.

[ 06-01-2004, 05:54 PM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

[promethius9594]

right, and since egypt WAS party to the treaty, and then VIOLATED that treated by attacking israel, the treaty became entirely null and void. after the war, if both nations agreed to once again live by that treaty that's their choice, but during the war there was no UN treaty to be considered, since Egypt smashed it with a hammer.

[Timber Loftis]

Nope, wrong again, Promethius, the UN Treaty does not work that way. Even if it did, I will note that all Egypt did was amass troops along the border in preparation for war -- not a violation of the UN Treaty. I suggest you read the durned thing rather than continue to think it supports your view of what is fair and what is not.