Time to Annex Judea and Samaria

[Selous]

Originally Posted by ipser

They didn't just miss the bus, they took the wrong bus. There is good reason to suspect they are still bent on destroying Israel.

If I got on the wrong bus I'd want to get on the right bus, wouldn't you? ..having said that I may've stretched this metaphor too much.

But the question is: what are they having a go at? Are they having another go at destroying Israel and erecting a Palestinian state over the entire area?

I think some certainly have that in mind, yes. Then again some others may simply want a state of their own. Most people, I am told, want this for some reason or another. I'm sure there's a lot of bitter feeling, perhaps poorly placed, on the Israelis that goes along with that.

Not yet. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WLrrBs8JBQo

I believe that's what I said, albeit with words rather than moving pictures.

But you seemed to miss the point of the case study - Scotland may go from one status to another. From not a state, to a state. Successful secession even after 300ish years of being in the same state as three other nations. But is and has been since the beginning of interesting history, a society on broadly national lines, within another state. Would that be comparable to the US states back in the day? I am asking. Because Scotland is a nation. Or rather it isn't. The Scottish are a nation. Scotland is a country. Virginia for example, unless I am quite mistaken, never was either? I don't know, was it comparable? In any case, Virginia I think its fair to say, was a system within a larger one, albeit a group. The enemy, The UK, was one sovereign actor, I thought the Colonies and then the fledgling US, were also.

You're just not being accurate about the history. There was no president until the current constitution which was written and adopted a decade after the end of the war. There was nothing quick about it. The declaration of indepdendence was by a colonial congress, signed by the representatives of each state.

Ah, but it is questioning inaccuracy from ignorance, not state and from malicious intent.I did ask
Did the colonies, on the international stage, not move as one, or have some kind of supra-state body for that brief period (a decade is a blink of an eye) or during the war? Were those 'states' truly sovereign? They aren't any-more as I understand it they aren't allowed to secede and are certainly subject to federal, ie, state (IR use of the term) laws and happenings. The US government takes care of all the dealings with other states - was this not so in the war? did the French sign up to help one party or 13? I do not know.

It runs both ways too. Often the charities end up supporting the terrorists. And recall also that under Islam there is no separation of chruch and state so a mosque is a barracks.

I don't doubt. But that if anything, suggests they ARE taking some steps to form some kind of society of some kind at least in their own way. Or rather, the local bully boys are, with them at the top. What ultimately will get them the 'right' to a sovereign state will be the use of their might, which they seem all too keen on using, unfortunately for the poor souls they'll target.

[ipser]

Originally Posted by Selous

If I got on the wrong bus I'd want to get on the right bus, wouldn't you? ..having said that I may've stretched this metaphor too much.

Well, yeah, and no. Yeah, I'd want to change if I got on the wrong bus. But the Palestinians don't think they are on the wrong bus. They are on the bus they want to be on, it's just a longer ride than they expected.

I think some certainly have that in mind, yes. Then again some others may simply want a state of their own. Most people, I am told, want this for some reason or another. I'm sure there's a lot of bitter feeling, perhaps poorly placed, on the Israelis that goes along with that.

This is exactly what I said earlier: not taking them at their word. I'm sure there are plenty of Palestinians who would be happy to live peacefully alongside the Israelis but the key questions is who has the power and is the likely outcome? All the evidence points to a Hamastan that will use the west bank as a launching pad.

I believe that's what I said, albeit with words rather than moving pictures. But you seemed to miss the point of the case study - Scotland may go from one status to another. From not a state, to a state. Successful secession even after 300ish years of being in the same state as three other nations. But is and has been since the beginning of interesting history, a society on broadly national lines, within another state. Would that be comparable to the US states back in the day? I am asking. Because Scotland is a nation. Or rather it isn't. The Scottish are a nation. Scotland is a country. Virginia for example, unless I am quite mistaken, never was either? I don't know, was it comparable? In any case, Virginia I think its fair to say, was a system within a larger one, albeit a group. The enemy, The UK, was one sovereign actor, I thought the Colonies and then the fledgling US, were also.

In many respects Virginia had more autonomy in the confederation than the UK has in the EU.

But the more important point is this: as far as I am aware, there is no independence movement in Scottland that claims England as it's homeland and openly pledges to drive out the Anglo Saxon invaders.

Ah, but it is questioning inaccuracy from ignorance, not state and from malicious intent.I did ask Did the colonies, on the international stage, not move as one, or have some kind of supra-state body for that brief period (a decade is a blink of an eye) or during the war? Were those 'states' truly sovereign? They aren't any-more as I understand it they aren't allowed to secede and are certainly subject to federal, ie, state (IR use of the term) laws and happenings. The US government takes care of all the dealings with other states - was this not so in the war? did the French sign up to help one party or 13? I do not know.

Of course, I am not imputing malice and even most Americans are ignorant of this aspect of history. It's much simpler to teach that the United States came into being instantly 1776.

Secession and nullifcation were very much in debate until after the American Civil War. The southern states were not kooks, they just lost in the test of arms fighting for a tainted cause.

Here is a bit on the early confederation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articles_of_Confederation

I don't doubt. But that if anything, suggests they ARE taking some steps to form some kind of society of some kind at least in their own way. Or rather, the local bully boys are, with them at the top. What ultimately will get them the 'right' to a sovereign state will be the use of their might, which they seem all too keen on using, unfortunately for the poor souls they'll target.

Well, sure, and there is the PA which grew out of the PLO. But the key problem is that a state controls its borders and, firstly, there is no settlement of boundaries, and second, Israel relies on military occupation of the west bank to protect itself from invasion. (Gaza borders desert, not cities but even it has been used as a lauching point of missles that are ranging further.)

[marktwain]

[QUOTE=Selous;2450820]So what you’re saying is, they missed the bus, so …give up now?
I don’t much care for their cause – it doesn’t bother me either or. But if they have the stones and want another go at it, I cannot really say they haven’t the right any more than I can say Israel haven’t the right to prevent it. I cannot in good faith accord the right or wrong, a judgement call, in what I see as an amoral international system.

That sounds very much like Israel’s problem. But it’s a strong state.

Not just thinking; there’s to be a referendum on it either this year or next. And in the process of independence, should it come to pass, Scotland will go from nationally defined administrative zone with certain domestic powers but few international ones (not a state) to a nation-state, a state with sovereign territory and powers over an identified nation and an international actor. From the outside looking at the UK, there is but one state actor (for now),
the same for the United States (even back in the day), the internal complexities are all limited to the point where the internal region cannot be a sovereign force with independence.
---------------------------------------------
The article in the OP does not reference any 'international law'.
Might makes right'
is the only referenced point.
There WAS an existing Palestine state: The British Mandate for Palestine. And it was Clearly intended, under law, to provide an independent state, not an 'Israeli Colony'
That never occurred.

[ipser]

Originally Posted by marktwain

The article in the OP does not reference any 'international law'.
Might makes right'
is the only referenced point.
There WAS an existing Palestine state: The British Mandate for Palestine. And it was Clearly intended, under law, to provide an independent state, nto an 'Isreali Colony'
That never occurred.

It didn't occur because the Arabs chose war. Nobody complained when Jordan annexed the west bank because it was understood that there was no prospect of a Palestinian state. You keep trying to turn the clock back to the chioces made in 1948 but the Palestinians don't regret their choice and are still pursuing the same strategy by different tactics.

[Selous]

Originally Posted by ipser

Well, yeah, and no. Yeah, I'd want to change if I got on the wrong bus. But the Palestinians don't think they are on the wrong bus. They are on the bus they want to be on, it's just a longer ride than they expected.

This is exactly what I said earlier: not taking them at their word. I'm sure there are plenty of Palestinians who would be happy to live peacefully alongside the Israelis but the key questions is who has the power and is the likely outcome? All the evidence points to a Hamastan that will use the west bank as a launching pad.

Bolded; Agreed, definitely. And if I were Israel I would be concerned about any weakening of my security arrangements.

In many respects Virginia had more autonomy in the confederation than the UK has in the EU.

Indeed? That's news to me, what respects? (I mean, on the one hand it would be unsurprising, but as far as I know Virginia is a federal state with all that implies and the UK is not, yet.) Virginia cannot secede legally, as I understand it, and gain sovereignty, whereas Scotland may soon do so from the UK, and the UK can leave the EU, thus exercising sovereignty. The last time US states tried this they were dealt with.

But the more important point is this: as far as I am aware, there is no independence movement in Scottland that claims England as it's homeland and openly pledges to drive out the Anglo Saxon invaders.

Hmm, that's true, though the Cornish do, I am sure of it.

Of course, I am not imputing malice and even most Americans are ignorant of this aspect of history. It's much simpler to teach that the United States came into being instantly 1776.

Thank you, American history is not taught here in schools, you see, and I've never looked at this part of US history.

Secession and nullifcation were very much in debate until after the American Civil War. The southern states were not kooks, they just lost in the test of arms fighting for a tainted cause.

But even in the ACW, the Confederacy sent ambassadors, formed armies and naval forces, and conducted all diplomatic processes, held a president and other tiers of government.
Even in this Congress it seems many sovereign powers were given to a central group rather than by the states; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article...ation#Function

Here is a bit on the early confederation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articles_of_Confederation

Thank you kindly

[marktwain]

Originally Posted by Michele

Exactly. Or, better, there could be people - namely the other claimants to the same piece of land - telling them: you can't have this because we want it... as is made quite clear by the blunt language of the proposal itself, after all, that's what "annex" means.
Or they could be told that the idea is economically or geostrategically or practically not feasible, or that it would destabilize the region, and so on and so forth, like what the Basques, Kurds and so on get told all the time.

What is ludicrous is telling them: you can't get that because you're not a nation.

Perhpas someone can post a lead article that is more balanced.
I feel Earl Peel would have had the author of the article chucked out of the hearing room in five minutes-!
I have psoted the Signed ongoing protocol from 1995.

[ipser]

Originally Posted by Selous

Bolded; Agreed, definitely. And if I were Israel I would be concerned about any weakening of my security arrangements.

It's hard to see how a Palestinian state led by those currently in power wouldn't do that.

Indeed? That's news to me, what respects? (I mean, on the one hand it would be unsurprising, but as far as I know Virginia is a federal state with all that implies and the UK is not, yet.) Virginia cannot secede legally, as I understand it, and gain sovereignty, whereas Scotland may soon do so from the UK, and the UK can leave the EU, thus exercising sovereignty. The last time US states tried this they were dealt with.

Remember, we're talking about Virginia under the Confederation during the war for independence and the decade (or so) after. Even under the current constitution, the secession option was only elminated by force of arms. And although the federal courts will never endorse nullification, as a practical matter it is always an option. A state can simply choose not to cooperate with the enforcement of federal law. My larger point is that "nation building" was more gradual than most people appreciate.

Hmm, that's true, though the Cornish do, I am sure of it. Thank you, American history is not taught here in schools, you see, and I've never looked at this part of US history. But even in the ACW, the Confederacy sent ambassadors, formed armies and naval forces, and conducted all diplomatic processes, held a president and other tiers of government.
Even in this Congress it seems many sovereign powers were given to a central group rather than by the states; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article...ation#Function
Thank you kindly

Yes, but those ambassadors had limited authority. Even today the authority to approve a treaty is reserved to the Senate which was originally a body composed of state representatives. The navy was always centralized but even as late as WWI the US army was pitifully small, barely capable of repelling Indians and guarding the coast. Whenever an army of any size was required it was up to the states to form regiments. It was not until after WWII that the US had a standing army of any significance.

[marktwain]

Originally Posted by Golani

Yeah I do.
I don't see why Peel's the standard and not the 1947 partition plan, for one.

The partition plan for itself was unrelevant for today as much as Peel or any other plan talking about 2 states for 2 nations, Jewish and Arab (not Palestinian, which was coined only decades later).

This new unnamed Arab state never agreed to the U.N deceleration and therefore don't have and never had any rights under any agreement. Jordan and Egypt acquired the lands of this unnamed Arab state which therefore never existed and turn it into their own.

Said unnamed/recently named "Palestinian" state never existed, was never named and has no previous record.

Thus the problem has no historical ties, the Palestinian can only legally and logically claim for here and now.

this agreement , from 1995, holds until a final peace treaty
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/...nterimtoc.html

both sides signed it, so there is a 'recognised Palestine authority'

There are realities on the ground that I listed in post #26, where Strategic land for security can be traded for the same value of non strategic land.

The original article is not aware of this agrement- I suppose.
thx
reg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...tbankjan06.jpg

[marktwain]

Originally Posted by lirelou

As far as I'm concerned, the U.S. should make it plain to Israel that they are responsible for their own security and while they might receive assistance from the U.S., it is not a blank check.

If I was the Prez, I would go further and tell the Israelis to get the hell out of the settlements, or face a total cut in U.S. military support. They have no more right to Judea and Samaria than the old Philistines, whose modern descendants are those same Palestinians and later comers who now inhabit it.

The map on the prev post shows the secure zone entanglement that 'protects' the settlements- and makes business impossible for the Average Palestinian firm,

the clothign factories in nablus collapsed.- material , staff, etc subject to unpredictable delays....

[marktwain]

Originally Posted by ipser

It didn't occur because the Arabs chose war. Nobody complained when Jordan annexed the west bank because it was understood that there was no prospect of a Palestinian state. You keep trying to turn the clock back to the chioces made in 1948 but the Palestinians don't regret their choice and are still pursuing the same strategy by different tactics.

Actually, tryign to turn th eclock fwd, but th IMF explains it better than me.
http://www.imf.org/external/country/...011/091411.pdf

re bolded: The Arab League suspended Jordan, and only lifted the suspension whenthe annexation was deemed temporary.
Nice try.