Slashdot Mirror
Disputed Island Disappears Into Sea
RawJoe writes "India and Bangladesh have argued for almost 30 years over control of a tiny island in the Bay of Bengal. Now rising sea levels have ended the argument for them: the island's gone. From the article: 'New Moore Island, in the Sunderbans, has been completely submerged, said oceanographer Sugata Hazra, a professor at Jadavpur University in Calcutta. Its disappearance has been confirmed by satellite imagery and sea patrols, he said. "What these two countries could not achieve from years of talking, has been resolved by global warming," said Hazra.'"
Being under sea level hasn't stopped New Orleans from building, blaming the government for not making better levies to stop the ocean, and slowly rebuilding...
Thats right, because the last time they had an army, they decided to wipe out Israel... and lost.
Israel plays dirty, but so do the "people they oppress". If you want to back one side over another, find out whats really happening.
That'd be because "Israel", formerly known as Palestine, was given away by the British to the Jewish. Understandably the locals were a little bit miffed at that.
Not just by the Brits you idiot...it was the UN who voted to give them the land since the whole of the western world felt bad/guilty about the holocaust.
And regardin edification, you can't just build stuff on disputed land. Israel does that but it only does that because the people they are oppressing can barely muster any rocks to throw at them. You don't do that to a nation which has a semblance of an army.
I thought Israel WON that land in a WAR, wherein the Arab nations all tried to attack them, and lost.
I don't see the problem here. If you don't want to lose land to an enemy, don't attack him.
The same thing happened in WWII. Germany lost some valuable farmland to France. They never did get it back. Why isn't anyone complaining that France is building on disputed land? I'm sure Germany wouldn't mind having it back.
First of all, yes, scientists do have PR departments. They're often called "media relations" or something of the sort
You're calling media relations a "PR department"? You're comparing a small group of people who put out press releases with the massive industry-funded disinformation campaign which organizes massive denier conferences and offers prizes to scientists who can publish papers that support their position. Please, get serious here.
The Spanish-English dictionary is out of ink.
Don't mix up actual houses and homes with political authority in a region. Do you honestly think the UN sent troops or something to go kick Palestinians out of their very houses?
Now I know many Palestinians lost their homes in later wars; some say they left voluntarily others say they were kicked out by the Israeli army. Either way, that's not what you're saying and has nothing to do with the founding of Israel.
Whether the decision to give a *part* of the so-called Palestine (cca. 20 %!) was motivated by Holocaust (and if so, to what degree) is a rather complex topic. I wouldn't bet on certainty in this case.
Ezekiel 23:20
Arabs living in the part of Palestine later given to Israel were also encouraged to leave the land by surrounding Arab states which hoped that once the Israeli land would be Arab-free, they would be able to launch an all-out attack and kill everyone in their path. Unfortunately for them, this outcome did not materialize.
Ezekiel 23:20
Not just by the Brits you idiot...it was the UN who voted to give them the land since the whole of the western world felt bad/guilty about the holocaust.
Agreed. This was a mistake in my opinion. Nothing against people of Jewish faith, but before WWII was anyone stopped from going to the holy land? I am not talking the crusades here. I am talking about the 1800s, and early 1900s. It appears to be that only after the reformation of Israel did the trouble start. Granted there are those who will appose all who do not share their view of things, but the formation of Israel only fanned the flames of their anger.
I have always thought the same thing. If the UN decided that Israel can exist, it can also decide that those holy sites are important and belong to the whole world. No one owns them. All are free to visit, but no one can live there.
Actually according to the Wiki article on it Israel TOOK the land.
They made what they call a "preemptive attack" on Egypt claiming that Egypt and the other Arab nations were planing to attack, which they deny. Since the other nations had mutual defense treaties with Egypt they got involved as well.
Consider that in some ways Israel has become as bad as the Germans in regards to how they treat the Palestinians, no blatant attempt at genocide but striping them of property, rights and freedoms.
And I just know that last comment is likely to get me flamed, oh well, Its just my opinion, take it or leave it.
Actually according to the Wiki article on it Israel TOOK the land.
That's usually what victors do after a war. France did it to Germany, and no one's complaining.
Here's the article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-Day_War
They made what they call a "preemptive attack" on Egypt claiming that Egypt and the other Arab nations were planing to attack, which they deny.
Why would Egypt amass 1000 tanks and 100,000 soldiers on the border if they weren't planning to attack? Sorry, but I fail to see how Israel was in the wrong about this one. It's not like they made up some allegations of WMDs in Egypt, which were then never found except for some old and non-functional bombs that someone forgot about.
In addition, the Wiki article says that Egypt blockaded the Straits of Tiran. A blockade is recognized as an act of war. So legally, Israel didn't even start this war, Egypt did. Israel merely responded to an act of war with an invasion. There's nothing against the rules of war here.
The straits are necessary for navigation between Israel and the Indian Ocean. Blockading them is an act of war; it certainly isn't an act of peace. It's an 8-mile wide strait; it's not like it's a river or something. Israel's invasion, in light of the blockade and the invasion force on its border, was just.
If the Arab nations really wanted to do the right thing, they'd carve out some of their own land and give that to the Palestinians. After all, it was their (the Arab nations') actions that caused all this trouble in the first place.
I don't see the problem here. If you don't want to lose land to an enemy, don't attack him.
The same thing happened in WWII. Germany lost some valuable farmland to France. They never did get it back. Why isn't anyone complaining that France is building on disputed land? I'm sure Germany wouldn't mind having it back.
The problem is that the international community outlawed that sort of thing in the wake of the German's doctrine of "living space" in 1949. The Fourth Geneva Convention says in Art. 49, "The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies."
Israel signed the treaty in 1949. Egypt (previous owner of the Gaza Strip) signed it in 1949. Jordan (previous owner of the West Bank) signed it in 1951. Syria (widely considered the owner of the Golan Heights) signed it in 1949. Lebanon (considered by most to own the Shebaa Farms area) signed it in 1949 on the same day as Israel. All of these parties were bound to the treaty and bound to respect the others' citizens under the treaty. Israel's occupation of disputed territories flagrantly violates the conventions in several ways, not the least of which is colonizing the territories.
Additionally, there have been some UN security council resolutions demanding that Israel return the territories either in whole or individually. See, e.g. UN Security Council resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973). These are the same level of resolution as the one used to justify the invasion of Iraq in 2003, and Israel is just as much in violation of UN resolutions as Hussein was.
As to France, what areas are you talking about? I confess ignorance here. I'm mostly familiar with the Postdam Agreement and the ceding of territories to the Soviet Union (well, Poland actually), so all I could find on France was the take over of Saar and Ruhr, both of which returned to German control by the 1950s. Either way, all of those agreements were handled by treaty and approved under international law, and all the settling of Germany's post-WW2 debts and concessions was handled pre-Geneva. Israel's occupation of disputed territories has never AFAIK been ratified by any treaties between the parties and is not recognized as valid under international law. That's the difference.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
Lots of good info here for you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Mandate_of_Palestine
It appears that, in that day, Nahum Sokolow called it 'Palestine' as well. There's a direct quote there.
Oh, neat - here's exactly what you asked for: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:UN_Partition_Plan_For_Palestine_1947.png
It seems until the British withdrew, because they couldn't get the Jews and Arabs to agree, there was never any notion that the place would be called 'Israel', or that the Israelis would command control of the entire thing.
I'm certain you must have facts to refute that article though, due to your brash-sounding statements. Please, share. Even edit the article to add your clarity, too.
That's usually what victors do after a war. France did it to Germany, and no one's complaining.
I hope you won't mind when everyone gets their minds together and take it back from Israel then. The WMD excuse ought to work this time.
Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?