Baardwijk, J. van DTO/SLWPD/RZO/BOZO wrote:
>
> I believe it should stick to the borders it was given when the
> State of Israel was founded. Like every other country, Israel
> does not have the right to invade other countries simply
> because it does not like its own borders.
>
> Assume for a moment that back in 1948 we had done the right
> thing and not only mark an area on the map and call it
> "Israel", but simultaneously had marked another area and call
> it "Palestine". Would the US have accepted it if the
> Palestinian government would promptly have invaded other
> countries because it was not happy with the borders it was
> given? This is a yes/no question.
>
> Other example. The Dutch/German border is more or less a
> straight line running north/south. However, some way down from
> the top it looks as if Germany has taken a bite out of The
> Netherlands, which resulted in a more or less rectangular piece
> of Germany that is surrounded on three sides by The Netherlands.
> Would you find it acceptable if the Dutch would occupy that area
> because it would make the Dutch border better defensible?
> Again, a yes/no question.
Very good question, Jeroen. If Germany had invaded the Netherlands
three or four times over the last few decades, dedicating itself to
your destruction? And what if it was easily discernible that one of
the things that made your country easy to invade was that portion of
Germany that extended into your territory? Further, what if you
found that if you occupied that area you could more easily stave off
repeated incursions? Wouldn't you favor occupying that portion of
land?
Of course that's not even a very accurate analogy. Instead of just
Germany you should make it a coalition that also included France,
Belgium, Luxembourg and others. You would also have to note that at
some point a peace was negotiated with one of those countries and
you had returned land of theirs that they had occupied, thus
demonstrating your good faith; a willingness to negotiate and
compromise. Further, the countries that remain allied against you
support both terrorist actions against your civilian population and
a further war effort from areas adjacent to your country,
periodically shelling your territory.
There is no doubt in my mind that I would favor holding that land or
having some semblance of control over it until there was no longer
a threat. The moment it was used to make war against my country,
those that previously controlled it gave up their right to govern
it, IMO.
--
Doug
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.zo.com/~brighto
Irreverence is the champion of liberty.
Mark Twain - Notebook, 1888
