Any one wish to discuss Israel vs. Palestine here?

[Billo_Really]

yawn.

Tell me: In regards to the West Bank, under international law, who is the injured party?

The Palestinian's who have been living there for generatons.

 

[M14 Shooter]

"Duty bound" and "international law" are different issues.
International law exists outside the UN; as such, an action disapporoved of By the UN in no wa necessarily breaks international law.

International law includes the UN Charter, the Geneva Conventions, the Hague and Rome statutes and the Nuremberg Principles. The UN is based on international law.

This negates nothing that I said.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Provocation.

That doesn't change the fact that it was Israel's decision to enter Gaza.

It means that their entry into Gaza was in response to an action that violated the cease-fire.

It very much does, given the context of the conversation.
Please provide the information I asked for, keepong in mind that context and the definition you provided.

We're just going to have to agree, to disagree on this one, my friend, because...

... you cannot show that the actions you listed were terrorist in nature, according to the definition that YOU supplied.
I accept your concession of the point.

 

[M14 Shooter]

yawn.
Tell me: In regards to the West Bank, under international law, who is the injured party?

The Palestinian's who have been living there for generatons.

Wrong.

Under International law - that is, the law governing states interacting with other states - Jordan is the injured party.

Jordan gave up cliam to the land thus its claim to injury under international law.
So...it belongs to Israel.

 

[Billo_Really]

It means that their entry into Gaza was in response to an action that violated the cease-fire.

No, a violation of the cease-fire, would be the firing of a weapon, not the digging of a tunnel. You cannot fire a tunnel at someone and you cannot use what someone might do, as justification for what you do do.

you cannot show that the actions you listed were terrorist in nature, according to the definition that YOU supplied.
I accept your concession of the point.

I'm not conceding anything. I've already shown they were terrorist in nature by the link I provided. No other proof is necessary. If you notice, most of those acts of violence were committed by Hanagah and Irgun, which are jewish terrorist groups. Ergo, if a terrorist organization commits an act of violence towards a political outcome, it's usually considered an act of terrorism. Therefore, I've proven my point.

 

[M14 Shooter]

It means that their entry into Gaza was in response to an action that violated the cease-fire.

No, a violation of the cease-fire, would be the firing of a weapon, not the digging of a tunnel.

Except that it is not. A prepeatory act with the intent to break a cease-fire that creates a imminent threat - as described by your source - violates a cease-fire.

you cannot show that the actions you listed were terrorist in nature, according to the definition that YOU supplied.
I accept your concession of the point.

I'm not conceding anything. I've already shown they were terrorist in nature by the link I provided. No other proof is necessary.

Your link -claims- they were terrorist acts, it does not show that they were terrorist acts.
Provide poof that those acts each fall under the definition of terrorism, or concede the point.

 

[Billo_Really]

yawn.
Tell me: In regards to the West Bank, under international law, who is the injured party?

The Palestinian's who have been living there for generatons.

Wrong.

Under International law - that is, the law governing states interacting with other states - Jordan is the injured party.

Jordan gave up cliam to the land thus its claim to injury onder international law.
So...it belongs to Israel.

Not according to UN resolutions 242 and 338.

The Security Council in resolution 242 formulated the principles of a just and lasting peace, including an Israeli withdrawal from territories occupied in the conflict, a just settlement of the refugee problem, and the termination of all claims or states of belligerency. The 1973 hostilities were followed by Security Council resolution 338, which inter alia called for peace negotiations between the parties concerned. In 1974 the General Assembly reaffirmed the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people to self-determination, national independence, sovereignty, and to return. The following year, the General Assembly established the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People and conferred on the PLO the status of observer in the Assembly and in international conferences held under UN auspices.

The injured party are the people who have been living there for generations. You cannot move into an area and automatically have more rights than the people already living there. That is just absurd, if you think they do.

 

[sealadaigh]

Israel occupies 8000 square miles with a population of just over 6 miliion people--approximately the same number the Nazis murdered--and 20% of that population is Arab. Israel would fit into the State of Florida eight times.

Surely there is enough charity in the world to allow the Israelis such a tiny tract of land for the only homeland the Jews have ever had or will likely ever have?

cool. i'll be moving into your spare bedroom next week.

are you suggesting that organisations have a right to a homeland?

maybe you could just make a general statement about what you belive is right for the jewish people that you could apply to all peoples. i can work with that. it seems though that a lot of people are being tarred with the "anti-semitic" brush because they want to treat jewish people equally and not exceptionally.

really, why exactly did and why exactly do the jewish people have a right to a homeland anywhere, let alone the mideast.

and a warning, if you play the old "because england gave it to them" card that you have played before, i'm going to hit you with an "american revolution" card.

Okay, let's go with the United Nations giving it to them as a payoff for the entire free world looking the other way as Hitler murdered six million Jews. And that would include most of the Arab nations who cooperated with Himmler and other Nazi leaders in what history records as the North Africa Holocaust in which the Jews were targeted for explusion from or murder in those countries.

Where would the Jews go after the war? Back to Germany that had murdered so many; where their property had been confiscated or destroyed? To Russia where some of the most viscious pograms had been carried out against them? Or to some other place where they may or may not be denied their rights and/or persecuted in other ways because they were Jews?

i have been debating with myself not only as to how i should answer this but even whether i should. i certainly could haul out immigration charts and links and say "an enemy of my enemy" and mention the stern gang and irgun (who i have never referred to as "terrorists" ever, by the way) and engage you is some esoteric pissing contest.

but why? the past is the past and what is is.

you seem like a nice person, a caring person and i am assuming you are jewish. i totally understand your position. i used to live in ireland and knew true believers. they would do a lot of stupid things and get killed. i always figured you aren't going to be able to do much fighting if you are six feet under.

i am a gentile. my voice is not as strong as yours. israel listens to the voice of american jews. so let's skip over the past and move right into the solution phase of the competition.

a genocide is occurring to the palestinian people. i don't use that word without a lot of caution. i have been supporting the palestinian cause for some 40 years now, and just started using it. history will record it and, because of what happened to the jews in WWII, you will be eternally linked to the NAZIs. your legacy will be as their's. furthermore, a genocide of the palestinian people is going to be the death of judaism. germany was big, and they are still recovering from what they have done to the jews. they still suffer from a national shame. these things do not go away. israel, and judaism, is much smaller.

so let's cut to the quick. i hear jewish people, israel supporters, talk a lot and excuse israel for all kinds of things, but i want your answer. i want you to tell me what you think the solution is. i want you to tell me what it will take for jews and israelis to help create a strong and viable palestinian state? what should the borders be? what kind of cooperation should they expect on east jerusalem? how can israel help palestine be a good neighbour and a prosperous country? what is a soloution to the refugee issue?

all i really hear from israel is why something cannot be done, and i never even hear a why, and all i see right now is israel making worse enemies in the region.

 

[Billo_Really]

Except that it is not. A prepeatory act with the intent to break a cease-fire that creates a imminent threat - as described by your source - violates a cease-fire..

A tunnel, is not an imminent threat. It's just a tunnel. You can take someone to the hospital in a tunnel. How's that a threat?

Your link -claims- they were terrorist acts, it does not show that they were terrorist acts.
Provide poof that those acts each fall under the definition of terrorism, or concede the point .

I already have. I've provided the US law definition of terrorism and I've shown that the acts of violence were committed by jewish terrorist groups. Prosecution rests and has proven its point.

 

[Amelia]

Hope I don't jinx anything by saying this but I want you guys to know how much I appreciate the points people are making in this thread. A lot to think about.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The Palestinian's who have been living there for generatons.

Wrong.

Under International law - that is, the law governing states interacting with other states - Jordan is the injured party.

Jordan gave up cliam to the land thus its claim to injury onder international law.
So...it belongs to Israel.

Not according to UN resolutions 242 and 338.

The Security Council in resolution 242 formulated the principles of a just and lasting peace, including an Israeli withdrawal from territories occupied in the conflict, a just settlement of the refugee problem, and the termination of all claims or states of belligerency. The 1973 hostilities were followed by Security Council resolution 338, which inter alia called for peace negotiations between the parties concerned. In 1974 the General Assembly reaffirmed the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people to self-determination, national independence, sovereignty, and to return. The following year, the General Assembly established the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People and conferred on the PLO the status of observer in the Assembly and in international conferences held under UN auspices.

The injured party are the people who have been living there for generations. You cannot move into an area and automatically have more rights than the people already living there. That is just absurd, if you think they do.

I'm sorry that you do not like the fact that the land no longer belongs to Jordan now that Jordan gave the land up, but the fact of the matter is that what you cite above is not -international- law as it has nothing do with relations between two states.

After Jordan gives up its claim, the UN can no more declare that the West Bank does not belong to Israel as it can that Texas does not belong to the US.

 

[Billo_Really]

A brief Q&A with average jews living in Israel and their opinion of the Palestinian's.

Q: What exactly is "the occupation"?

A: In 1967, Israel defeated the neighboring Arab countries in a war that lasted only six days. At the end of that war, Israel had captured the West Bank (which includes the Eastern half of Jerusalem), the Gaza Strip and the Golan Heights.

...the West Bank and the Gaza Strip has been under a military occupation ever since.

This means that the Israeli army has complete control over these areas.
Palestinians in these regions have no guarantee of civil rights.
They have no government of their own other than what Israel will allow.
Israel can impose total curfews on any part or all of the territory.
This prevents people from traveling to work, to market or to see family members.
It can prevent medical care from reaching people, and people from reaching hospitals.​

Occupation means the Israeli military has total authority over every aspect of Palestinian life.

Q: What do Palestinians seek?

A: Palestinians, depending on where they live, face different challenges and thus have different concerns. However, what they all have in common is a basic desire for freedom and equal rights.

Palestinians living in Israel seek rights that are equal to Jewish citizens of the state. Palestinians living in the West Bank and Gaza Strip seek an end to the Israeli military's domination of every aspect of their daily lives - whether through direct military occupation, as in the West Bank, or control from without, as in the case of the Gaza Strip - and rights to freedom and national self-determination, equal to those of other national groups. And Palestinian refugees and others living in exile want the right to return to their homes, if they so desire, or to receive compensation and support for resettlement, just like other refugee populations in the world.

And just how does Israel treat their own citizens who side with (or are sympathetic to) the Palestinian's? Why, they treat them like criminals!

 

[georgephillip]

Hope I don't jinx anything by saying this but I want you guys to know how much I appreciate the points people are making in this thread. A lot to think about.

Too late!

Israeli Violations of International Law:

"In 1947 the United Nations hoped to settle the conflict between the Palestinian people and the Zionists by dividing the land between them. Unfortunately, they chose a plan which the Palestinians did not agree with, and implemented it anyways.

"The plan, described in UN Resolution, divided the land of Palestine into two sections awarding the Zionists more than 1/2 of the land (55%) even though their current holdings totalled only about 6%, and their population was only about 16% of all the people in Palestine. Plus the plan gave the most fertile farmlands to the Zionists. The plan was clearly unfair, and the Palestinians and their Arab neighbors rebelled against the plan, and war broke out.

"The Zionists won the fighting, and during the course of the fighting took additional lands bringing their total holdings to about 75% of the lands of Palestine, which they kept.

"Even though this additional land was thus illegally gained in violation of both the Hague Regulations (1907) and UN Charter (1945) which both included the basic legal principle that it is illegal to acquire territory by force, these new boundaries soon became the accepted boundaries of the new State of Israel in the various peace agreements Israel signed with its neighbors.

ISRAELI VIOLATIONS OF INTERNATIONAL LAW

"Major Legal Principle Violated -
1. Acquisition of Territory by Military Conquest is Illegal
2. Occupation (either Legal or Illegal) is Generally Temporary and Must Never Lead To Sovereignty over Occupied or Conquered Lands of the Enemy People or Nation.
As Per International Law -
UN Charter, article 2, para. 4 (1945) (full text) (specific article - see below)
Declaration On Principles Of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations And Co-Operation Among States In Accordance With The Charter Of The United Nations (1970), Principle 1 (full text) (specific article - see below)
Hague Regulations IV (1907), articles 43 & 55 (full text) (specific articles - see below)
Geneva Conventions IV (1949), article 47 & 54 (full text) (specific articles - see below)
International Response -
United Nations -
International Miscellaneous response -
Academic Analysis -"

Illegal Acquisition of Land by Force

 

[M14 Shooter]

Except that it is not. A prepeatory act with the intent to break a cease-fire that creates a imminent threat - as described by your source - violates a cease-fire..

A tunnel, is not an imminent threat. It's just a tunnel. You can take someone to the hospital in a tunnel. How's that a threat?

The claims of an imminent threat came from your source. Is your source valid or not?

Your link -claims- they were terrorist acts, it does not show that they were terrorist acts.
Provide poof that those acts each fall under the definition of terrorism, or concede the point .

I already have. I've provided the US law definition of terrorism and I've shown that the acts of violence were committed by jewish terrorist groups. Prosecution rests and has proven its point.

Fail. You have offered no support whatsoever for the claim that the acts you cited were terrorist in nature, according to the definition you supplied. All you have is a list that says they were terrorist acts, which, absent suspport to that end, means nothing.

 

[Billo_Really]

I'm sorry that you do not like the fact that the land no longer belongs to Jordan now that Jordan gave the land up, but the fact of the matter is that what you cite above is not -international- law as it has nothing do with relations between two states.

After Jordan gives up its claim, the UN can no more declare that the West Bank does not belong to Israel as it can that Texas does not belong to the US.

It never was Jordan's. The Mandate did not give any area to Jordan west of the Jordan River. And the West Bank and Gaza, are west of that river. And you don't seem to want to deal with the fact that there was over 700,000 arabs living in this area before the zionist migration. Arabs owned 80% of the land in this area until they were driven out by jewish terrorism.

 

[Billo_Really]

The claims of an imminent threat came from your source. Is your source valid or not?

I do not recall my source claiming the "tunnel" was an imminent threat, unless of course, it was from a comment by the Israeli's.

Fail. You have offered no support whatsoever for the claim that the acts you cited were terrorist in nature, according to the definition you supplied. All you have is a list that says they were terrorist acts, which, absent suspport to that end, means nothing.

The list is my support. And on that list, are jewish terrorist groups. It states very clearly these jewish terrorist groups were responsible for these deaths of innocent civilians. When a terrorist group kills an innocent civilian, what do you call it?

 

[M14 Shooter]

I'm sorry that you do not like the fact that the land no longer belongs to Jordan now that Jordan gave the land up, but the fact of the matter is that what you cite above is not -international- law as it has nothing do with relations between two states.

After Jordan gives up its claim, the UN can no more declare that the West Bank does not belong to Israel as it can that Texas does not belong to the US.

It never was Jordan's.

Incorrect. Jordan annexed the the West bank in 1950 and gave up the claim of the West Bank in 1988.
Thus, my statement stands.

 

[georgephillip]

Undoubtedly some will criticize the source, I wonder who will contest the facts?

"The record of Israeli terrorism, however, is substantial, far too extensive even to attempt to sample here. A small glimpse into the reality was given by Prime Minister Menahem Begin in a letter published in the Israeli press in August 1981, written in response to what he regarded as hypocritical criticism of the Israeli bombing of Beirut, which killed hundreds of civilians.

"Begin offered a 'partial list' of military attacks on Arab civilians under the Labor governments, which included over 30 separate episodes that left many civilians dead. He concluded that 'under the Alignment government, there were regular retaliatory actions against civilian Arab populations; the air force operated against them; the damage was directed against such structures as the canal, bridges and transport.'

"'The picture that emerges,' former UN Ambassador and Foreign Minister Abba Eban wrote in response, 'is of an Israel wantonly inflicting every possible measure of death and anguish on civilian populations in a mood reminiscent of regimes which neither Mr. Begin nor I would dare to mention by name.'

"Eban is harshly critical of Begin's letter because of the support it gives to Arab propaganda; he does not contest the facts."

http://www.ifamericansknew.org/history/terrorism.html

 

[Foxfyre]

cool. i'll be moving into your spare bedroom next week.

are you suggesting that organisations have a right to a homeland?

maybe you could just make a general statement about what you belive is right for the jewish people that you could apply to all peoples. i can work with that. it seems though that a lot of people are being tarred with the "anti-semitic" brush because they want to treat jewish people equally and not exceptionally.

really, why exactly did and why exactly do the jewish people have a right to a homeland anywhere, let alone the mideast.

and a warning, if you play the old "because england gave it to them" card that you have played before, i'm going to hit you with an "american revolution" card.

Okay, let's go with the United Nations giving it to them as a payoff for the entire free world looking the other way as Hitler murdered six million Jews. And that would include most of the Arab nations who cooperated with Himmler and other Nazi leaders in what history records as the North Africa Holocaust in which the Jews were targeted for explusion from or murder in those countries.

Where would the Jews go after the war? Back to Germany that had murdered so many; where their property had been confiscated or destroyed? To Russia where some of the most viscious pograms had been carried out against them? Or to some other place where they may or may not be denied their rights and/or persecuted in other ways because they were Jews?

i have been debating with myself not only as to how i should answer this but even whether i should. i certainly could haul out immigration charts and links and say "an enemy of my enemy" and mention the stern gang and irgun (who i have never referred to as "terrorists" ever, by the way) and engage you is some esoteric pissing contest.

but why? the past is the past and what is is.

you seem like a nice person, a caring person and i am assuming you are jewish. i totally understand your position. i used to live in ireland and knew true believers. they would do a lot of stupid things and get killed. i always figured you aren't going to be able to do much fighting if you are six feet under.

i am a gentile. my voice is not as strong as yours. israel listens to the voice of american jews. so let's skip over the past and move right into the solution phase of the competition.

a genocide is occurring to the palestinian people. i don't use that word without a lot of caution. i have been supporting the palestinian cause for some 40 years now, and just started using it. history will record it and, because of what happened to the jews in WWII, you will be eternally linked to the NAZIs. your legacy will be as their's. furthermore, a genocide of the palestinian people is going to be the death of judaism. germany was big, and they are still recovering from what they have done to the jews. they still suffer from a national shame. these things do not go away. israel, and judaism, is much smaller.

so let's cut to the quick. i hear jewish people, israel supporters, talk a lot and excuse israel for all kinds of things, but i want your answer. i want you to tell me what you think the solution is. i want you to tell me what it will take for jews and israelis to help create a strong and viable palestinian state? what should the borders be? what kind of cooperation should they expect on east jerusalem? how can israel help palestine be a good neighbour and a prosperous country? what is a soloution to the refugee issue?

all i really hear from israel is why something cannot be done, and i never even hear a why, and all i see right now is israel making worse enemies in the region.

The solution is quite simple. The Palestinians should:
1. Stop sending suicide bombers into Israel to kill, injure, and maim as many men, women, and children as possible.
2. Stop booby trapping Israeli installations for the same purpose.
3. Stop firing rockets randomly into Israeli residential neighborhoods with the hope of hitting and killing or maiming somebody.
4. Stop kidnapping, torturing, and murdering Israeli citizens.
5. Demand that their leaders denounce ALL terrorism against Israelis, deal harshly with any who commit it, and remove all inflammatory language against Israel from their mandates, charters, and statements of purpose.
6. Pledge to be good neighbors of Israel and follow through by being good neighbors of Israel.

If they do this, make it stick, and Israel does not then become a good and honorable neighbor to the Palestinians, then Israel will be harshly criticized by me and I will not feel all that charitable about supporting Israel.

Until, then, I will not fault the Israelis for doing anything and everythng that they feel they must to protect and defend their people.

 

[sealadaigh]

Okay, let's go with the United Nations giving it to them as a payoff for the entire free world looking the other way as Hitler murdered six million Jews. And that would include most of the Arab nations who cooperated with Himmler and other Nazi leaders in what history records as the North Africa Holocaust in which the Jews were targeted for explusion from or murder in those countries.

Where would the Jews go after the war? Back to Germany that had murdered so many; where their property had been confiscated or destroyed? To Russia where some of the most viscious pograms had been carried out against them? Or to some other place where they may or may not be denied their rights and/or persecuted in other ways because they were Jews?

i have been debating with myself not only as to how i should answer this but even whether i should. i certainly could haul out immigration charts and links and say "an enemy of my enemy" and mention the stern gang and irgun (who i have never referred to as "terrorists" ever, by the way) and engage you is some esoteric pissing contest.

but why? the past is the past and what is is.

you seem like a nice person, a caring person and i am assuming you are jewish. i totally understand your position. i used to live in ireland and knew true believers. they would do a lot of stupid things and get killed. i always figured you aren't going to be able to do much fighting if you are six feet under.

i am a gentile. my voice is not as strong as yours. israel listens to the voice of american jews. so let's skip over the past and move right into the solution phase of the competition.

a genocide is occurring to the palestinian people. i don't use that word without a lot of caution. i have been supporting the palestinian cause for some 40 years now, and just started using it. history will record it and, because of what happened to the jews in WWII, you will be eternally linked to the NAZIs. your legacy will be as their's. furthermore, a genocide of the palestinian people is going to be the death of judaism. germany was big, and they are still recovering from what they have done to the jews. they still suffer from a national shame. these things do not go away. israel, and judaism, is much smaller.

so let's cut to the quick. i hear jewish people, israel supporters, talk a lot and excuse israel for all kinds of things, but i want your answer. i want you to tell me what you think the solution is. i want you to tell me what it will take for jews and israelis to help create a strong and viable palestinian state? what should the borders be? what kind of cooperation should they expect on east jerusalem? how can israel help palestine be a good neighbour and a prosperous country? what is a soloution to the refugee issue?

all i really hear from israel is why something cannot be done, and i never even hear a why, and all i see right now is israel making worse enemies in the region.

The solution is quite simple. The Palestinians should:
1. Stop sending suicide bombers into Israel to kill, injure, and maim as many men, women, and children as possible.
2. Stop booby trapping Israeli installations for the same purpose.
3. Stop firing rockets randomly into Israeli residential neighborhoods with the hope of hitting and killing or maiming somebody.
4. Stop kidnapping, torturing, and murdering Israeli citizens.
5. Demand that their leaders denounce ALL terrorism against Israelis, deal harshly with any who commit it, and remove all inflammatory language against Israel from their mandates, charters, and statements of purpose.
6. Pledge to be good neighbors of Israel and follow through by being good neighbors of Israel.

If they do this, make it stick, and Israel does not then become a good and honorable neighbor to the Palestinians, then Israel will be harshly criticized by me and I will not feel all that charitable about supporting Israel.

Until, then, I will not fault the Israelis for doing anything and everythng that they feel they must to protect and defend their people.

that really doesn't sound like a solution to me. for one thing, they have pretty much done a lot of these things. israel is the one who has constantly broken agreements anyway.

i am asking you, then, suppose all these things were true (and again, many of them are) what do you think israel should do to help thye palestinian people be prosperous and in a viable homeland...i.e. be a good neoghbour to israel?

it is not a threatening question or even a position based question. it is an interest based question. ti is interest based to not go through each of the six point you mentioned and refute them.

i will say this. i do think it is natve, to say the least, to just say that the israelis will do right by the palestinians.

let me throw this out for you. we have UNGA resolution 181 which whatever body representing palestine neither accepted or rejected. ok. then we have some sort of war, some call it a civil war, some call it an arab israeli war...and the israelis win...in 1948. i am still with you. BUT, in 1949 after a cessation of hostilities the UN does a UNGA resolution 273 where israel, in order to become a UN member state, agrees with the UN to abide by UNGA 181. that is an agreement with the UN and has nothing to do with anything else. israel has a right to defend her borders certainly but also has an obligation not to expand her borders.

so i will hand you 181 and i will hand you the present situation and i will ask you to give me some concrete proposals as to a solution based on making a viable palestinian state with the knowledge that if, indeed, the palestinians are genocided, you are aware that thestate of israel will no longer exist in the future.

so what works for both. you have the offered, the twice offered, arab peace initiative.

try to think 50 years into the future, and try to put yourself not only of the palestinians, but also the israelis who have to live there.

also, my compliments. usually people duck and run when approached with that question.