Does international law require Israel to vacate the disputed territories

[fanger]

Israel has not declared war on Palestine, besides you cannot acquire land by War
Non combatants cannot be held

Actually it was the Arab league that declared war on Israel ;--) A war which is ongoing.

But once again the revisionists have failed to provide a single element of international law that supports their view.

So are you saying israel is at war with the Arab league, I mean apart from in your head?

Whole new subject. If you want to start a thread on that go for it. But yes, Jordan, Syria, Egypt, Lebanon and I think Iraq

See
2.2 The Arab League as a whole
Although again with a grain of salt since it is wiki

Israel is at War with Jordan and Egypt? don´t you think you should tell them?

 

[fanger]

Back to the OP question
The international community considers the establishment of Israeli settlements in the Israeli-occupied territories illegal under international law,[1][2][3][4][5] howeverIsrael maintains that they are consistent with international law[6] because it does not agree that the Fourth Geneva Convention applies to the territories occupied in the 1967 Six-Day War.[7] The United Nations Security Council, the United Nations General Assembly, the International Committee of the Red Cross, theInternational Court of Justice and the High Contracting Parties to the Convention have all affirmed that the Fourth Geneva Convention does apply.[8][9]

Numerous UN resolutions have stated that the building and existence of Israeli settlements in theWest Bank, East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights are a violation of international law, including UN Security Council resolutions in 1979 and 1980.[10][11][12]UN Security Council Resolution 446refers to the Fourth Geneva Convention as the applicable international legal instrument, and calls upon Israel to desist from transferring its own population into the territories or changing their demographic makeup. The reconvened Conference of the High Contracting Parties to the Geneva Conventions has declared the settlements illegal[13] as has the primary judicial organ of the UN, the International Court of Justice[14] and the International Committee of the Red Cross.

The position of successive Israeli governments is that all authorized settlements are entirely legal and consistent with international law,[15] despite Israel's armistice agreements having all being with High Contracting Parties.[16] In practice, Israel does not accept that the Fourth Geneva Convention applies de jure, but has stated that on humanitarian issues it will govern itself de factoby its provisions, without specifying which these are.[17][18] The majority of legal scholars hold the settlements to violate international law, while others have offered dissenting views supporting the Israeli position.[2]
International law and Israeli settlements - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[fanger]

1. Roberts, Adam. "Prolonged Military Occupation: The Israeli-Occupied Territories Since 1967". The American Journal of International Law (American Society of International Law) 84 (1): 85–86. doi:10.2307/2203016. The international community has taken a critical view of both deportations and settlements as being contrary to international law. General Assembly resolutions have condemned the deportations since 1969, and have done so by overwhelming majorities in recent years. Likewise, they have consistently deplored the establishment of settlements, and have done so by overwhelming majorities throughout the period (since the end of 1976) of the rapid expansion in their numbers. The Security Council has also been critical of deportations and settlements; and other bodies have viewed them as an obstacle to peace, and illegal under international law.
2. ^ Jump up to:a b Pertile, Marco (2005). "'Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory': A Missed Opportunity for International Humanitarian Law?". In Conforti, Benedetto; Bravo, Luigi. The Italian Yearbook of International Law 14. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. p. 141. ISBN 978-90-04-15027-0. the establishment of the Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory has been considered illegal by the international community and by the majority of legal scholars.
3. Jump up^ Barak-Erez, Daphne (2006). "Israel: The security barrier—between international law, constitutional law, and domestic judicial review". International Journal of Constitutional Law (Oxford University Press) 4 (3): 548.doi:10.1093/icon/mol021. The real controversy hovering over all the litigation on the security barrier concerns the fate of the Israeli settlements in the occupied territories. Since 1967, Israel has allowed and even encouraged its citizens to live in the new settlements established in the territories, motivated by religious and national sentiments attached to the history of the Jewish nation in the land of Israel. This policy has also been justified in terms of security interests, taking into consideration the dangerous geographic circumstances of Israel before 1967 (where Israeli areas on the Mediterranean coast were potentially threatened by Jordanian control of the West Bank ridge). The international community, for its part, has viewed this policy as patently illegal, based on the provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention that prohibit moving populations to or from territories under occupation.
4. Jump up^ Drew, Catriona (1997). "Self-determination and population transfer". In Bowen, Stephen. Human rights, self-determination and political change in the occupied Palestinian territories. International studies in human rights 52. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. pp. 151–152. ISBN 978-90-411-0502-8. It can thus clearly be concluded that the transfer of Israeli settlers into the occupied territories violates not only the laws of belligerent occupation but the Palestinian right of self-determination under international law. The question remains, however, whether this is of any practical value. In other words, given the view of the international community that the Israeli settlements are illegal under the law if belligerent occupation …

 

[fanger]

Imagine for a moment you’re a general about to embark on a decisive military campaign and your intelligence service secures a copy of your opponent’s entire campaign strategy. You open it and you see his battle plans laid out before you, key forces, weaponry, lines of attack, points of weaknesses, etc. You suddenly understand just how weak his forces are and precisely how to mercilessly attack and eviscerate him. The plan makes you understand that his forces are largely based on artifice and sham. It gives you confidence that you are entirely on the right course and tells you how to stay on that course. Victory is assured, your enemy’s defeat certain.

Douglas Bloomfield and Newsweek have done pretty close to that against the Israel lobby. Specifically, they’ve exposed a secret hasbarahandbook written for The Israel Project by star Republican marketer, Frank Luntz. The oddly-named Global Language Dictionary (pdf) is a veritable goldmine of arguments, strategy, tactics. At 116 pages, it’s not for the faint of heart. But anyone who wants to get inside the head of the Israel lobby must read this document.

I want to devote at least two or three posts to it so I hope you, dear reader, will bear with me. I know my enthusiasm will mark me as a real wonk, but this is the real deal and worth spending some time parsing and deconstructing.

The first thing to say is that the entire document is a pathetic piece of propaganda. While it ostensibly is addressed to TIP’s leaders and advises them how to shape a pro-Israel message when they lobby Congress, the media and other critical power brokers, the entire thing reeks of desperation and a lost cause. It goes without saying that the arguments offered are not only devoid of truth, they’re devoid of rigor or credibility. There is literally no substance to the claims offered on Israel’s behalf. It’s an empty exercise in every sense of the word. Reading this makes you realize that the entire Israel lobby edifice is a house of cards.

Perhaps I’m letting my shock at the shabbiness of the Dictionary get the better of me and overstating the case it reveals against the Lobby. After all, any political network that exists for six decades and achieves as much as this one has doesn’t topple overnight. But I’ll just have to let you be the judge.

One aspect of this I find extraordinary and entirely dubious is the choice of the Republican campaign pollster Frank Luntz to write this report. This indicates, as I’ve always maintained, that the Lobby is totally tone deaf to the political environment. We have a democratic president and two Houses of Congress under Democratic control for the first time in a few decades. Pragmatic liberalism is ascendant. Neo-conservatism and Bushian Republicanism are in retreat. And who does TIP chose to make the case for Israel? A right-wing Republican spinmeister. Remarkable. But one thing I must say is that this is a good sign for our side. If our opponents are as wooden as they appear, then they will topple themselves without needing much help from us.

The first chapter, 25 Rules for Effective Communication opens with:

The first step to winning trust and friends for Israel is showing that you care about peace for BOTH Israelis and Palestinians and, in particular, a better future for every child. Indeed, the sequence of your conversation is critical and you must start with empathy for BOTH sides first. Open your conversation with strong proven messages such as:

“Israel is committed to a better future for everyone – Israelis and Palestinians alike. Israel wants the pain and suffering to end, and is committed to working with the Palestinians toward a peaceful, diplomatic solution where both sides can have a better future. Let this be a time of hope and opportunity for both the
Israeli and the Palestinian people.”
The Israel Project's secret hasbara handbook exposed

 

[P F Tinmore]

Israel has not declared war on Palestine, besides you cannot acquire land by War
Non combatants cannot be held

Actually it was the Arab league that declared war on Israel ;--) A war which is ongoing.

But once again the revisionists have failed to provide a single element of international law that supports their view.

So are you saying israel is at war with the Arab league, I mean apart from in your head?

Whole new subject. If you want to start a thread on that go for it. But yes, Jordan, Syria, Egypt, Lebanon and I think Iraq

See
2.2 The Arab League as a whole
Although again with a grain of salt since it is wiki

Israel is at War with Jordan and Egypt? don´t you think you should tell them?

Jordan is mostly Palestinian and they are at peace with Israel?

How can that be?

 

[Boston1]

Its really not that hard to understand

In WWII the allied powers defeated the axis powers one at a time. Secession of hostilities occurred at different times. Same hold true for the Arab league war against Israel. Except we still have one party actively engaged in acts of war. The palestinians ;--)

According to the geneva convention Israel is not expected to normalize the combatants civilian population until a period of one year without hostilities expires. So yeah, its a situation of martial law, not civilian rights.

Oh and Tinmore, Jordan is a state, able to enjoy the rights of statehood. The remaining palestinians in both Gaza and the disputed territories have rejected statehood again and again. As such and given that they are not signatores to the Geneva conventions they have no rights under those conventions ;--)

 

[P F Tinmore]

Its really not that hard to understand

In WWII the allied powers defeated the axis powers one at a time. Secession of hostilities occurred at different times. Same hold true for the Arab league war against Israel. Except we still have one party actively engaged in acts of war. The palestinians ;--)

According to the geneva convention Israel is not expected to normalize the combatants civilian population until a period of one year without hostilities expires. So yeah, its a situation of martial law, not civilian rights.

Oh and Tinmore, Jordan is a state, able to enjoy the rights of statehood. The remaining palestinians in both Gaza and the disputed territories have rejected statehood again and again. As such and given that they are not signatores to the Geneva conventions they have no rights under those conventions ;--)

The remaining palestinians in both Gaza and the disputed territories have rejected statehood again and again.​

Not true. Those offers have always been to surrender.

 

[Boston1]

Its really not that hard to understand

In WWII the allied powers defeated the axis powers one at a time. Secession of hostilities occurred at different times. Same hold true for the Arab league war against Israel. Except we still have one party actively engaged in acts of war. The palestinians ;--)

According to the geneva convention Israel is not expected to normalize the combatants civilian population until a period of one year without hostilities expires. So yeah, its a situation of martial law, not civilian rights.

Oh and Tinmore, Jordan is a state, able to enjoy the rights of statehood. The remaining palestinians in both Gaza and the disputed territories have rejected statehood again and again. As such and given that they are not signatores to the Geneva conventions they have no rights under those conventions ;--)

The remaining palestinians in both Gaza and the disputed territories have rejected statehood again and again.​

Not true. Those offers have always been to surrender.

Of course its true. Any cessation of hostilities must include a surrender by the defeated belligerent lest they remain under martial law and lose all rights granted under the IV Geneva convention

see previous link

Quote

• 
  Art. 5 Where in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in the favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State.
  
  Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person shall, in those cases where absolute military security so requires, be regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under the present Convention.

End Quote

The various palestinian communities are being detained as combatants

Of course it doesn't really matter, the question isn't if the Israeli's are legally detaining the palestinians. Its if the Israeli's have a legal obligation to vacate the disputed territories

 

[Hollie]

Its really not that hard to understand

In WWII the allied powers defeated the axis powers one at a time. Secession of hostilities occurred at different times. Same hold true for the Arab league war against Israel. Except we still have one party actively engaged in acts of war. The palestinians ;--)

According to the geneva convention Israel is not expected to normalize the combatants civilian population until a period of one year without hostilities expires. So yeah, its a situation of martial law, not civilian rights.

Oh and Tinmore, Jordan is a state, able to enjoy the rights of statehood. The remaining palestinians in both Gaza and the disputed territories have rejected statehood again and again. As such and given that they are not signatores to the Geneva conventions they have no rights under those conventions ;--)

The remaining palestinians in both Gaza and the disputed territories have rejected statehood again and again.​

Not true. Those offers have always been to surrender.

Not true. The offers made by Israel (repeated offers and concessions such as Israel's historic practice to return lands captured in wars of aggression waged by Moslems, have always met a wall of islamo-intransigence as defined by the Hamas Charter.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Its really not that hard to understand

In WWII the allied powers defeated the axis powers one at a time. Secession of hostilities occurred at different times. Same hold true for the Arab league war against Israel. Except we still have one party actively engaged in acts of war. The palestinians ;--)

According to the geneva convention Israel is not expected to normalize the combatants civilian population until a period of one year without hostilities expires. So yeah, its a situation of martial law, not civilian rights.

Oh and Tinmore, Jordan is a state, able to enjoy the rights of statehood. The remaining palestinians in both Gaza and the disputed territories have rejected statehood again and again. As such and given that they are not signatores to the Geneva conventions they have no rights under those conventions ;--)

The remaining palestinians in both Gaza and the disputed territories have rejected statehood again and again.​

Not true. Those offers have always been to surrender.

Of course its true. Any cessation of hostilities must include a surrender by the defeated belligerent lest they remain under martial law and lose all rights granted under the IV Geneva convention

see previous link

Quote

• 
  Art. 5 Where in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in the favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State.
  
  Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person shall, in those cases where absolute military security so requires, be regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under the present Convention.

End Quote

The various palestinian communities are being detained as combatants

Of course it doesn't really matter, the question isn't if the Israeli's are legally detaining the palestinians. Its if the Israeli's have a legal obligation to vacate the disputed territories

They are not defeated until they surrender.

 

[Boston1]

Its really not that hard to understand

In WWII the allied powers defeated the axis powers one at a time. Secession of hostilities occurred at different times. Same hold true for the Arab league war against Israel. Except we still have one party actively engaged in acts of war. The palestinians ;--)

According to the geneva convention Israel is not expected to normalize the combatants civilian population until a period of one year without hostilities expires. So yeah, its a situation of martial law, not civilian rights.

Oh and Tinmore, Jordan is a state, able to enjoy the rights of statehood. The remaining palestinians in both Gaza and the disputed territories have rejected statehood again and again. As such and given that they are not signatores to the Geneva conventions they have no rights under those conventions ;--)

The remaining palestinians in both Gaza and the disputed territories have rejected statehood again and again.​

Not true. Those offers have always been to surrender.

Not true. The offers made by Israel (repeated offers and concessions such as Israel's historic practice to return lands captured in wars of aggression waged by Moslems, have always met a wall of islamo-intransigence as defined by the Hamas Charter.

While the term surrender isn't actually used in any of the peace offerings by the Israeli's to the palestinians its still analogous to a surrender. The palestinians engages in war and the cessation of that war must be acknowledged.

The term surrender should be included in any subsequent offers as well as there being NO land concessions. At this point I think its fair for the Israeli's to demand the remaining belligerents return to their countries of origin plus Jordan.

Not one more inch.

 

[Boston1]

Its really not that hard to understand

In WWII the allied powers defeated the axis powers one at a time. Secession of hostilities occurred at different times. Same hold true for the Arab league war against Israel. Except we still have one party actively engaged in acts of war. The palestinians ;--)

According to the geneva convention Israel is not expected to normalize the combatants civilian population until a period of one year without hostilities expires. So yeah, its a situation of martial law, not civilian rights.

Oh and Tinmore, Jordan is a state, able to enjoy the rights of statehood. The remaining palestinians in both Gaza and the disputed territories have rejected statehood again and again. As such and given that they are not signatores to the Geneva conventions they have no rights under those conventions ;--)

The remaining palestinians in both Gaza and the disputed territories have rejected statehood again and again.​

Not true. Those offers have always been to surrender.

Of course its true. Any cessation of hostilities must include a surrender by the defeated belligerent lest they remain under martial law and lose all rights granted under the IV Geneva convention

see previous link

Quote

• 
  Art. 5 Where in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in the favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State.
  
  Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person shall, in those cases where absolute military security so requires, be regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under the present Convention.

End Quote

The various palestinian communities are being detained as combatants

Of course it doesn't really matter, the question isn't if the Israeli's are legally detaining the palestinians. Its if the Israeli's have a legal obligation to vacate the disputed territories

They are not defeated until they surrender.

Quote
They are not defeated until they surrender.
End Quote

Bingo, which is exactly why they will continue to live under the restrictions of martial law, and why most of what some people consider as violations of the geneva convention does not apply

Thank you for that acknowledgment

However I think its important to also acknowledge that this has been another in a series of grand distractions to avoid the fact that not one single international law requires the Israeli's to vacate the disputed territories

 

[P F Tinmore]

Its really not that hard to understand

In WWII the allied powers defeated the axis powers one at a time. Secession of hostilities occurred at different times. Same hold true for the Arab league war against Israel. Except we still have one party actively engaged in acts of war. The palestinians ;--)

According to the geneva convention Israel is not expected to normalize the combatants civilian population until a period of one year without hostilities expires. So yeah, its a situation of martial law, not civilian rights.

Oh and Tinmore, Jordan is a state, able to enjoy the rights of statehood. The remaining palestinians in both Gaza and the disputed territories have rejected statehood again and again. As such and given that they are not signatores to the Geneva conventions they have no rights under those conventions ;--)

The remaining palestinians in both Gaza and the disputed territories have rejected statehood again and again.​

Not true. Those offers have always been to surrender.

Not true. The offers made by Israel (repeated offers and concessions such as Israel's historic practice to return lands captured in wars of aggression waged by Moslems, have always met a wall of islamo-intransigence as defined by the Hamas Charter.

While the term surrender isn't actually used in any of the peace offerings by the Israeli's to the palestinians its still analogous to a surrender. The palestinians engages in war and the cessation of that war must be acknowledged.

The term surrender should be included in any subsequent offers as well as there being NO land concessions. At this point I think its fair for the Israeli's to demand the remaining belligerents return to their countries of origin plus Jordan.

Not one more inch.

The Palestinians hold the legal and moral high ground. Why should they be the ones to surrender?

 

[Hollie]

Its really not that hard to understand

In WWII the allied powers defeated the axis powers one at a time. Secession of hostilities occurred at different times. Same hold true for the Arab league war against Israel. Except we still have one party actively engaged in acts of war. The palestinians ;--)

According to the geneva convention Israel is not expected to normalize the combatants civilian population until a period of one year without hostilities expires. So yeah, its a situation of martial law, not civilian rights.

Oh and Tinmore, Jordan is a state, able to enjoy the rights of statehood. The remaining palestinians in both Gaza and the disputed territories have rejected statehood again and again. As such and given that they are not signatores to the Geneva conventions they have no rights under those conventions ;--)

The remaining palestinians in both Gaza and the disputed territories have rejected statehood again and again.​

Not true. Those offers have always been to surrender.

Not true. The offers made by Israel (repeated offers and concessions such as Israel's historic practice to return lands captured in wars of aggression waged by Moslems, have always met a wall of islamo-intransigence as defined by the Hamas Charter.

While the term surrender isn't actually used in any of the peace offerings by the Israeli's to the palestinians its still analogous to a surrender. The palestinians engages in war and the cessation of that war must be acknowledged.

The term surrender should be included in any subsequent offers as well as there being NO land concessions. At this point I think its fair for the Israeli's to demand the remaining belligerents return to their countries of origin plus Jordan.

Not one more inch.

The Palestinians hold the legal and moral high ground. Why should they be the ones to surrender?

Funny stuff that Islamic terrorists hold a legal and moral high ground.

But, as the OP acknowledged, there's a lot of islamo-noise intended to side step the question posed in the thread title.

 

[Boston1]

Its really not that hard to understand

In WWII the allied powers defeated the axis powers one at a time. Secession of hostilities occurred at different times. Same hold true for the Arab league war against Israel. Except we still have one party actively engaged in acts of war. The palestinians ;--)

According to the geneva convention Israel is not expected to normalize the combatants civilian population until a period of one year without hostilities expires. So yeah, its a situation of martial law, not civilian rights.

Oh and Tinmore, Jordan is a state, able to enjoy the rights of statehood. The remaining palestinians in both Gaza and the disputed territories have rejected statehood again and again. As such and given that they are not signatores to the Geneva conventions they have no rights under those conventions ;--)

The remaining palestinians in both Gaza and the disputed territories have rejected statehood again and again.​

Not true. Those offers have always been to surrender.

Not true. The offers made by Israel (repeated offers and concessions such as Israel's historic practice to return lands captured in wars of aggression waged by Moslems, have always met a wall of islamo-intransigence as defined by the Hamas Charter.

While the term surrender isn't actually used in any of the peace offerings by the Israeli's to the palestinians its still analogous to a surrender. The palestinians engages in war and the cessation of that war must be acknowledged.

The term surrender should be included in any subsequent offers as well as there being NO land concessions. At this point I think its fair for the Israeli's to demand the remaining belligerents return to their countries of origin plus Jordan.

Not one more inch.

The Palestinians hold the legal and moral high ground. Why should they be the ones to surrender?

You are distracting from the topic at hand.

Are the Israeli's legally obligated to leave the disputed territories ?

If you could be polite enough to at least stick to the subject ;--)

 

[P F Tinmore]

Its really not that hard to understand

In WWII the allied powers defeated the axis powers one at a time. Secession of hostilities occurred at different times. Same hold true for the Arab league war against Israel. Except we still have one party actively engaged in acts of war. The palestinians ;--)

According to the geneva convention Israel is not expected to normalize the combatants civilian population until a period of one year without hostilities expires. So yeah, its a situation of martial law, not civilian rights.

Oh and Tinmore, Jordan is a state, able to enjoy the rights of statehood. The remaining palestinians in both Gaza and the disputed territories have rejected statehood again and again. As such and given that they are not signatores to the Geneva conventions they have no rights under those conventions ;--)

The remaining palestinians in both Gaza and the disputed territories have rejected statehood again and again.​

Not true. Those offers have always been to surrender.

Not true. The offers made by Israel (repeated offers and concessions such as Israel's historic practice to return lands captured in wars of aggression waged by Moslems, have always met a wall of islamo-intransigence as defined by the Hamas Charter.

While the term surrender isn't actually used in any of the peace offerings by the Israeli's to the palestinians its still analogous to a surrender. The palestinians engages in war and the cessation of that war must be acknowledged.

The term surrender should be included in any subsequent offers as well as there being NO land concessions. At this point I think its fair for the Israeli's to demand the remaining belligerents return to their countries of origin plus Jordan.

Not one more inch.

The Palestinians hold the legal and moral high ground. Why should they be the ones to surrender?

You are distracting from the topic at hand.

Are the Israeli's legally obligated to leave the disputed territories ?

If you could be polite enough to at least stick to the subject ;--)

From the one who ducked the question on the dispute.

 

[Humanity]

Its really not that hard to understand

In WWII the allied powers defeated the axis powers one at a time. Secession of hostilities occurred at different times. Same hold true for the Arab league war against Israel. Except we still have one party actively engaged in acts of war. The palestinians ;--)

According to the geneva convention Israel is not expected to normalize the combatants civilian population until a period of one year without hostilities expires. So yeah, its a situation of martial law, not civilian rights.

Oh and Tinmore, Jordan is a state, able to enjoy the rights of statehood. The remaining palestinians in both Gaza and the disputed territories have rejected statehood again and again. As such and given that they are not signatores to the Geneva conventions they have no rights under those conventions ;--)

The remaining palestinians in both Gaza and the disputed territories have rejected statehood again and again.​

Not true. Those offers have always been to surrender.

Not true. The offers made by Israel (repeated offers and concessions such as Israel's historic practice to return lands captured in wars of aggression waged by Moslems, have always met a wall of islamo-intransigence as defined by the Hamas Charter.

While the term surrender isn't actually used in any of the peace offerings by the Israeli's to the palestinians its still analogous to a surrender. The palestinians engages in war and the cessation of that war must be acknowledged.

The term surrender should be included in any subsequent offers as well as there being NO land concessions. At this point I think its fair for the Israeli's to demand the remaining belligerents return to their countries of origin plus Jordan.

Not one more inch.

The Palestinians hold the legal and moral high ground. Why should they be the ones to surrender?

You are distracting from the topic at hand.

Are the Israeli's legally obligated to leave the disputed territories ?

If you could be polite enough to at least stick to the subject ;--)

Quite a chuckle this one...

"legally obligated"? Debatable....

"disputed territories"? ONLY debatable if you are a zionist as it is ONLY Israel who considers the occupied territories "disputed"

However, as is clearly the case, NO country is "obligated" to follow international law, customary international law, Geneva Conventions, ICJ, UNGA, UNSC or any other organisation...

Countries can make their own laws, leave/ignore Geneva Conventions, ICJ, UNGA, UNSC at will...

One can argue that the above organisations are simply advisory organisations....

However, most CIVILISED countries work to abide by them not ignore them or leave because they suddenly find that they are on the wrong side of them!

That makes this OP a pointless OP that is only looking to troll, score cheap points and is NOT looking for a sensible debate on what is a humanitarian issue, not just for the Palestinians but also Israelis!

 

[Hollie]

The remaining palestinians in both Gaza and the disputed territories have rejected statehood again and again.​

Not true. Those offers have always been to surrender.

Not true. The offers made by Israel (repeated offers and concessions such as Israel's historic practice to return lands captured in wars of aggression waged by Moslems, have always met a wall of islamo-intransigence as defined by the Hamas Charter.

While the term surrender isn't actually used in any of the peace offerings by the Israeli's to the palestinians its still analogous to a surrender. The palestinians engages in war and the cessation of that war must be acknowledged.

The term surrender should be included in any subsequent offers as well as there being NO land concessions. At this point I think its fair for the Israeli's to demand the remaining belligerents return to their countries of origin plus Jordan.

Not one more inch.

The Palestinians hold the legal and moral high ground. Why should they be the ones to surrender?

You are distracting from the topic at hand.

Are the Israeli's legally obligated to leave the disputed territories ?

If you could be polite enough to at least stick to the subject ;--)

From the one who ducked the question on the dispute.

So... your side stepping and waffling can be taken as agreement that there is no international law requiring Israel to vacate the vacate the disputed territories?

 

[Boston1]

Not true. The offers made by Israel (repeated offers and concessions such as Israel's historic practice to return lands captured in wars of aggression waged by Moslems, have always met a wall of islamo-intransigence as defined by the Hamas Charter.

While the term surrender isn't actually used in any of the peace offerings by the Israeli's to the palestinians its still analogous to a surrender. The palestinians engages in war and the cessation of that war must be acknowledged.

The term surrender should be included in any subsequent offers as well as there being NO land concessions. At this point I think its fair for the Israeli's to demand the remaining belligerents return to their countries of origin plus Jordan.

Not one more inch.

The Palestinians hold the legal and moral high ground. Why should they be the ones to surrender?

You are distracting from the topic at hand.

Are the Israeli's legally obligated to leave the disputed territories ?

If you could be polite enough to at least stick to the subject ;--)

From the one who ducked the question on the dispute.

So... your side stepping and waffling can be taken as agreement that there is no international law requiring Israel to vacate the vacate the disputed territories?

Exactly

Its a simple question

The revisionists are constantly spouting off about how the Israeli's are illegally occupying palestinian land.

So show us all, within statutes of international law, just what law specifically supports this claim.

Should be very simple but as we can all see, there's some really awesome singing and dancing going on. But no references to any specific laws that are being broken ;--)

 

[Shusha]

Not true. Those offers have always been to surrender.

I do think this is the root cause of the conflict. Its an ideological problem in the mindset of the Arab Muslims (and obviously some of their supporters). Any compromise, anything less than getting everything, any sharing, any mutual respect and acknowledgement is surrender. And Arab Muslims don't surrender.