Does international law require Israel to vacate the disputed territories

[Indeependent]

Please detail the PDFs pages to focus on.

No need. The heading "Occupied Territories" is included at the top of every page of the U.S. State Department report.

Too funny. Just like the Iraq War Bill passed by GW had over 32,000 earmarks.
The title of a document can be misleading or even indicate a debunking of a claim.
Specific pages please.

Page 2 thru 119.

You are so pathetic.
I presume of the documents you have posted in the 3 days YOU have not read every page because you're posting too fast for that to be true.

There is no need to read the whole document. If the U.S. Department of State is reporting on the Occupied Territories and not something called "Disputed Territories", and "Occupied Territories" is printed on the pages I referenced. That is all that is necessary to demonstrate that the U.S. Government considers the territories occupied. Not the sharpest knife in the drawer, are you.

Ad hominem...I win.
Actually, most Left Wingers in the Israeli DO consider the areas to be Occupied.
They just don't want to be stabbed walking down the streets of Tel Aviv.
Now if only the Arabs could behave for 1 month.

 

[montelatici]

No need. The heading "Occupied Territories" is included at the top of every page of the U.S. State Department report.

Too funny. Just like the Iraq War Bill passed by GW had over 32,000 earmarks.
The title of a document can be misleading or even indicate a debunking of a claim.
Specific pages please.

Page 2 thru 119.

You are so pathetic.
I presume of the documents you have posted in the 3 days YOU have not read every page because you're posting too fast for that to be true.

There is no need to read the whole document. If the U.S. Department of State is reporting on the Occupied Territories and not something called "Disputed Territories", and "Occupied Territories" is printed on the pages I referenced. That is all that is necessary to demonstrate that the U.S. Government considers the territories occupied. Not the sharpest knife in the drawer, are you.

Ad hominem...I win.
1921.

The old declare victory and lose technique doesn't work. You lose.

 

[Boston1]

There is every need to read an entire document.

This is one of many reasons you Achmed are so amazingly uninformed on these issues

 

[Indeependent]

Too funny. Just like the Iraq War Bill passed by GW had over 32,000 earmarks.
The title of a document can be misleading or even indicate a debunking of a claim.
Specific pages please.

Page 2 thru 119.

You are so pathetic.
I presume of the documents you have posted in the 3 days YOU have not read every page because you're posting too fast for that to be true.

There is no need to read the whole document. If the U.S. Department of State is reporting on the Occupied Territories and not something called "Disputed Territories", and "Occupied Territories" is printed on the pages I referenced. That is all that is necessary to demonstrate that the U.S. Government considers the territories occupied. Not the sharpest knife in the drawer, are you.

Ad hominem...I win.
1921.

The old declare victory and lose technique doesn't work. You lose.

I didn't declare victory, I stated your inability to focus on a point and elaborate in context.
You can't even differentiate between a request to be more focused and your immature habit of declaring victory.

 

[Boston1]

Since 1967, Israel has been holding the areas of Judea and Samaria [hereinafter – the area] in belligerent occupation
HCJ 316/03

Actually Fangor has a point

The deal though is that the terminology doesn't mean what you think it does.

Beligerant is a term applied to both the defending and the aggressive party. In this case five nations of the Arab league declared war on Israel. The key thing to remember is that the legal obligations of belligerents ;--) depend entirely on their designation as the aggressor or the defender.

Occupation it has been argued, cannot include land designated for the "occupier" in that the USA is not occupying the land area of the USA in a legal sense, although the term is generally used as a convenience.

Likewise Israel cannot be illegally occupying the land of israel

I would note that the term illegal occupation or illegal belligerent occupation was not used by MR ( wait for it ;--)( Barak ) of the court.

See definitions in the definitions thread

 

[Boston1]

PS

I'd like to give a two thumbs up to the girl with the amazing cleavage in the add bellow ;--)

 

[Indeependent]

PS

I'd like to give a two thumbs up to the girl with the amazing cleavage in the add bellow ;--)

Damn AdBlock!

 

[Indeependent]

Since 1967, Israel has been holding the areas of Judea and Samaria [hereinafter – the area] in belligerent occupation
HCJ 316/03

Actually Fangor has a point

The deal though is that the terminology doesn't mean what you think it does.

Beligerant is a term applied to both the defending and the aggressive party. In this case five nations of the Arab league declared war on Israel. The key thing to remember is that the legal obligations of belligerents ;--) depend entirely on their designation as the aggressor or the defender.

Occupation it has been argued, cannot include land designated for the "occupier" in that the USA is not occupying the land area of the USA in a legal sense, although the term is generally used as a convenience.

Likewise Israel cannot be illegally occupying the land of israel

I would note that the term illegal occupation or illegal belligerent occupation was not used by MR ( wait for it ;--)( Barak ) of the court.

See definitions in the definitions thread

Stop focusing on nomenclature!

 

[montelatici]

There is every need to read an entire document.

This is one of many reasons you Achmed are so amazingly uninformed on these issues

It is just a demonstration that you only present propaganda. You have never referenced a source document, just Zionist propaganda. The Jordan issue is just one of many Hasbara propaganda themes you have presented. We take them and debunk them one at a time.

 

[Indeependent]

There is every need to read an entire document.

This is one of many reasons you Achmed are so amazingly uninformed on these issues

It is just a demonstration that you only present propaganda. You have never referenced a source document, just Zionist propaganda. The Jordan issue is just one of many Hasbara propaganda themes you have presented. We take them and debunk them one at a time.

You do?
I haven't noticed.
Your War & Peace source documents don't provide what you think they provide.
Keep looking.

 

[montelatici]

There is every need to read an entire document.

This is one of many reasons you Achmed are so amazingly uninformed on these issues

It is just a demonstration that you only present propaganda. You have never referenced a source document, just Zionist propaganda. The Jordan issue is just one of many Hasbara propaganda themes you have presented. We take them and debunk them one at a time.

You do?
I haven't noticed.
Your War & Peace source documents don't provide what you think they provide.
Keep looking.

The source documents "provide" the precise facts that debunk the Zionist propaganda. You are just unhappy that you only have propaganda to rely on.

 

[Indeependent]

There is every need to read an entire document.

This is one of many reasons you Achmed are so amazingly uninformed on these issues

It is just a demonstration that you only present propaganda. You have never referenced a source document, just Zionist propaganda. The Jordan issue is just one of many Hasbara propaganda themes you have presented. We take them and debunk them one at a time.

You do?
I haven't noticed.
Your War & Peace source documents don't provide what you think they provide.
Keep looking.

The source documents "provide" the precise facts that debunk the Zionist propaganda. You are just unhappy that you only have propaganda to rely on.

Yawn. I posted the quote from your document so I'll let you have the last ad hominem.

 

[fanger]

Since 1967, Israel has been holding the areas of Judea and Samaria [hereinafter – the area] in belligerent occupation
HCJ 316/03

Actually Fangor has a point

The deal though is that the terminology doesn't mean what you think it does.

Beligerant is a term applied to both the defending and the aggressive party. In this case five nations of the Arab league declared war on Israel. The key thing to remember is that the legal obligations of belligerents ;--) depend entirely on their designation as the aggressor or the defender.

Occupation it has been argued, cannot include land designated for the "occupier" in that the USA is not occupying the land area of the USA in a legal sense, although the term is generally used as a convenience.

Likewise Israel cannot be illegally occupying the land of israel

I would note that the term illegal occupation or illegal belligerent occupation was not used by MR ( wait for it ;--)( Barak ) of the court.

See definitions in the definitions thread

That War is long over yet Israel remains Belligerent towards the civillian population of occupied Palestine

 

[montelatici]

There is every need to read an entire document.

This is one of many reasons you Achmed are so amazingly uninformed on these issues

It is just a demonstration that you only present propaganda. You have never referenced a source document, just Zionist propaganda. The Jordan issue is just one of many Hasbara propaganda themes you have presented. We take them and debunk them one at a time.

You do?
I haven't noticed.
Your War & Peace source documents don't provide what you think they provide.
Keep looking.

The source documents "provide" the precise facts that debunk the Zionist propaganda. You are just unhappy that you only have propaganda to rely on.

Yawn. I posted the quote from your document so I'll let you have the last ad hominem.

You posted nothing. The "yawn" indicates that you have finally determined that your trolling is not having an effect, except to confirm you haven't a clue.

 

[Boston1]

There is every need to read an entire document.

This is one of many reasons you Achmed are so amazingly uninformed on these issues

It is just a demonstration that you only present propaganda. You have never referenced a source document, just Zionist propaganda. The Jordan issue is just one of many Hasbara propaganda themes you have presented. We take them and debunk them one at a time.

WOW, one lie after another today, I'll give you consistency. I don't think anyone reading along would agree that I'm not providing references or "source documents" as you call it. LOL

 

[fanger]

You post Hasbara talking points, the´re not even your own

 

[Boston1]

Since 1967, Israel has been holding the areas of Judea and Samaria [hereinafter – the area] in belligerent occupation
HCJ 316/03

Actually Fangor has a point

The deal though is that the terminology doesn't mean what you think it does.

Beligerant is a term applied to both the defending and the aggressive party. In this case five nations of the Arab league declared war on Israel. The key thing to remember is that the legal obligations of belligerents ;--) depend entirely on their designation as the aggressor or the defender.

Occupation it has been argued, cannot include land designated for the "occupier" in that the USA is not occupying the land area of the USA in a legal sense, although the term is generally used as a convenience.

Likewise Israel cannot be illegally occupying the land of israel

I would note that the term illegal occupation or illegal belligerent occupation was not used by MR ( wait for it ;--)( Barak ) of the court.

See definitions in the definitions thread

That War is long over yet Israel remains Belligerent towards the civillian population of occupied Palestine

Wrong, the war isn't over, oh several of the original combatants have made peace but not all. According to

See
Geneva Convention (IV) - International Committee of the ...

A period of one year must pass with no hostilities before the waring parties are even expected to begin releasing war prisoners.

But unless a specific peace treaty is signed or a surrender is reached, the state of war still exists.

Which is another reason Israel is not required to vacate the disputed territories

 

[P F Tinmore]

Since 1967, Israel has been holding the areas of Judea and Samaria [hereinafter – the area] in belligerent occupation
HCJ 316/03

Actually Fangor has a point

The deal though is that the terminology doesn't mean what you think it does.

Beligerant is a term applied to both the defending and the aggressive party. In this case five nations of the Arab league declared war on Israel. The key thing to remember is that the legal obligations of belligerents ;--) depend entirely on their designation as the aggressor or the defender.

Occupation it has been argued, cannot include land designated for the "occupier" in that the USA is not occupying the land area of the USA in a legal sense, although the term is generally used as a convenience.

Likewise Israel cannot be illegally occupying the land of israel

I would note that the term illegal occupation or illegal belligerent occupation was not used by MR ( wait for it ;--)( Barak ) of the court.

See definitions in the definitions thread

That War is long over yet Israel remains Belligerent towards the civillian population of occupied Palestine

Wrong, the war isn't over, oh several of the original combatants have made peace but not all. According to

See
Geneva Convention (IV) - International Committee of the ...

A period of one year must pass with no hostilities before the waring parties are even expected to begin releasing war prisoners.

But unless a specific peace treaty is signed or a surrender is reached, the state of war still exists.

Which is another reason Israel is not required to vacate the disputed territories

Wrong, the war isn't over,​

Indeed, and Israel is prematurely claiming it won land in a continuing war.

 

[Boston1]

Since 1967, Israel has been holding the areas of Judea and Samaria [hereinafter – the area] in belligerent occupation
HCJ 316/03

Actually Fangor has a point

The deal though is that the terminology doesn't mean what you think it does.

Beligerant is a term applied to both the defending and the aggressive party. In this case five nations of the Arab league declared war on Israel. The key thing to remember is that the legal obligations of belligerents ;--) depend entirely on their designation as the aggressor or the defender.

Occupation it has been argued, cannot include land designated for the "occupier" in that the USA is not occupying the land area of the USA in a legal sense, although the term is generally used as a convenience.

Likewise Israel cannot be illegally occupying the land of israel

I would note that the term illegal occupation or illegal belligerent occupation was not used by MR ( wait for it ;--)( Barak ) of the court.

See definitions in the definitions thread

That War is long over yet Israel remains Belligerent towards the civillian population of occupied Palestine

Wrong, the war isn't over, oh several of the original combatants have made peace but not all. According to

See
Geneva Convention (IV) - International Committee of the ...

A period of one year must pass with no hostilities before the waring parties are even expected to begin releasing war prisoners.

But unless a specific peace treaty is signed or a surrender is reached, the state of war still exists.

Which is another reason Israel is not required to vacate the disputed territories

Wrong, the war isn't over,​

Indeed, and Israel is prematurely claiming it won land in a continuing war.

Wrong, Israel isn't claiming it won land, Israel is claiming its using land designated by the world community for it to create a Jewish national homeland.

Which is why Israel was not asked to define its borders when it applied for statehood at the UN ;--) because the borders had yet to be determined.

Which is why it cannot be occupying this land. See the definitions thread for the exact legal description of occupy. Which IMHO is inaccurately used in reference to Israel in the disputed territories due the the Ottomans having given up any claim to the land and the mandate clearly stating that the area is to be used for the creation of a national Jewish homeland.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Since 1967, Israel has been holding the areas of Judea and Samaria [hereinafter – the area] in belligerent occupation
HCJ 316/03

Actually Fangor has a point

The deal though is that the terminology doesn't mean what you think it does.

Beligerant is a term applied to both the defending and the aggressive party. In this case five nations of the Arab league declared war on Israel. The key thing to remember is that the legal obligations of belligerents ;--) depend entirely on their designation as the aggressor or the defender.

Occupation it has been argued, cannot include land designated for the "occupier" in that the USA is not occupying the land area of the USA in a legal sense, although the term is generally used as a convenience.

Likewise Israel cannot be illegally occupying the land of israel

I would note that the term illegal occupation or illegal belligerent occupation was not used by MR ( wait for it ;--)( Barak ) of the court.

See definitions in the definitions thread

That War is long over yet Israel remains Belligerent towards the civillian population of occupied Palestine

Wrong, the war isn't over, oh several of the original combatants have made peace but not all. According to

See
Geneva Convention (IV) - International Committee of the ...

A period of one year must pass with no hostilities before the waring parties are even expected to begin releasing war prisoners.

But unless a specific peace treaty is signed or a surrender is reached, the state of war still exists.

Which is another reason Israel is not required to vacate the disputed territories

Wrong, the war isn't over,​

Indeed, and Israel is prematurely claiming it won land in a continuing war.

Wrong, Israel isn't claiming it won land, Israel is claiming its using land designated by the world community for it to create a Jewish national homeland.

Which is why Israel was not asked to define its borders when it applied for statehood at the UN ;--) because the borders had yet to be determined.

Which is why it cannot be occupying this land. See the definitions thread for the exact legal description of occupy. Which IMHO is inaccurately used in reference to Israel in the disputed territories due the the Ottomans having given up any claim to the land and the mandate clearly stating that the area is to be used for the creation of a national Jewish homeland.

Wrong, Israel isn't claiming it won land, Israel is claiming its using land designated by the world community for it to create a Jewish national homeland.

What defined territory was given to Israel?

Link?