How can there ever be peace here?

[Toddsterpatriot]

Now lookie here Pbel. It is true that the Zio-Nuts are to blame for this ongoing conflict due to their treatment of the Palestinians. Lets face the truth. No surrounding Arab country ever treated the Palestinians like Israel does with peace offerings, a security fence & land concessions so the Palestinians can remain in their countries. When will Israel ever learn that you cannot keep a people captive in a foreign land & not expect jihad's, intifadas & rocket missiles for a thank you?

You Zio-Nuts get to me...Although World Opinion condems your Zio-Gods agressive behavior in the ME and mis-treatment of the Palestinian people...you wack jobs believe that ancient Israel belongs to todays Jews, so that land confiscation are Divinely justified using God to steal land plain and simple.

Good luck with your war on Islam, nuke Iran and perhaps start WWlll...

Your Zealot behavior will destroy Israel in time.

It is against international law to hold onto land seized in a war. All Israel needs to do, is end the occupation. There isn't a single country on the planet that recognizes Israels right in the OPT, including Israel. Their Supreme Court even refers to it as the "occupied territories". If their citizens want to live in those settlements, then they can apply for visa's, just like any other alien in someone else's country.

If Israel really wanted peace, they wouldn't have violated the cease-fire a couple years ago.

It is against international law to hold onto land seized in a war.

Does that mean Germany will get back the land they lost in WWII?

 

[pbel]

Now lookie here Pbel. It is true that the Zio-Nuts are to blame for this ongoing conflict due to their treatment of the Palestinians. Lets face the truth. No surrounding Arab country ever treated the Palestinians like Israel does with peace offerings, a security fence & land concessions so the Palestinians can remain in their countries. When will Israel ever learn that you cannot keep a people captive in a foreign land & not expect jihad's, intifadas & rocket missiles for a thank you?

It is against international law to hold onto land seized in a war. All Israel needs to do, is end the occupation. There isn't a single country on the planet that recognizes Israels right in the OPT, including Israel. Their Supreme Court even refers to it as the "occupied territories". If their citizens want to live in those settlements, then they can apply for visa's, just like any other alien in someone else's country.

If Israel really wanted peace, they wouldn't have violated the cease-fire a couple years ago.

It is against international law to hold onto land seized in a war.

Does that mean Germany will get back the land they lost in WWII?

The UN and Israel were created after WWll...Do you ever get tired of twisting the truth? The world has changed since. That's why America bombed Serbia with UN Sanction.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Jordan never owned the UN Mandate of Palestine, they administered it. The pre-emptive strike by Israel was a land grab. That's how the world sees it. Not even the USA has recognized Israel's anexations and that why the US Embassy is located in Tel Aviv and not Jerusalem.

You are confused. Jordan annexed the West Bank and made all the Arabs there Jordanian citizens, and in the Six Day War, Jordan was suckered by Nasser into attacking Israel. Nasser told him that Egypt had destroyed the IAF and that Jordan had nothing to fear. While Israel's attack on Egypt was preemptive, but justified, it was Jordan that attacked Israel in the Six Day War. Another interesting fact you may not have come across is that after liberating Jerusalem, the IDF stopped, assuming Jordan would keep control of the rest of the West Bank, but when Dayan learned the Jordanian army had fled all the way across the river, he ordered the IDF to advance to the river, a natural boundary.

You are misguided in thinking Israel's intent was to grab land. Within a week of the end of the war, Israel offered to return all the land it had captured in return for peace. None of the Arab states responded, but a short time later, the Arab nations met in Khartoum and issued their famous three no's: no peace with Israel, not recognition of Israel and no negotiations with Israel. In this way the Arab nations abandoned the land Israel had captured. It is clear that Israel's intention was to try to grab peace with the Arabs, not to grab land.

You are confused. Jordan annexed the West Bank and made all the Arabs there Jordanian citizens,...

No, you are confused. Jordan attempted to annex the West Bank but failed to get the rest of the world to recognize it.

Within a week of the end of the war, Israel offered to return all the land it had captured in return for peace.

Not true. Israel wanted to keep all of Jerusalem. You failed to mention that clunker.

No, you are confused. Jordan attempted to annex the West Bank but failed to get the rest of the world to recognize it.

No, Jordan did annex the West Bank and Britain recognized it as legitimate, but no other nation did.

Not true. Israel wanted to keep all of Jerusalem. You failed to mention that clunker

Israel may have wanted a lot of things, but it offered to return all the land it had captured in return for peace. Since the Arabs effectively abandoned all of this land by not responding to Israel's offer, we will never know if Israel would have attached conditions to giving up Jerusalem.

 

[MJB12741]

What country ever returned land won in a war? Certainly not the USA. At least Israel tried by offering to return the entire West Bank back to Jordan. But Jordan played it smart. They refused so they could sacrifice the West Bank to dump their Palestinians on Israel to deal with.

Now lookie here Pbel. It is true that the Zio-Nuts are to blame for this ongoing conflict due to their treatment of the Palestinians. Lets face the truth. No surrounding Arab country ever treated the Palestinians like Israel does with peace offerings, a security fence & land concessions so the Palestinians can remain in their countries. When will Israel ever learn that you cannot keep a people captive in a foreign land & not expect jihad's, intifadas & rocket missiles for a thank you?

It is against international law to hold onto land seized in a war. All Israel needs to do, is end the occupation. There isn't a single country on the planet that recognizes Israels right in the OPT, including Israel. Their Supreme Court even refers to it as the "occupied territories". If their citizens want to live in those settlements, then they can apply for visa's, just like any other alien in someone else's country.

If Israel really wanted peace, they wouldn't have violated the cease-fire a couple years ago.

It is against international law to hold onto land seized in a war.

Does that mean Germany will get back the land they lost in WWII?

 

[Billo_Really]

It is against international law to hold onto land seized in a war.

Leaving activist judges alone (for the time being, at least), let us ask a pertinent question - what might that "international law" be?

This one...

The United Nations Charter (June 26, 1945) had prohibited war of aggression (See articles 1.1, 2.3, 2.4) and GCIV Article 47, the first paragraph in Section III: Occupied territories, restricted the territorial gains which could be made through war by stating:

Protected persons who are in occupied territory shall not be deprived, in any case or in any manner whatsoever, of the benefits of the present Convention by any change introduced, as the result of the occupation of a territory, into the institutions or government of the said territory, nor by any agreement concluded between the authorities of the occupied territories and the Occupying Power, nor by any annexation by the latter of the whole or part of the occupied territory.​

Article 49 prohibits the forced mass movement of people out of or into occupied state's territory:

Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive. ... The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.​

And since Israel is a member nation of the UN, it is obligated to honor the treatise it signs and ratify's.

Saying Israel has a right to that land, is like saying it was okay for Germany to annex Poland and Hungary. And that's never gonna happen.

 

[Billo_Really]

It is against international law to hold onto land seized in a war.

Does that mean Germany will get back the land they lost in WWII?

Well, that particular law, didn't come in until after WWII. And it was created BECAUSE of Germany starting un-provoked wars of aggression against its neighbor's.

However, to be quite honest, I can't answer your question. I'm aware that there is some disputed land Germany lost, but I haven't researched that subject in detail, so I'm not qualified to comment on it right now.

 

[docmauser1]

No, they're "occupying". That's why this area is legally referred to as the "occupied territories".

Hoda Tawfik from the Al Ahram, attending a ME Insight symposium in Washington on May 4, 1998, asked James Baker:
"What do you think is right? That these are occupied Arab territories and not disputed territories?"
James Baker:
"They're clearly disputed territories. That's what Resolutions 242 and 338 are all about. They are clearly disputed territories."

 

[Billo_Really]

So let me get this straight. Israel's land has been Israel's land since antiquity. Is that right?

No, it isn't. Israel didn't exist until 1948.

Or did they become the Israelites after 1948? So yes, I agree the Israeli's are "occupying" their land.

People have been living in that area going back as far as you want too. The place wasn't vacant, then all of a sudden, people moved in 700 years ago. But zionists moved in 100 years ago and used jewish terrorism to drive out over 700,000 arabs that were indigigant to that area.

Now then, is it actually true there were no Muslims at all, let alone Palestinian Muslims until the 7th century AD?

That's a load of crap! But just for the sake of argument, let's say the diaspora did happen; you can't leave an area for over 2000 years, then come back and reclaim the area over the rights of the land owners at that time. Not to mention, wanting to create a racist, apartheid nation that descriminates against an entire race of people.

And can it be ythat Solomon's Temple predates the Al Asqa Mosque by thousands of years? So who is staealing who's land?

Arabs owned 90% of that land at the time zionists started populating the area, do the math!

Andf oh yes, Rachel. What proud American would not support a "peace activist" who travels to the Middle East in a war zone to publically condemn our US prersident, burn a mock American flag, join in with Palestinians chanting "Death To America" & then march in front of a moving bulldozer? Bless her. She sure did help our American Aunt Jemima's sales to boom.

WTF are you talking about? You threw about 4-6 different subjects all into one non-sensical paragraph that means absolutely jack shit! Is it too much to ask that you be a little more focused regarding your point?

 

[Billo_Really]

Or you could show a map of the country of Palestine say, ever?

Here's a couple...

 

[Billo_Really]

There is nothing illegal about Israel's presence in the West Bank or about Israeli communities in the West Bank. The international law you refer to concerns land captured from another country in a war. It has no application to the West Bank since Jordan had had not legal right to it and, in any case, Israel had offered to return it in return for peace a week after the end of the Six Day War. Furthermore, the present arrangement, Israeli control of Area C and joint security control with the PA, is by agreement with the PA as specified in the Oslo Accords.

Unfortunately, since Israel is in material breach of that "agreement", it is not legally binding. What is legally binding, is the agreements made back in 1920 by the League of Nations, which, BTW, is now the UN.

If the Palestinian Arabs are unhappy with the present arrangement, they can come back to the negotiating table and try to negotiate a new one. Negotiations have failed so far because the PA has been more interested in objecting to the existence of the state of Israel than in establishing a state of their own in the disputed territories by demanding Israel admit millions of foreigners and a corridor between Gaza and the West Bank that would cut Israel into two pieces. If the Palestinian Arabs can ever agree among themselves that they want to live in peace alongside the Jewish state of Israel, perhaps a Palestinian Arab state can be established in the disputed territories, but so far there is no indication they are prepared to live in peace next to the Jewish state of Israel.

Palestinian leaders have indicated they would accept a two-state solution, but Israel needs to end its occupation, illegal settlement activity, that BS Berlin Wall their building and that economic blockade of Gaza that is actually a "crime against humanity".

 

[docmauser1]

It is against international law to hold onto land seized in a war.

Leaving activist judges alone (for the time being, at least), let us ask a pertinent question - what might that "international law" be?

This one... Protected persons who are in occupied territory shall not be deprived, in any case or in any manner whatsoever, of the benefits of the present Convention by any change introduced, as the result of the occupation of a territory, into the institutions or government of the said territory, nor by any agreement concluded between the authorities of the occupied territories and the Occupying Power, nor by any annexation by the latter of the whole or part of the occupied territory.

Lets us review a fairly recent International court of justice ruling on that matter.

• The ICJ ruled that, it had jurisdiction over the case, but it involved only a dispute between Israel and the UN, rather than a dispute between Israel and palistanians.
• The ICJ ruled that, provisions of the international law regarding israeli right of self-defense are inapplicable, since there is no state involved other than Israel.
• The ICJ ruled that the West Bank is an occupied territory.
• Thus, the ICJ holds that, there exists an armed conflict, and that territories are occupied territories of another state; and at the same time the ICJ asserts that, Israel has no right to defend itself, because there is no other state involved.

There it is - a virtual-reality occupation, making real money for palistanian con-artists, their UN fellow-travelers and a diverse bunch of other occupational scumbags and philistines. Dooh.

 

[docmauser1]

Arabs owned 90% of that land at the time zionists started populating the area, do the math!

No doubt arabs firmly believe in this idiocy, but we know better. As of 1947, 7% of the land of west palestine was owned by jews. 7-8% was owned by arabs. 16% was owned by absentee landlords, mostly churches. The remainder was state lands, owned first by the sultan and after that - by the british government of palestine.

 

[toomuchtime_]

It is against international law to hold onto land seized in a war.

Leaving activist judges alone (for the time being, at least), let us ask a pertinent question - what might that "international law" be?

This one...

The United Nations Charter (June 26, 1945) had prohibited war of aggression (See articles 1.1, 2.3, 2.4) and GCIV Article 47, the first paragraph in Section III: Occupied territories, restricted the territorial gains which could be made through war by stating:

Protected persons who are in occupied territory shall not be deprived, in any case or in any manner whatsoever, of the benefits of the present Convention by any change introduced, as the result of the occupation of a territory, into the institutions or government of the said territory, nor by any agreement concluded between the authorities of the occupied territories and the Occupying Power, nor by any annexation by the latter of the whole or part of the occupied territory.​

Article 49 prohibits the forced mass movement of people out of or into occupied state's territory:

Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive. ... The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.​

And since Israel is a member nation of the UN, it is obligated to honor the treatise it signs and ratify's.

Saying Israel has a right to that land, is like saying it was okay for Germany to annex Poland and Hungary. And that's never gonna happen.

Of course, none of this applies to the West Bank. Jordan launched a war of aggression against Israel, not the other way around, and since the Jordanian occupation of the West Bank was considered illegal by everyone except Britain, none of the institutions of government introduced by Jordan had any standing.

There were no forced transfers of populations

Neither the Israeli presence in the West Bank nor the Israeli West Bank communities are in any sense illegal.

 

[Billo_Really]

Leaving activist judges alone (for the time being, at least), let us ask a pertinent question - what might that "international law" be?

This one...

The United Nations Charter (June 26, 1945) had prohibited war of aggression (See articles 1.1, 2.3, 2.4) and GCIV Article 47, the first paragraph in Section III: Occupied territories, restricted the territorial gains which could be made through war by stating:

Protected persons who are in occupied territory shall not be deprived, in any case or in any manner whatsoever, of the benefits of the present Convention by any change introduced, as the result of the occupation of a territory, into the institutions or government of the said territory, nor by any agreement concluded between the authorities of the occupied territories and the Occupying Power, nor by any annexation by the latter of the whole or part of the occupied territory.​

Article 49 prohibits the forced mass movement of people out of or into occupied state's territory:

Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive. ... The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.​

And since Israel is a member nation of the UN, it is obligated to honor the treatise it signs and ratify's.

Saying Israel has a right to that land, is like saying it was okay for Germany to annex Poland and Hungary. And that's never gonna happen.

Of course, none of this applies to the West Bank. Jordan launched a war of aggression against Israel, not the other way around, and since the Jordanian occupation of the West Bank was considered illegal by everyone except Britain, none of the institutions of government introduced by Jordan had any standing.

There were no forced transfers of populations

Neither the Israeli presence in the West Bank nor the Israeli West Bank communities are in any sense illegal.

Unfortunately, you're not the authority having jurisdiction to draw those conclusions. The AHJ, in this case, is the UNSC. And their legal interpretation of this area, is that of an "occupation".

 

[Billo_Really]

Arabs owned 90% of that land at the time zionists started populating the area, do the math!

No doubt arabs firmly believe in this idiocy, but we know better. As of 1947, 7% of the land of west palestine was owned by jews. 7-8% was owned by arabs. 16% was owned by absentee landlords, mostly churches. The remainder was state lands, owned first by the sultan and after that - by the british government of palestine.

Not true.

(in 1922...a British census showed that Jews represented only about 11 percent of the population).

Additionally, land ownership statistics from 1945 showed that Arabs owned more land than Jews in every single district of Palestine, including Jaffa, where Arabs owned 47 percent of the land while Jews owned 39 percent – and Jaffa boasted the highest percentage of Jewish-owned land of any district. In other districts, Arabs owned an even larger portion of the land. At the extreme other end, for instance, in Ramallah, Arabs owned 99 percent of the land. In the whole of Palestine, Arabs owned 85 percent of the land, while Jews owned less than 7 percent, which remained the case up until the time of Israel’s creation.

We can argue about the percentages all day, but the one basic fact is, you cannot migrate into an area and automatically have more rights than the people already living there. If you think they do, why don't you come over to my house and try to tell me what's what under my own roof. I will personnally demonstrate what rights you have at that point. But you'll probably recognize the ones you don't have, first.

Or better yet, walk across your street right now, go into the first house you come to, walk in un-announced and start telling the people in there what to do. Then come back and tell us all how it went. If you're lucky, maybe you'll get a driveway out of it?

 

[P F Tinmore]

You are confused. Jordan annexed the West Bank and made all the Arabs there Jordanian citizens, and in the Six Day War, Jordan was suckered by Nasser into attacking Israel. Nasser told him that Egypt had destroyed the IAF and that Jordan had nothing to fear. While Israel's attack on Egypt was preemptive, but justified, it was Jordan that attacked Israel in the Six Day War. Another interesting fact you may not have come across is that after liberating Jerusalem, the IDF stopped, assuming Jordan would keep control of the rest of the West Bank, but when Dayan learned the Jordanian army had fled all the way across the river, he ordered the IDF to advance to the river, a natural boundary.

You are misguided in thinking Israel's intent was to grab land. Within a week of the end of the war, Israel offered to return all the land it had captured in return for peace. None of the Arab states responded, but a short time later, the Arab nations met in Khartoum and issued their famous three no's: no peace with Israel, not recognition of Israel and no negotiations with Israel. In this way the Arab nations abandoned the land Israel had captured. It is clear that Israel's intention was to try to grab peace with the Arabs, not to grab land.

No, you are confused. Jordan attempted to annex the West Bank but failed to get the rest of the world to recognize it.



Not true. Israel wanted to keep all of Jerusalem. You failed to mention that clunker.

No, you are confused. Jordan attempted to annex the West Bank but failed to get the rest of the world to recognize it.

No, Jordan did annex the West Bank and Britain recognized it as legitimate, but no other nation did.

Not true. Israel wanted to keep all of Jerusalem. You failed to mention that clunker

Israel may have wanted a lot of things, but it offered to return all the land it had captured in return for peace. Since the Arabs effectively abandoned all of this land by not responding to Israel's offer, we will never know if Israel would have attached conditions to giving up Jerusalem.

Since the Arabs effectively abandoned all of this land by not responding to Israel's offer,...

The Palestinians abandoned their land?

Got a link?

 

[toomuchtime_]

This one...

And since Israel is a member nation of the UN, it is obligated to honor the treatise it signs and ratify's.

Saying Israel has a right to that land, is like saying it was okay for Germany to annex Poland and Hungary. And that's never gonna happen.

Of course, none of this applies to the West Bank. Jordan launched a war of aggression against Israel, not the other way around, and since the Jordanian occupation of the West Bank was considered illegal by everyone except Britain, none of the institutions of government introduced by Jordan had any standing.

There were no forced transfers of populations

Neither the Israeli presence in the West Bank nor the Israeli West Bank communities are in any sense illegal.

Unfortunately, you're not the authority having jurisdiction to draw those conclusions. The AHJ, in this case, is the UNSC. And their legal interpretation of this area, is that of an "occupation".

But not an illegal occupation. Israel offered to give up the land it had captured in return for peace, but the Arab nations that had lost the land refused to take it back when they made peace with Israel. The dispute with the Palestinian Arabs is unrelated to the circumstances that led to the occupation. Since the Jordanian occupation of the land was illegal, its status at the time Israel captured it from Jordan was that of an unincorporated remnant of the former UN Protectorate and that remains its status, with the exception of Jerusalem, because the Palestinian Arabs have been unable to agree among themselves on a two state solution in which they would live in peace with the Jewish state of Israel.

 

[toomuchtime_]

No, you are confused. Jordan attempted to annex the West Bank but failed to get the rest of the world to recognize it.



Not true. Israel wanted to keep all of Jerusalem. You failed to mention that clunker.

No, Jordan did annex the West Bank and Britain recognized it as legitimate, but no other nation did.



Israel may have wanted a lot of things, but it offered to return all the land it had captured in return for peace. Since the Arabs effectively abandoned all of this land by not responding to Israel's offer, we will never know if Israel would have attached conditions to giving up Jerusalem.

Since the Arabs effectively abandoned all of this land by not responding to Israel's offer,...

The Palestinians abandoned their land?

Got a link?

Got a brain?

 

[P F Tinmore]

No, Jordan did annex the West Bank and Britain recognized it as legitimate, but no other nation did.



Israel may have wanted a lot of things, but it offered to return all the land it had captured in return for peace. Since the Arabs effectively abandoned all of this land by not responding to Israel's offer, we will never know if Israel would have attached conditions to giving up Jerusalem.

Since the Arabs effectively abandoned all of this land by not responding to Israel's offer,...

The Palestinians abandoned their land?

Got a link?

Got a brain?

Sure.

Got a link?

 

[toomuchtime_]

The Palestinians abandoned their land?

Got a link?

Got a brain?

Sure.

Got a link?

Idiot, the discussion was about Israel and the Arab nations. The Palestinian Arabs had nothing to do with it.