Most Palestinians see fresh peace talks as error

[Billo_Really]

Such as....?

UN Resolution 242.

 

[Sweet_Caroline]

Such as....?

UN Resolution 242.

Israel pleaded with Jordan not to join in the attack against Israel, but Jordan ignored it, attacked Israel and Israel regained the land that was taken illegally by Jordan in 1949, which of course no country recognized Jordan's right to that land. Israel simply recaptured and took rightful ownership of the land again. Israel is fully entitled to the land and to build homes.

 

[Billo_Really]

Israel pleaded with Jordan not to join in the attack against Israel, but Jordan ignored it, attacked Israel and Israel regained the land that was taken illegally by Jordan in 1949, which of course no country recognized Jordan's right to that land. Israel simply recaptured and took rightful ownership of the land again. Israel is fully entitled to the land and to build homes.

So if it was okay for the Nazis to do it, then it's okay for Israel to do it as well? If it's okay for Germany to annex Poland, then it's okay for Israel to annex territory it wants as well, as long as they come up with a good reason to invade? Is that right?

Oh, wait a minute, it was not okay for Germany to do that! And it's not okay for Israel to do it either. You cannot hold onto land seized in a war.

The right of conquest is the right of a conqueror to territory taken by force of arms. It was traditionally a principle of international law which has in modern times gradually given way until its proscription after the Second World War when the crime of war of aggression was first codified in the Nuremberg Principles and then finally, in 1974, as a United Nations resolution 3314.

The completion of colonial conquest of much of the world (see the Scramble for Africa), the devastation of World War I and World War II, and the alignment of both the United States and the Soviet Union with the principle of self-determination led to the abandonment of the right of conquest in formal international law. The 1928 Kellogg-Briand Pact, the post-1945 Nuremberg Trials, the UN Charter, and the UN role in decolonization saw the progressive dismantling of this principle. Simultaneously, the UN Charter's guarantee of the "territorial integrity" of member states effectively froze out claims against prior conquests from this process.

I'm sorry, twisted sister, but what you're claiming is illegal.

 

[Sweet_Caroline]

Israel pleaded with Jordan not to join in the attack against Israel, but Jordan ignored it, attacked Israel and Israel regained the land that was taken illegally by Jordan in 1949, which of course no country recognized Jordan's right to that land. Israel simply recaptured and took rightful ownership of the land again. Israel is fully entitled to the land and to build homes.

So if it was okay for the Nazis to do it, then it's okay for Israel to do it as well? If it's okay for Germany to annex Poland, then it's okay for Israel to annex territory it wants as well, as long as they come up with a good reason to invade? Is that right?

Oh, wait a minute, it was not okay for Germany to do that! And it's not okay for Israel to do it either. You cannot hold onto land seized in a war.

The right of conquest is the right of a conqueror to territory taken by force of arms. It was traditionally a principle of international law which has in modern times gradually given way until its proscription after the Second World War when the crime of war of aggression was first codified in the Nuremberg Principles and then finally, in 1974, as a United Nations resolution 3314.

The completion of colonial conquest of much of the world (see the Scramble for Africa), the devastation of World War I and World War II, and the alignment of both the United States and the Soviet Union with the principle of self-determination led to the abandonment of the right of conquest in formal international law. The 1928 Kellogg-Briand Pact, the post-1945 Nuremberg Trials, the UN Charter, and the UN role in decolonization saw the progressive dismantling of this principle. Simultaneously, the UN Charter's guarantee of the "territorial integrity" of member states effectively froze out claims against prior conquests from this process.

I'm sorry, twisted sister, but what you're claiming is illegal.

Israel was in a defensive war. It is really simple to understand and is the basis for non-compliance with 242.

 

[Billo_Really]

Israel was in a defensive war. It is really simple to understand and is the basis for non-compliance with 242.

It doesn't matter.

BTW, the '67 war officially began when Israeli tanks rolled into Egypt.

That's not defense.

 

[Hollie]

I thought the above might be your response. Your bluster and chest-heaving was suddenly muted when you were confronted with information that contradicted your false claims.

"Zionist culture"? I hold no religious belief so your silly "Zionist culture" comment is a waste of time.

So far, you've managed to get nothing at all right.

No you are the one who is wrong, Not only do you refuse to answer the issues that I have raised but you also refuse to acknowledge Israel's Culpability in this matter.
Also a person who claims to have all of the answer should realize that Zionism is not a religious culture but a political culture. Maybe you are the one who needs to check your facts !!!

Why are you whining about your issues not being addressed when your issues have been addressed?

 

[Sweet_Caroline]

Israel was in a defensive war. It is really simple to understand and is the basis for non-compliance with 242.

It doesn't matter.

BTW, the '67 war officially began when Israeli tanks rolled into Egypt.

That's not defense.

No, it does matter.

Jordan attacked Israel and Israel drove them back, thereby taking the land that Jordan was not entitled to in the first place and Israel was. Had Jordan not attacked Israel then Jordan would still be in possession (albeit illegally as it had not right to be there) of the West Bank.

It is so simple to understand, but of course you lot twist it so as to make it look like Israel shouldn't be there, when Israel should.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Israel was in a defensive war. It is really simple to understand and is the basis for non-compliance with 242.

It doesn't matter.

BTW, the '67 war officially began when Israeli tanks rolled into Egypt.

That's not defense.

No, it does matter.

Jordan attacked Israel and Israel drove them back, thereby taking the land that Jordan was not entitled to in the first place and Israel was. Had Jordan not attacked Israel then Jordan would still be in possession (albeit illegally as it had not right to be there) of the West Bank.

It is so simple to understand, but of course you lot twist it so as to make it look like Israel shouldn't be there, when Israel should.

land that Jordan was not entitled to in the first place

Didn't Jordan occupy that land since 1948?

 

[Sweet_Caroline]

It doesn't matter.

BTW, the '67 war officially began when Israeli tanks rolled into Egypt.

That's not defense.

No, it does matter.

Jordan attacked Israel and Israel drove them back, thereby taking the land that Jordan was not entitled to in the first place and Israel was. Had Jordan not attacked Israel then Jordan would still be in possession (albeit illegally as it had not right to be there) of the West Bank.

It is so simple to understand, but of course you lot twist it so as to make it look like Israel shouldn't be there, when Israel should.

land that Jordan was not entitled to in the first place

Didn't Jordan occupy that land since 1948?

Yes, Jordan occupied that land illegally, in a war of aggression, not defense.

Land taken in a war of aggression is illegal.

Land taken in a war of defense is legal, particularly since it was Jewish land in the first place, according to San Remo.

Understand?

 

[Sunni Man]

Yes, Jordan occupied that land illegally, in a war of aggression, not defense.

Land taken in a war of aggression is illegal.

Land taken in a war of defense is legal, particularly since it was Jewish land in the first place, according to San Remo.

Understand?

LOL.......there is normal logic......and then there is Juden logic. .

 

[Sweet_Caroline]

Yes, Jordan occupied that land illegally, in a war of aggression, not defense.

Land taken in a war of aggression is illegal.

Land taken in a war of defense is legal, particularly since it was Jewish land in the first place, according to San Remo.

Understand?

LOL.......there is normal logic......and then there is Juden logic. .

Well, tell me what is illogical if you can because I explained it clearly and truthfully.

 

[Hollie]

Yes, Jordan occupied that land illegally, in a war of aggression, not defense.

Land taken in a war of aggression is illegal.

Land taken in a war of defense is legal, particularly since it was Jewish land in the first place, according to San Remo.

Understand?

LOL.......there is normal logic......and then there is Juden logic. .

Then again, there is islamo-logic.

Moslems are still whining about the lands conquered during the islamo-Crusades which have since been liberated.

As a convert, you obviously know little of islamo-ideology. There is a concept called wagf that islamo-supremacists hold.

That concept is what drives ummah'istan thus allowing the "Palestinians" to be used as convenient cannon-fodder in the vilification (and hoped-for destruction) of Israel.
In Arabic, waqf can literally mean prevention, restraint, or retention. In Islamism, a waqf is any property that has been seized for the benefit of Moslems, in perpetuity, and to please muhammud (swish). It is essentially making land, or other material, muhammud's (swish) property, not to be taken back by anyone. It is an important part of shariah law, and has several purposes. In the context of "Palestine", we are concerned with its ramifications in connection with land.

 

[P F Tinmore]

No, it does matter.

Jordan attacked Israel and Israel drove them back, thereby taking the land that Jordan was not entitled to in the first place and Israel was. Had Jordan not attacked Israel then Jordan would still be in possession (albeit illegally as it had not right to be there) of the West Bank.

It is so simple to understand, but of course you lot twist it so as to make it look like Israel shouldn't be there, when Israel should.

land that Jordan was not entitled to in the first place

Didn't Jordan occupy that land since 1948?

Yes, Jordan occupied that land illegally, in a war of aggression, not defense.

Land taken in a war of aggression is illegal.

Land taken in a war of defense is legal, particularly since it was Jewish land in the first place, according to San Remo.

Understand?

There was a war between Palestine and Jordan? How did Palestine get to be occupied by Jordan, or Egypt for that matter?

 

[toastman]

Yes, Jordan occupied that land illegally, in a war of aggression, not defense.

Land taken in a war of aggression is illegal.

Land taken in a war of defense is legal, particularly since it was Jewish land in the first place, according to San Remo.

Understand?

LOL.......there is normal logic......and then there is Juden logic. .

LOL everyone was contributing to the debate, and then Sunni Troll comes and trolls the thread, as usual. What a waste of space you are, little Muslim Shill

 

[Sweet_Caroline]

Didn't Jordan occupy that land since 1948?

Yes, Jordan occupied that land illegally, in a war of aggression, not defense.

Land taken in a war of aggression is illegal.

Land taken in a war of defense is legal, particularly since it was Jewish land in the first place, according to San Remo.

Understand?

There was a war between Palestine and Jordan? How did Palestine get to be occupied by Jordan, or Egypt for that matter?

The day after Israel was declared a State in 1948 Israel was attacked from all sides. Jordan illegally occupied what is known as the West Bank, and kicked every Jew out of the area, and destroyed the synagogues and graveyards, and Jewish institutions. Jordan held on to that territory until it attacked Israel again in 1967, but Israel was miraculously triumphant and pushed the Jordanian army back.

 

[toastman]

Didn't Jordan occupy that land since 1948?

Yes, Jordan occupied that land illegally, in a war of aggression, not defense.

Land taken in a war of aggression is illegal.

Land taken in a war of defense is legal, particularly since it was Jewish land in the first place, according to San Remo.

Understand?

There was a war between Palestine and Jordan? How did Palestine get to be occupied by Jordan, or Egypt for that matter?

'Palestine' was not occupied by Jordan. The West Bank was

'Palestine' was not occupied by Egypt, Gaza was.

If you don't know these facts, you have no business debating here

 

[toastman]

Israel was in a defensive war. It is really simple to understand and is the basis for non-compliance with 242.

It doesn't matter.

BTW, the '67 war officially began when Israeli tanks rolled into Egypt.

That's not defense.

Please, stop making me laugh !!!!!

 

[P F Tinmore]

Yes, Jordan occupied that land illegally, in a war of aggression, not defense.

Land taken in a war of aggression is illegal.

Land taken in a war of defense is legal, particularly since it was Jewish land in the first place, according to San Remo.

Understand?

There was a war between Palestine and Jordan? How did Palestine get to be occupied by Jordan, or Egypt for that matter?

'Palestine' was not occupied by Jordan. The West Bank was

'Palestine' was not occupied by Egypt, Gaza was.

If you don't know these facts, you have no business debating here

And not all of Gaza was occupied by Egypt. Some was occupied by Israel. You are being picayune.

 

[Sweet_Caroline]

Israel was in a defensive war. It is really simple to understand and is the basis for non-compliance with 242.

It doesn't matter.

BTW, the '67 war officially began when Israeli tanks rolled into Egypt.

That's not defense.

Please, stop making me laugh !!!!!

Don't they just say the most hilarious things when backed into a corner?

 

[proudveteran06]

It doesn't matter.

BTW, the '67 war officially began when Israeli tanks rolled into Egypt.

That's not defense.

Please, stop making me laugh !!!!!

Don't they just say the most hilarious things when backed into a corner?

The 67. War began when Jordan and Egypt started to surround Israel , build up their military along the " borders" we hear so much about , Nasser telling the world he was going to destroy Israel, but more importantly send the UN away . Ask the Palestinian; Why was it done especially the latter? There will be no response