"Settlements destroy chance for peace" - Caroline Glick's amazing reality-check

[HistoryBefore67]

You clearly don't know what the definition of "vacant" is, so here's your link:

Dictionary.com - Free Online English Dictionary

va·cant
[vey-kuhnt] Show IPA
adjective
1. having no contents; empty; void: a vacant niche.
2. having no occupant; unoccupied: no vacant seats on this train.
3. not in use: a vacant room.
4. devoid of thought or reflection: a vacant mind.
5. characterized by, showing, or proceeding from lack of thought or intelligence: a vacant answer; a vacant expression on a face.

I refer you back to the census information.

A census doesn't tell you whether land is vacant or not. I can drive in any direction from where I'm sitting and find vacant land. And yet, the US census would tell you that the state I live in has a population.

How are you not getting this?

 

[Coyote]

You clearly don't know what the definition of "vacant" is, so here's your link:

Dictionary.com - Free Online English Dictionary

va·cant
[vey-kuhnt] Show IPA
adjective
1. having no contents; empty; void: a vacant niche.
2. having no occupant; unoccupied: no vacant seats on this train.
3. not in use: a vacant room.
4. devoid of thought or reflection: a vacant mind.
5. characterized by, showing, or proceeding from lack of thought or intelligence: a vacant answer; a vacant expression on a face.

I refer you back to the census information.

A census doesn't tell you whether land is vacant or not. I can drive in any direction from where I'm sitting and find vacant land. And yet, the US census would tell you that the state I live in has a population.

How are you not getting this?

You are the one claiming it's a vacant piece of desert. Multiple times.

It's in occupied territory and in defiance of well-established international law, Israel builds (Jewish only) settlements on it.

Then, you have these vacant lands, where Palestinians are being forced out and settlers brought in: The Palestinians? West Bank: Squeeze them out | The Economist

One more a many ongoing efforts to force Palestinians out of West Bank. I think that qualifies as land theft. I don't think it qualifies as "vacant".

 

[Lipush]

 

[HistoryBefore67]

va·cant
[vey-kuhnt] Show IPA
adjective
1. having no contents; empty; void: a vacant niche.
2. having no occupant; unoccupied: no vacant seats on this train.
3. not in use: a vacant room.
4. devoid of thought or reflection: a vacant mind.
5. characterized by, showing, or proceeding from lack of thought or intelligence: a vacant answer; a vacant expression on a face.

I refer you back to the census information.

A census doesn't tell you whether land is vacant or not. I can drive in any direction from where I'm sitting and find vacant land. And yet, the US census would tell you that the state I live in has a population.

How are you not getting this?

You are the one claiming it's a vacant piece of desert. Multiple times.

No, I never said that ALL of the West Bank is vacant. Read slower next time.

The suggestion that every time Israel builds a structure in the West Bank it displaces a "Palestinian" is simply false. There is a lot of VACANT land that Israel has chosen to build homes on. While the "Palestinians" may shout "that's our land," the fact remains that VACANT means UNOCCUPIED.

If you still deny my point, you can go to Google Maps, pull up a sattelite photo of the West Bank, and I can assure you you'll see plenty of land where there are no existing human-built structures.

 

[SherriMunnerlyn]

"Theft"..... Please... only in the minds of ignorant. know nothing, people You cant steal what you have

And how did you get it in the first place? Theft.

Presumably it's ok if I walk into your house, force everyone out at gunpoint, and claim it for my own? That's your logic.

But that is EXACTLY what the Jordanians did to the Jews of East Jerusalem when they captured it - and that is the (FALSE) 'basis' upon which "pro-Palestinians" insist EJ is now "occupied".

Palestinians have no responsibility for acts of Jordan. And I dont believe your claim is true. There is no Truth in a Zionist.

 

[Lipush]

There is no truth in a hater.

 

[toastman]

And how did you get it in the first place? Theft.

Presumably it's ok if I walk into your house, force everyone out at gunpoint, and claim it for my own? That's your logic.

But that is EXACTLY what the Jordanians did to the Jews of East Jerusalem when they captured it - and that is the (FALSE) 'basis' upon which "pro-Palestinians" insist EJ is now "occupied".

Palestinians have no responsibility for acts of Jordan. And I dont believe your claim is true. There is no Truth in a Zionist.

What an evil comment. Such a hater you are Sherri. What's it like to wake up every morning and have your whole day consumed by hate ?!???
I thought Jesus teaches love. Yet you never express any love or happiness.

 

[toastman]

There is no truth in a hater.

Sherri doesn't believe ANYTHING, and I mean ANYTHING that come from a pro - Israeli or anything that is not purely anti - Israel and anti - Zionism

Hypocrisy at its best

 

[HistoryBefore67]

"If Jesus came back and saw what's going on in his name, he'd never stop throwing up."

--from "Hannah and Her Sisters"
http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/15143-if-jesus-came-back-and-saw-what-was-being-done

 

[SherriMunnerlyn]

There is no truth in a hater.

LOOK in the mirror and see the truth about that. And I still await to hear about those excellent points made by the ZioNazi in the OP.

 

[Lipush]

Ancient history doesn't confer modern rights to land. A people can't just return and force the indiginous inhabitants off simply because they held the land 3000 years ago. No where ELSE in the world is this logic applied!

Even international law recognizes the connection between Israel and those lands!

You can't be serious!

What intl law recognizes this? I know of no intl law that says a kingdom that existed over 2000 years ago, its alleged descendants, have the right to return 2000 years later and ethnically cleanse the land that made up that kingdom and surrounding land, of the population in the land in the 1900s. I think your claim is complete BS! Sherri

http://israeltruthweek.files.wordpr...5-mhausman-legal-and-historical-precedent.pdf

Jewish Settlements are legal according to International Law

 

[Lipush]

There is no truth in a hater.

LOOK in the mirror and see the truth about that. And I still await to hear about those excellent points made by the ZioNazi in the OP.

I answered those. You ignored and start bashing me.

You're too busy praising your own post than following others.

Better try and listen better

 

[SherriMunnerlyn]

There is no truth in a hater.

Sherri doesn't believe ANYTHING, and I mean ANYTHING that come from a pro - Israeli or anything that is not purely anti - Israel and anti - Zionism

Hypocrisy at its best

Love is confronting Injustice with Truth.

 

[Lipush]

There is no truth in a hater.

Sherri doesn't believe ANYTHING, and I mean ANYTHING that come from a pro - Israeli or anything that is not purely anti - Israel and anti - Zionism

Hypocrisy at its best

At least she could try and answer to the point. I don't see it in this thread.

 

[SherriMunnerlyn]

"With the British occupation of Palestine in 1918 all land transactions were suspended. The registers were reopened in 1920, at which time it was estimated that Jewish land acquisitions stood at about 650,000 dunums** or 2.5 per cent of the total land area of 26 million dunums).*71/ By the end of the decade this figure had nearly doubled to 1,200,000 dunums, just below 5 per cent.*72/*- See more at: The Origins and Evolution of the Palestine Problem - CEIRPP, DPR study, part I: 1917-1947 (30 June 1978). "The transformation of Mandated PalestineAt the culmination of a quarter century of Mandatory rule, Palestine had been radically transformed in demographic terms. The population of Palestine had increased tremendously - from the 750,000 of the 1922 census to almost 1,850,000 at the end of 1946 - an increase of nearly 250 per cent. During this period the Jewish population had soared from 56,000 after the First World War to 84,000 in 1922 to 608,000 in 1946, an increase of about 725 per cent.*141/ From constituting less than a tenth of the population in Palestine after the First World War, the Jewish community in 1947 constituted nearly a third. A good part of this was due to births within Palestine but legal immigration alone accounted for over 376,000, with illegal immigration being estimated at another 65,000 - a total of 440,000.*142/ This Jewish population was primarily urban - about 70 per cent to 75 per cent in and around the cities of Jerusalem, Jaffa-Tel Aviv and Haifa.*143/Land holding patterns had also changed considerably. From the 650,000 dunums held by Jewish organizations in 1920, of the total land area of 26 million dunums, the figure at the end of 1946 had reached 1,625,000 dunums - an increase of about 250 per cent*144/ and Jewish settlement had displaced large numbers of Palestinian Arab peasants. Even so, this area represented only 6.2 per cent of the total area of Palestine and 12 per cent of the cultivable land.*145/*" - See more at: The Origins and Evolution of the Palestine Problem - CEIRPP, DPR study, part I: 1917-1947 (30 June 1978). The Origins and Evolution of the Palestine Problem - CEIRPP, DPR study, part I: 1917-1947 (30 June 1978)

 

[MHunterB]

And how did you get it in the first place? Theft.

Presumably it's ok if I walk into your house, force everyone out at gunpoint, and claim it for my own? That's your logic.

But that is EXACTLY what the Jordanians did to the Jews of East Jerusalem when they captured it - and that is the (FALSE) 'basis' upon which "pro-Palestinians" insist EJ is now "occupied".

Palestinians have no responsibility for acts of Jordan. And I dont believe your claim is true. There is no Truth in a Zionist.

So the entire spread in LIFE magazine was what, then?
It's sure looking like you'd rather spit idiotic 'insults' than attempt to dscuss actual events.

DUH - the relevance is, since the Jordanians had no right to ethnically cleanse the Jewish population of East Jerusalem, the Palestinians have no right to be in any home that was so forcibly vacated. Certainly they could have no moral right - most particularly if they want to lay claim to what they assert was 'stolen' from them.

As Palestinians shouldn't be 'punished' for what Jordanians did - neither should they be rewarded for it.

 

[MHunterB]

There is no truth in a hater.

Sherri doesn't believe ANYTHING, and I mean ANYTHING that come from a pro - Israeli or anything that is not purely anti - Israel and anti - Zionism

Hypocrisy at its best

Love is confronting Injustice with Truth.

Israel Matzav: Life Magazine pics of Arab army removing Jews in 1948 from Jerusalem

Here's some love for you, then : ))

 

[SherriMunnerlyn]

This is from UN Documents found on UNISPAL Website , addressing how the Mandate for Palestine was unlawful under intl law to the extent it purported to give rights in the land to people outside Palestine. "From among the several authorities of international law who have questioned the validity of the Mandate, the views of Professor Henry Cattan may be quoted:"The Palestine Mandate was invalid on three grounds set out hereinafter."1. The first ground of invalidity of the Mandate is that by endorsing the Balfour Declaration and accepting the concept of the establishment of a Jewish national home in Palestine it violated the sovereignty of the people of Palestine and their natural rights of independence and self-determination. Palestine was the national home of the Palestinians from time immemorial. The establishment of a national home for an alien people in that country was a violation of the legitimate and fundamental rights of the inhabitants. The League of Nations did not possess the power, any more than the British Government did, to dispose of Palestine, or to grant to the Jews any political or territorial rights in that country. In so far as the Mandate purported to recognize any rights for alien Jews in Palestine, it was null and void."2. The second ground of invalidity of the Mandate is that it violated, in spirit and in letter, Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, under the authority of which it purported to be made. The Mandate violated Article 22 in three respects:- (a)The Covenant had envisaged the Mandate as the best method of achieving its basic objective of ensuring the well-being and development of the peoples inhabiting the Mandated Territories."Was the Palestine Mandate conceived for the well-being and development of the inhabitants of Palestine? The answer is found in the provisions of the Mandate itself. The Mandate sought the establishment in Palestine of a national home for another people, contrary to the rights and wishes of the Palestinians ... It required the Mandatory to place the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as would secure the establishment of a Jewish national home. It required the Mandatory to facilitate Jewish immigration into Palestine. It provided that a foreign body known as the Zionist Organization should be recognized as a public body for the purpose of advising and co-operating with the Administration of Palestine in matters affecting the establishment of the Jewish national home. It is clear that, although the Mandates System was conceived in the interest of the inhabitants of the Mandated Territory, the Palestine Mandate was conceived in the interest of an alien people originating from outside Palestine, and ran counter to the basic concept of mandates. As Lord Islington observed when he opposed the inclusion of the Balfour Declaration in the Palestine Mandate: "The Palestine Mandate is a real distortion of the mandatory system". The same distinguished Lord added:*"When one sees in Article 22 ... that the well-being and development of such peoples should form a sacred trust of civilization, and when one takes that as the note of the mandatory system, I think your Lordships will see that we are straying down a very far path when we are postponing self-government in Palestine until such time as the population is flooded with an alien race.""(b)The Palestine Mandate also ran counter to the specific concept of mandates envisaged by Article 22 for countries detached from Turkey at the end of the First World War. In the case of those countries, the intention was to limit the Mandate to the rendering of temporary advice and assistance. It is doubtful whether the people of Palestine, as also other Arab peoples detached from Turkey, were in need of administrative advice and assistance from a Mandatory. Their level of culture was not inferior to that existing at the time in many of the nations that were Members of the League of Nations. Such Arab communities had actively participated with the Turks in the government of their country. Their political maturity and administrative experience were comparable to the political maturity and administrative experience of the Turks, who were left to stand alone."Be that as it may, the framers of the Palestine Mandate did not restrict the Mandatory's role to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance, but granted the Mandatory 'full powers of legislation and administration' (Article 1). Such 'full powers of legislation and administration' were not laid down in the interest of the inhabitants, but were intended to be used, and in fact were used, to establish by force the Jewish national home in Palestine. Clearly this was an abuse of the purpose of the Mandate under the Covenant and a perversion of its*raison d'être."The whole concept of the Palestine Mandate stands in marked contrast to the Mandate for Syria and Lebanon which was given to France on 24 July 1922. This Mandate conformed to Article 22 of the Covenant ...* The third ground of invalidity of the Mandate lies in the fact that its endorsement and implementation of the Balfour Declaration conflicted with the assurances and pledges given to the Arabs during the First World War by Great Britain and the Allied Powers. The denial to the Palestine Arabs of their independence and the subjection of their country to the immigration of a foreign people were a breach of those pledges."*63/*- See more at: The Origins and Evolution of the Palestine Problem - CEIRPP, DPR study, part I: 1917-1947 (30 June 1978)

 

[HistoryBefore67]

The anti-Israel brigade loves to quote "international law" as if it is a discrete body of consistently applied principles.

Its not.

If it was, then it would dictate that the Roman conquest of Judea was a violation of International Law, and that the Jews, who were exiled from their homeland as a result, have a right to reclaim their land.

That does not fit into their narrative, though, so they choose to apply "international law" from arbitrary points in history (whether it be the Ottoman Empire or May 1967).

A true system of law would not allow for this type of manipulation.

But, of course, "international law" is not a true system of law. At best, its a collection of general principles that is misquoted more often than Casablanca.*




* The line "play it again, Sam" is never uttered in the movie.

 

[SherriMunnerlyn]

But that is EXACTLY what the Jordanians did to the Jews of East Jerusalem when they captured it - and that is the (FALSE) 'basis' upon which "pro-Palestinians" insist EJ is now "occupied".

Palestinians have no responsibility for acts of Jordan. And I dont believe your claim is true. There is no Truth in a Zionist.

So the entire spread in LIFE magazine was what, then?
It's sure looking like you'd rather spit idiotic 'insults' than attempt to dscuss actual events.

DUH - the relevance is, since the Jordanians had no right to ethnically cleanse the Jewish population of East Jerusalem, the Palestinians have no right to be in any home that was so forcibly vacated. Certainly they could have no moral right - most particularly if they want to lay claim to what they assert was 'stolen' from them.

As Palestinians shouldn't be 'punished' for what Jordanians did - neither should they be rewarded for it.

Zionist Propaganda and lies prove nothing about anything.