Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
They were given the land with certain caveats. One of which was they could only have the land, if they did not prejudice the inherent, inalienable rights of the indigenous, non-jewish population, that had been living there for generations.The land of Israel was given to the Jewish people by law in 1922 by the League of Nations, later to be called the United Nations. The arabs agreed to having countries surrounding Israel. The Jews' right to the land was protected in 1922 by the League of Nations with the proviso that the UN carried on ensuring the Jews entitlement to the land. As I keep saying, the fact that after then the arabs have refused land since is their serious problem.
"...only listening to one side of the story..."?We obviously are not going to agree there.
But I am not surprised that it comes from you, since you attend to listen to one side of the story only. Saw you praising the Liberals without taking to mind the huge hypocrisy they hold.
No matter how many times I explain my reasons, or how much detail I go into, or how many citations I provide (when stating my issues with Israel), you automatically dismiss all of it and play the anti-semitism card. Which wouldn't be so bad, if you could only explain "why" I hate jews? But you can't! If you can't explain your claim, why would anyone take it seriously? It becomes nothing but a "label", you're trying to attach, with the hope it sticks.
BTW, the jewish left are not hypocrites. They're the only reason you people should have a country.
Who's Bo'az Albert in Yitzhar?Do you condemn the brutal arrest of Bo'az Albert in Yitzhar?
Here's a better question, "Do you condemn the brutal treatment the Dodgers are doing to the rest of the league?"
This is the difference between you and I...The only reason we have a country is thanks to people like my great grandfather:
The great righteous Rabbi Dov (Son of Tehilla) Rodovsky who came to Israel in the 1800's, escaping racism, building a family, a house, a flowering inheritence, a true man of peace.
Only to be expelled, humiliated, and losing said property in 1936 when Arab hooligans burned down our family ranch and forced them out of their homes!.
"...only listening to one side of the story..."?We obviously are not going to agree there.
But I am not surprised that it comes from you, since you attend to listen to one side of the story only. Saw you praising the Liberals without taking to mind the huge hypocrisy they hold.
No matter how many times I explain my reasons, or how much detail I go into, or how many citations I provide (when stating my issues with Israel), you automatically dismiss all of it and play the anti-semitism card. Which wouldn't be so bad, if you could only explain "why" I hate jews? But you can't! If you can't explain your claim, why would anyone take it seriously? It becomes nothing but a "label", you're trying to attach, with the hope it sticks.
BTW, the jewish left are not hypocrites. They're the only reason you people should have a country.
Those cops are in need of a "beat down".
It's not required that you do.And I didn't understand your question.
This is the difference between you and I...The only reason we have a country is thanks to people like my great grandfather:
The great righteous Rabbi Dov (Son of Tehilla) Rodovsky who came to Israel in the 1800's, escaping racism, building a family, a house, a flowering inheritence, a true man of peace.
Only to be expelled, humiliated, and losing said property in 1936 when Arab hooligans burned down our family ranch and forced them out of their homes!.
...I can agree with you regarding your great grandfather and condemn the actions of the arab hooligans in 1936.
You can't condemn the actions of your government, that are just as bad.
Those cops are in need of a "beat down".
That's a sensitive issue with me, since I live in the area of the Rodney King beating.
It's not required that you do.And I didn't understand your question.
It is only required, that you provide un-conditional support to the Los Angeles Dodgers, NO QUESTIONS ASKED.
The land of Israel was given to the Jewish people by law in 1922 by the League of Nations, later to be called the United Nations. The arabs agreed to having countries surrounding Israel. The Jews' right to the land was protected in 1922 by the League of Nations with the proviso that the UN carried on ensuring the Jews entitlement to the land. As I keep saying, the fact that after then the arabs have refused land since is their serious problem.
I disagree. Liberal Jews would be against the "Arabization of Jerusalem" as well. They'd be against any religion trying to claim it's the only one in the city. Respecting people of all religious denominations, is what human rights is all about.Here is a new add on the streets of Jerusalem-
Maretz (Zehava Galon) add:
"We will stop the 'orthodoxazion' of Jerusalem"
Now Imagine a title saying "We will stop the 'Arabization' of Jerusalem".
What about human rights? It's pure racism against religious Jews.
Leberal fanatic left in Israel is despicable!
No clue is required, just do what I tell you!How can I show support of something or someone, I have no clue about?
I can't recall you disagreeing with Israeli gunboats shooting at Palestinian fishermen?Depends which actions you speak of.
There are some I highly disagree with, and some I do disagree with.
I do believe that the Likud should not manage thing here. They do not represent our nation well at all.
But this is what the people want.
It's not Egypt, here.
I disagree. Liberal Jews would be against the "Arabization of Jerusalem" as well. They'd be against any religion trying to claim it's the only one in the city. Respecting people of all religious denominations, is what human rights is all about.Here is a new add on the streets of Jerusalem-
Maretz (Zehava Galon) add:
"We will stop the 'orthodoxazion' of Jerusalem"
Now Imagine a title saying "We will stop the 'Arabization' of Jerusalem".
What about human rights? It's pure racism against religious Jews.
Leberal fanatic left in Israel is despicable!
According to your logic, the "Jewish Inquisitions" should be starting soon.
I can't recall you disagreeing with Israeli gunboats shooting at Palestinian fishermen?Depends which actions you speak of.
There are some I highly disagree with, and some I do disagree with.
I do believe that the Likud should not manage thing here. They do not represent our nation well at all.
But this is what the people want.
It's not Egypt, here.
At least you and I are on the same side regarding the Likud Party.
I condemned the attacks, but you didn't give me any credit for that.Don't be stupid.
I don't vote for any religious take over. I point out (for the upteenth time) that its about integrity. if you're only against Judaism taking over, you cannot cry "human rights".
I, however, was pleasently surprised when Zehava Galon condemned the attack on Bo'az Alberts house today, she showed a step of self respect, which is indeed noted.
Too bad they go 1 step forwards, 10 steps back.
I condemned the attacks, but you didn't give me any credit for that.Don't be stupid.
I don't vote for any religious take over. I point out (for the upteenth time) that its about integrity. if you're only against Judaism taking over, you cannot cry "human rights".
I, however, was pleasently surprised when Zehava Galon condemned the attack on Bo'az Alberts house today, she showed a step of self respect, which is indeed noted.
Too bad they go 1 step forwards, 10 steps back.
You must be prejudiced against white, Irish Catholics.
Okay, so we take out the Irish and white men from the equation and what are we left with? Answer: Catholics. So you have issues with Catholics? You probably think Jesus was a Hebrew terrorist?ANd how does your opinion influences on me?
It is nice of you, but I pay more attantion to what the political ministers say, than what a talkback or a post says.
Why should I have anything with white Irish men? I don't know any Irish people and I have bo problem with white men
Okay, so we take out the Irish and white men from the equation and what are we left with? Answer: Catholics. So you have issues with Catholics? You probably think Jesus was a Hebrew terrorist?ANd how does your opinion influences on me?
It is nice of you, but I pay more attantion to what the political ministers say, than what a talkback or a post says.
Why should I have anything with white Irish men? I don't know any Irish people and I have bo problem with white men
(COMMENT)
Israel and Palestine declared independence in 1948.
ARTICLE 1
The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications:
a ) a permanent population;
b ) a defined territory;
c ) government; and
d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.
The Avalon Project : Convention on Rights and Duties of States (inter-American); December 26, 1933
Israel had no defined territory and its "permanent" population was recent immigrants. Israel still has no defined territory.
Palestine had territory defined by international borders and its permanent population had a long history in Palestine.
Which did the UN favor in violation of international law?
Current Citations said:DECLARATION ON PRINCIPLES OF INTERNATIONAL LAW FRIENDLY RELATIONS AND CO-OPERATION AMONG STATES IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CHARTER OF THE UNITED NATIONS said:Every State has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate the existing international boundaries of another State or as a means of solving international disputes, including territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers of States.
Every State likewise has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate international lines of demarcation, such as armistice lines, established by or pursuant to an international agreement to which it is a party or which it is otherwise bound to respect. Nothing in the foregoing shall be construed as prejudicing the positions of the parties concerned with regard to the status and effects of such lines under their special regimes or as affecting their temporary character.
http://www.unrol.org/files/3dda1f104.pdf
A/RES/3314(XXIX) 14 December 1974 said:Article 2
The first use of armed force by a State in contravention of the Charter shall constitute prima facie evidence of an act of aggression although the Security Council may, in conformity with the Charter, conclude that a determination that an act of aggression has been committed would not be justified in the light of other relevant circumstances, including the fact that the acts concerned or their consequences are not of sufficient gravity.
Article 5
1. No consideration of whatever nature, whether political, economic, military or otherwise, may serve as a justification for aggression.
2. A war of aggression is a crime against international peace. Aggression gives rise to international responsibility.
3. No territorial acquisition or special advantage resulting from aggression is or shall be recognized as lawful.
A/RES/3314(XXIX) of 14 December 1974
Letter dated 25 March 1999 from the Permanent Observer of Palestine to the United Nations addressed to the Secretary-General said:For the Palestinian side, and since the strategic decision to forge a peace on the basis of coexistence, resolution 181 (II) has become acceptable. The resolution provides the legal basis for the existence of both the Jewish and the Arab States in Mandated Palestine. According to the resolution, Jerusalem should become a corpus separatum, which the Palestinian side is willing to take into consideration and to reconcile with the Palestinian position that East Jerusalem is part of the Palestinian territory and the capital of the Palestinian State. The Palestinian side adheres to international legitimacy and respects General Assembly resolution 181 (II), as well as Security Council resolution 242 (1967), the implementation of which is the aim of the current Middle East peace process.
Israel must comply with United Nations resolutions. It has no power to unilaterally annul any of those resolutions, particularly such a historic resolution as 181 (II). Israel's claim that the resolution is "null and void" is illegal, and it is also inadmissible given the history of the matter.
A/53/879 S/1999/334 25 March 1999
