Any one wish to discuss Israel vs. Palestine here?

[Billo_Really]

Israel cannot "occupy" Israeli territory.

Yeah, well, we're not talking about Israeli territory.

 

[Billo_Really]

Taking land by force is only illegal if someone can stop you.

Taking land by force has been outlawed since WWII.

 

[georgephillip]

Are Americans building houses in Texas?


After Jordan gave up its claim on the WB, it becamse Israeli land.
As such, there's no argument against Israelis building there.

The West Bank never legally belonged to Jordan:

"Jordan’s annexation was widely regarded as illegal and void by the Arab League and others, including Israel.[citation needed] The move formed part of Jordan’s 'Greater Syria Plan' expansionist policy,[15] and in response, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon and Syria joined Egypt in demanding Jordan’s expulsion from the Arab League..."

King Hussein had no legal right to the West Bank, and neither did the Zionists.
In 1947 Jews held 6% of the land yet were given 55% of Palestine by the UN.
Arabs found that unfair and war broke out.
Jews won and enlarged their total holdings to about 75% of Palestine, displacing over 700,000 Palestinians in the process.

Both the Hague Regulations (1907) and the UN Charter (1945) attest to the illegality of acquiring territory by force.

btw, Texas was stolen in much the same way.

Jordanian occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Taking land by force is only illegal if someone can stop you.

Prior to 1949 that was true in theory and practice; under international law the right of conquest was recognized.

Since '49 it's been "illegal" to acquire land by force, but, of course, the US and Israel are exempt from such trivialities.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Is israel still building in East Jeruselum (Palestinian land)?

Are Americans building houses in Texas?


After Jordan gave up its claim on the WB, it becamse Israeli land.
As such, there's no argument against Israelis building there.

The West Bank never legally belonged to Jordan:
"Jordan’s annexation was widely regarded as illegal and void by the Arab League and others, including Israel.[citation needed]

I note you lleft out this part:

In March 1948, the British Cabinet had agreed that the civil and military authorities in Palestine should make no effort to oppose the setting up of a Jewish State or a move into Palestine from Transjordan.[13]

The United States, together with the United Kingdom favored the annexation by Transjordan. The UK preferred to permit King Abdullah to annex the territory at the earliest date, while the United States preferred to wait until after the conclusion of the Palestine Conciliation Commission brokered negotiations.[14]

Jordan formally annexed the West Bank and East Jerusalem on April 24, 1950, giving all residents automatic Jordanian citizenship. West Bank residents had already received the right to claim Jordanian citizenship in December 1949....

...Only the United Kingdom formally recognized the annexation of the West Bank, de facto in the case of East Jerusalem.[22] The United States Department of State also recognized this extension of Jordanian sovereignty.[23][24]

Arab Legion soldier posing in the ruins of the Hurva Synagogue, JerusalemIn 1950, the British extended formal recognition to the union between the Hashemite Kingdom and that part of Palestine under Jordanian occupation and control - with the exception of Jerusalem. The British government stated that it regarded the provisions of the Anglo-Jordan Treaty of Alliance of 1948 as applicable to all the territory included in the union.[27] Despite Arab League opposition, the inhabitants of the West Bank became citizens of Jordan.

SO...Jordan was given control of the WB by the 1949 armistice agreement, and then annexed the land in 1950. The Palestinian there were given Jordanian citizenship and the entire region was incorporated inth the Jordanian representative system (such as it was) - the fact that some thought that said annexation was 'illlegal' means little, especially given that the land was not taken from any other state.

Thus, in 1967, the West Bank was part of the state of Jordan, and its people Jordanian citizens. Jordan gave up all of this in 1988, stripping the citizenship and removing their representation - thereby removing its claim to the West Bank under international law. Given that no other state has any claim to the territory, it belongs to Israel - and, as such, cannot be 'occupied'.

btw, Texas was stolen in much the same way.

I believe I made this comparson. Take it to the UN.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Israel cannot "occupy" Israeli territory.

Yeah, well, we're not talking about Israeli territory.

We're discussing the West Bank, part of Jordan in 1967, and then claim ceded by Jordan in 1988.
Thus, Israeli territory, under international law.

 

[Billo_Really]

We're discussing the West Bank, part of Jordan in 1967, and then claim ceded by Jordan in 1988.
Thus, Israeli territory, under international law.

Then quote it! What international law are you referring to? Before I shoot this down, I'm giving you the opportunity to prove your point, albeit short-lived, as it may.

 

[sealadaigh]

The solution is quite simple. The Palestinians should:
1. Stop sending suicide bombers into Israel to kill, injure, and maim as many men, women, and children as possible.
2. Stop booby trapping Israeli installations for the same purpose.
3. Stop firing rockets randomly into Israeli residential neighborhoods with the hope of hitting and killing or maiming somebody.
4. Stop kidnapping, torturing, and murdering Israeli citizens.
5. Demand that their leaders denounce ALL terrorism against Israelis, deal harshly with any who commit it, and remove all inflammatory language against Israel from their mandates, charters, and statements of purpose.
6. Pledge to be good neighbors of Israel and follow through by being good neighbors of Israel.

If they do this, make it stick, and Israel does not then become a good and honorable neighbor to the Palestinians, then Israel will be harshly criticized by me and I will not feel all that charitable about supporting Israel.

Until, then, I will not fault the Israelis for doing anything and everythng that they feel they must to protect and defend their people.

that really doesn't sound like a solution to me. for one thing, they have pretty much done a lot of these things. israel is the one who has constantly broken agreements anyway.

i am asking you, then, suppose all these things were true (and again, many of them are) what do you think israel should do to help thye palestinian people be prosperous and in a viable homeland...i.e. be a good neoghbour to israel?

it is not a threatening question or even a position based question. it is an interest based question. ti is interest based to not go through each of the six point you mentioned and refute them.

i will say this. i do think it is natve, to say the least, to just say that the israelis will do right by the palestinians.

let me throw this out for you. we have UNGA resolution 181 which whatever body representing palestine neither accepted or rejected. ok. then we have some sort of war, some call it a civil war, some call it an arab israeli war...and the israelis win...in 1948. i am still with you. BUT, in 1949 after a cessation of hostilities the UN does a UNGA resolution 273 where israel, in order to become a UN member state, agrees with the UN to abide by UNGA 181. that is an agreement with the UN and has nothing to do with anything else. israel has a right to defend her borders certainly but also has an obligation not to expand her borders.

so i will hand you 181 and i will hand you the present situation and i will ask you to give me some concrete proposals as to a solution based on making a viable palestinian state with the knowledge that if, indeed, the palestinians are genocided, you are aware that thestate of israel will no longer exist in the future.

so what works for both. you have the offered, the twice offered, arab peace initiative.

try to think 50 years into the future, and try to put yourself not only of the palestinians, but also the israelis who have to live there.

also, my compliments. usually people duck and run when approached with that question.

The population of Israel is just over 7 million with about 80% being Jews and most of the rest being Palestinian Arabs. That is less than the population of New York City and it occupies a tiny tract of land 1/8th the size of Florida.

The Palestinian population is between 2 and 3 million--it was considerably less in 1948--and they would already have a homeland if they had accepted any number of U.N. plans of apportionment, all of which were agreed to by Israel. But the Palestinians wanted it all--they wanted Israel out--and therefore they rejected every plan.

I don't see Israel as having any responsibility for the welfare of the Palestinians. The Palestinians sure don't accept any responsibility for the welfare of Israel. The Arab population in the Middle East and Africa is approximately 200 million and covers a huge tract of land and controls a very large amount of the world's wealth. They could have long ago furnished a solution for the Palestinians but chose not to do so because they could use the Palestinians to get at Israel.

Should the Palestinians denounce and cease their terrorist activities toward Israel and demonstrate they are willing to live in peace with Israel, then I would expect Israel to cease and desist all militant actions toward Palestine and accept the Palestinians as visitors and customers as they would accept any other people who are friendly toward Israel. That is what being a good neighbor is.

Until then, I support Israel's right to protect its people however it is necessary to do that.

what would it take to create a viable palestinian state? what should israel do to facilitate that, knowing that it would be in their best interest.

if you want to pick at scabs, i am quite capable of doing that.

in 1940 the jewish population of israel/palestine was slightly less than 500,000.
in 1940 the arab population of palestine/israel was slightly more than 1,100,000.
in 1950the population was evenly divided, both peoples each having about 1,200,000.

today, there are about 6,000,000 jews in the region.
there are about 10,000,000 arabs in the region. i will try to break it down.
3,500,000 in west bank.gaza.
1,300,000 in israel.
2,700.000 in jordan refugee camps.
another 2,500,000 in neighbouring states refugee caamps.

all the above are close to accurate, although rounded.

and i could pick at more scabs but what would be the point.

what i hear you saying id that if the palestinians would just roll over and die, the israelis won't have to kill them.

so i am back to UNGA resolution 273, where israel agreed that, were israel accepted as a state, they would accept UNGA resolution 181...and that has nothing to do with whether the arabs agreed or not. it was an agreement with the representative of the nations of the world, the united nations.

that is where i am, and i want to know what you think is a good proposal to do all the above. you are giving me nothing. you are telling me what ipalestinians must do, and not saying anything about what israel should do.

please, try again. address borders. the status of al quds/jeruasalem. the reugee situation.

and please, take some time, because what i am going to do is try to turn your solutions into general rules that can apply to all peoples. that is what is fair.

lets start with something easy...borders and east al quds/jerusalem

 

[Intense]

That part is easy. It's adhering that is the problem.

1) Put God first in all things.

2) Be fruitful, multiply, replenish the Earth,

3) Bear witness, and testify, tell the truth about what you see.

 

[sealadaigh]

Are Americans building houses in Texas?


After Jordan gave up its claim on the WB, it becamse Israeli land.
As such, there's no argument against Israelis building there.

The West Bank never legally belonged to Jordan:

"Jordan’s annexation was widely regarded as illegal and void by the Arab League and others, including Israel.[citation needed] The move formed part of Jordan’s 'Greater Syria Plan' expansionist policy,[15] and in response, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon and Syria joined Egypt in demanding Jordan’s expulsion from the Arab League..."

King Hussein had no legal right to the West Bank, and neither did the Zionists.
In 1947 Jews held 6% of the land yet were given 55% of Palestine by the UN.
Arabs found that unfair and war broke out.
Jews won and enlarged their total holdings to about 75% of Palestine, displacing over 700,000 Palestinians in the process.

Both the Hague Regulations (1907) and the UN Charter (1945) attest to the illegality of acquiring territory by force.

btw, Texas was stolen in much the same way.

Jordanian occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Taking land by force is only illegal if someone can stop you.

man...that is like saying serial killing is only illegal if someone catches you.

ya know, if i pick your pocket and disappear, you will be squealin' like a poked pig that you was robbed...and i'll be down the street and ordering uisge neat, water back, on your coin, and telling the bar keep..."ya know, i once heard someone say 'Taking land by force is only illegal if someone can stop you.'"

i don't think you believe in might makes right.

 

[sealadaigh]

That part is easy. It's adhering that is the problem.

1) Put God first in all things.

2) Be fruitful, multiply, replenish the Earth,

3) Bear witness, and testify, tell the truth about what you see.

i've always said this...that i would support israel if they arrived at a solution that would provide the palestinians with a viable palestinian state and aided the palestinians get back on their feet, and helped provide a suitable solution to the refugee problem.

i will not support a genocide though, in any way, shape, or form.

 

[georgephillip]

Are Americans building houses in Texas?


After Jordan gave up its claim on the WB, it becamse Israeli land.
As such, there's no argument against Israelis building there.

The West Bank never legally belonged to Jordan:
"Jordan’s annexation was widely regarded as illegal and void by the Arab League and others, including Israel.[citation needed]

I note you lleft out this part:

In March 1948, the British Cabinet had agreed that the civil and military authorities in Palestine should make no effort to oppose the setting up of a Jewish State or a move into Palestine from Transjordan.[13]

The United States, together with the United Kingdom favored the annexation by Transjordan. The UK preferred to permit King Abdullah to annex the territory at the earliest date, while the United States preferred to wait until after the conclusion of the Palestine Conciliation Commission brokered negotiations.[14]

Jordan formally annexed the West Bank and East Jerusalem on April 24, 1950, giving all residents automatic Jordanian citizenship. West Bank residents had already received the right to claim Jordanian citizenship in December 1949....

...Only the United Kingdom formally recognized the annexation of the West Bank, de facto in the case of East Jerusalem.[22] The United States Department of State also recognized this extension of Jordanian sovereignty.[23][24]

Arab Legion soldier posing in the ruins of the Hurva Synagogue, JerusalemIn 1950, the British extended formal recognition to the union between the Hashemite Kingdom and that part of Palestine under Jordanian occupation and control - with the exception of Jerusalem. The British government stated that it regarded the provisions of the Anglo-Jordan Treaty of Alliance of 1948 as applicable to all the territory included in the union.[27] Despite Arab League opposition, the inhabitants of the West Bank became citizens of Jordan.

SO...Jordan was given control of the WB by the 1949 armistice agreement, and then annexed the land in 1950. The Palestinian there were given Jordanian citizenship and the entire region was incorporated inth the Jordanian representative system (such as it was) - the fact that some thought that said annexation was 'illlegal' means little, especially given that the land was not taken from any other state.

Thus, in 1967, the West Bank was part of the state of Jordan, and its people Jordanian citizens. Jordan gave up all of this in 1988, stripping the citizenship and removing their representation - thereby removing its claim to the West Bank under international law. Given that no other state has any claim to the territory, it belongs to Israel - and, as such, cannot be 'occupied'.

btw, Texas was stolen in much the same way.

I believe I made this comparson. Take it to the UN.

You seem to have forgotten the Six Day War:

"Soon after occupying Palestinian territories following the 1967 war, the Israeli government began expropriating land from Palestinian land-owners and building Israeli civilian settlements on those lands.

"They then offered financial incentives such as tax breaks to Israeli citizens and Jewish immigrants to Israel to move to those settlements to live. In addition, many Israeli businesses moved to those settlements as well.

'The Israeli government then passed all sorts of laws legally linking those settlements to the State of Israel thus creating a de facto annexation of those Palestinian lands to the State of Israel which itself is illegal.

"The Israeli government claimed that the settlements were temporary and only built for security purposes, but from the quality of their planning and construction it is obvious these settlements are meant to be permanent. They also appear to serve many other clearly illegal purposes in Israel's plans for the Palestinian occupied territories:..."

Illegal Israeli Settlements on Palestinian Lands

The racists who stole Texas would be at least as indifferent to the UN as the racists who are currently stealing Area C.

 

[M14 Shooter]

We're discussing the West Bank, part of Jordan in 1967, and then claim ceded by Jordan in 1988.
Thus, Israeli territory, under international law.

Then quote it! What international law are you referring to? Before I shoot this down, I'm giving you the opportunity to prove your point, albeit short-lived, as it may.

Simple:
Two countries have a territory in dispute.
One side gives up the argument - the other side wins.
No state othe than Jordan and Israel has any claim at all to the WB; when Jordan concedes, it goes to Israel.

Disagree?
What state other thwn Jordan and Israel had claim over the West Bank?

 

[M14 Shooter]

The West Bank never legally belonged to Jordan:
"Jordan’s annexation was widely regarded as illegal and void by the Arab League and others, including Israel.[citation needed]

I note you lleft out this part:

SO...Jordan was given control of the WB by the 1949 armistice agreement, and then annexed the land in 1950. The Palestinian there were given Jordanian citizenship and the entire region was incorporated inth the Jordanian representative system (such as it was) - the fact that some thought that said annexation was 'illlegal' means little, especially given that the land was not taken from any other state.

Thus, in 1967, the West Bank was part of the state of Jordan, and its people Jordanian citizens. Jordan gave up all of this in 1988, stripping the citizenship and removing their representation - thereby removing its claim to the West Bank under international law. Given that no other state has any claim to the territory, it belongs to Israel - and, as such, cannot be 'occupied'.

btw, Texas was stolen in much the same way.

I believe I made this comparson. Take it to the UN.

You seem to have forgotten the Six Day War:

Nope. Not in the slightest.

Soon after occupying Palestinian territories following the 1967 war, the Israeli government began expropriating land from Palestinian land-owners and building Israeli civilian settlements on those lands

Irrelevant to the discussion regarding the annexation of the WB by Jordan and then Jordan giving up its claim to same

"They then offered financial incentives such as tax breaks to Israeli citizens and Jewish immigrants to Israel to move to those settlements to live. In addition, many Israeli businesses moved to those settlements as well.

Irrelevant to the discussion regarding the annexation of the WB by Jordan and then Jordan giving up its claim to same

'The Israeli government then passed all sorts of laws legally linking those settlements to the State of Israel thus creating a de facto annexation of those Palestinian lands to the State of Israel which itself is illegal.

Irrelevant to the discussion regarding the annexation of the WB by Jordan and then Jordan giving up its claim to same

"The Israeli government claimed that the settlements were temporary and only built for security purposes, but from the quality of their planning and construction it is obvious these settlements are meant to be permanent. They also appear to serve many other clearly illegal purposes in Israel's plans for the Palestinian occupied territories:..."

Irrelevant to the discussion regarding the annexation of the WB by Jordan and then Jordan giving up its claim to same

Nothing you posted here in any way negates the soundness of what I said:

Jordan was given control of the WB by the 1949 armistice agreement, and then annexed the land in 1950. The Palestinian there were given Jordanian citizenship and the entire region was incorporated inth the Jordanian representative system (such as it was) - the fact that some thought that said annexation was 'illlegal' means little, especially given that the land was not taken from any other state.

Thus, in 1967, the West Bank was part of the state of Jordan, and its people Jordanian citizens. Jordan gave up all of this in 1988, stripping the citizenship and removing their representation - thereby removing its claim to the West Bank under international law. Given that no other state has any claim to the territory, it belongs to Israel - and, as such, cannot be 'occupied'.

Feel free to try again.

 

[SayMyName]

Israel should be forced to remove all the stupid barricades and such , but at the same time the "Palestinians" need to understand that Israel has an absolute right to defend herself and if they don't like the results of that mayhaps they should start policing themselves in regards to harboring terrorists.

An "occupational force" cannot claim self-defense!

Duly noted. Excellent point.

 

[georgephillip]

I note you lleft out this part:

SO...Jordan was given control of the WB by the 1949 armistice agreement, and then annexed the land in 1950. The Palestinian there were given Jordanian citizenship and the entire region was incorporated inth the Jordanian representative system (such as it was) - the fact that some thought that said annexation was 'illlegal' means little, especially given that the land was not taken from any other state.

Thus, in 1967, the West Bank was part of the state of Jordan, and its people Jordanian citizens. Jordan gave up all of this in 1988, stripping the citizenship and removing their representation - thereby removing its claim to the West Bank under international law. Given that no other state has any claim to the territory, it belongs to Israel - and, as such, cannot be 'occupied'.


I believe I made this comparson. Take it to the UN.

You seem to have forgotten the Six Day War:

Nope. Not in the slightest.

Irrelevant to the discussion regarding the annexation of the WB by Jordan and then Jordan giving up its claim to same


Irrelevant to the discussion regarding the annexation of the WB by Jordan and then Jordan giving up its claim to same

'The Israeli government then passed all sorts of laws legally linking those settlements to the State of Israel thus creating a de facto annexation of those Palestinian lands to the State of Israel which itself is illegal.

Irrelevant to the discussion regarding the annexation of the WB by Jordan and then Jordan giving up its claim to same

"The Israeli government claimed that the settlements were temporary and only built for security purposes, but from the quality of their planning and construction it is obvious these settlements are meant to be permanent. They also appear to serve many other clearly illegal purposes in Israel's plans for the Palestinian occupied territories:..."

Irrelevant to the discussion regarding the annexation of the WB by Jordan and then Jordan giving up its claim to same

Nothing you posted here in any way negates the soundness of what I said:

Jordan was given control of the WB by the 1949 armistice agreement, and then annexed the land in 1950. The Palestinian there were given Jordanian citizenship and the entire region was incorporated inth the Jordanian representative system (such as it was) - the fact that some thought that said annexation was 'illlegal' means little, especially given that the land was not taken from any other state.

Thus, in 1967, the West Bank was part of the state of Jordan, and its people Jordanian citizens. Jordan gave up all of this in 1988, stripping the citizenship and removing their representation - thereby removing its claim to the West Bank under international law. Given that no other state has any claim to the territory, it belongs to Israel - and, as such, cannot be 'occupied'.

Feel free to try again.

Feel freer to learn the difference between "state" and "territory."
Then find the word "state" in Section III, Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention:

"The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies."

Have you noticed any attempts by Israel to transfer its civilian population into Area C since it conquered the West Bank in 1967?

Fourth Geneva Convention - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Al_Fundie]

and this thread devolves into a perfect explanation of why there will never be peace in the middle east.

Hardly anyone is willing to admit that BOTH sides are at fault in multiple ways, nope more fun to blame one side or the other.

 

[georgephillip]

Let me know which Israel we are discussing.
Start with what you believe the Jewish state's eastern border to be?

 

[Foxfyre]

For me it is simple. Somebody is mad at you for whatever reason and is determined to firebomb your house and kill or maim your family. Do you allow them to do that because you can see why they are mad? Can even sympathise with their anger?

Do you let them out of jail just because you understand why they are mad? Do you trust them just because they agree not to firebomb your house or try to kill your family for six months?

Or does the welfare and safety of your family take precedence over their hurt feelings?

 

[sealadaigh]

and this thread devolves into a perfect explanation of why there will never be peace in the middle east.

Hardly anyone is willing to admit that BOTH sides are at fault in multiple ways, nope more fun to blame one side or the other.

sounds sorta pretty close to right to me. i asked about solutions on a post and that pretty well died...and i conceded for the most part the past history while trying to acknowledge the facts. that wasn't easy.

people really need to be brave enough to get past all the wrongs and step forward and say "forget this. what can we do for each other that is mutually beneficial."

 

[Billo_Really]

and this thread devolves into a perfect explanation of why there will never be peace in the middle east.

Hardly anyone is willing to admit that BOTH sides are at fault in multiple ways, nope more fun to blame one side or the other.

But it's not equal guilt.

On one side, you have a nation-state with a modern military occupying land against all international laws and support from the most powerful country the world has ever seen.

On the other, you have an entire population of people living under an occupation of tyranny for the last 45 years; having their movement restricted by over 500 checkpoints and roadblocks; an illegal and immoral blockade of their borders that is collectively punishing over a million people; weekly air strikes that have bombed their hospitals and they are not even allowed to have anything close to a military or civil defense force.

Now what about that fault on both sides...