Hamas escapes almost all accountability for a war it started in a malicious act of depravity.

[Shusha]

It is not sovereign Israeli territory.

Whose sovereign territory is it? Through which treaty did this other State obtain sovereignty over territory? What was this other State's defined territory (borders)? When was the government formed? When did this other State achieve recognition? These are the requirements for Statehood. I can easily answer all these questions for Israel. Can you answer them for this mysterious other State?

The Mandate did not give all the territory to Israel.

The Mandate for Palestine assigned the rights of national self-determination to the Jewish people, and ONLY to the Jewish people. The Jewish people fulfilled all of the obligations and prerequisites for being able to "stand alone". The Jewish people formed a government and declared Independence on the territory. The territory is inherited, in its entirety, from the previous administration.

If you don't like the word "give", we don't have to use it. Israel fulfilled the requirements for creating an independent State.

At the time of the Mandate, Arabs owned 70% of the land. Even then, you were only given 40% of the land with the caveat that you didn't violate the rights of the existing, non-Jewish population. But you didn't do that, did you?

Private land ownership does not confer Statehood.

 

[Shusha]

Neither. You have evaded the issues so I see no point in communicating with you further.

I have directly addressed your incorrect legal argument and provided the correct legal understanding.

 

[rosends]

It's time for you to change your underwear. The reason you weren't allowed on the bus of Earnest Discussion is because you're dishonest and you stink. Is that "bizarre" enough for you?

Since you have never been around me, your assessment that I stink is, indeed, bizarre.

 

[Billo_Really]

No. You added a word.

"Resolution 242 calls for the withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the 1967 conflict..."

That's what it says.

 

[bendog]

Israel takes all the land and blames hamas's depravity.

 

[GLASNOST]

"Resolution 242 calls for the withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the 1967 conflict..."

That's what it says.

That's exactly what it says.

 

[Billo_Really]

Whose sovereign territory is it? Through which treaty did this other State obtain sovereignty over territory? What was this other State's defined territory (borders)? When was the government formed? When did this other State achieve recognition? These are the requirements for Statehood. I can easily answer all these questions for Israel. Can you answer them for this mysterious other State?

The Mandate for Palestine assigned the rights of national self-determination to the Jewish people, and ONLY to the Jewish people. The Jewish people fulfilled all of the obligations and prerequisites for being able to "stand alone". The Jewish people formed a government and declared Independence on the territory. The territory is inherited, in its entirety, from the previous administration.

If you don't like the word "give", we don't have to use it. Israel fulfilled the requirements for creating an independent State.

Private land ownership does not confer Statehood.

You cannot inherit someone else's property.

And people moving into a neighborhood do not automatically have more rights than the people already living there. This was explained in the Mandate.

 

[toomuchtime_]

"Resolution 242 calls for the withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the 1967 conflict..."

That's what it says.

It says to withdraw to secure borders, but borders can only be secure if the countriies at at peace, and those secure borders were successfully negotiated with Egypt and Jordan. Although every Israeli PM since the Six Day War has offered to return the Golan to Syria in return for peace up until Syria and Lebanon became failed states, the Syrian government refused to make peace with Israel, and that territory is forfeit to Israel.

"Affirms that the fulfilment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles: (i) Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict; (ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;"

https://peacemaker.un.org/sites/peacemaker.un.org/files/SCRes242%281967%29.pdf

Perhaps it is the punctuation that confuses you.

 

[GLASNOST]

Israel takes all the land and blames hamas's depravity.

Nazis ALWAYS invade and then blame it on the victims. Just like they did in Poland. Today, they are doing it in Palestine.

 

[expat500]

 

[rosends]

"Resolution 242 calls for the withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the 1967 conflict..."

That's what it says.

And you write in post 127, “the Israeli army must leave the occupied territories “

Notice the difference? If you read through the information the authors of 242 provided, you would see the major difference.

 

[rosends]

That's exactly what it says.

You keep hitching your horse the his mistakes. You should think for yourself so when you make yourself look foolishly again it will be your own fault.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Oh hell, yes.

Your question lacks a understanding of the legal concepts, but yes, Israel has the legal authority to act within its sovereign borders.

This depends entirely on how you define "Palestinians" (not a legal term). If you mean "citizens of the State of Palestine", given that there is no State of Palestine with defined borders and the inherent territorial integrity which comes with defined borders, there can not have been any sovereign claim to territory, so they can't very well "retake" it now, can they?

It is an interesting question, but rather obscure and nonsensical. Re-asserting control over your own sovereign territory, by definition, would be permissible in international law. Acts committed during a war defensive war, again by definition, to re-assert control over your own sovereign territory can still be in contravention of international law. That wouldn't negate the legality of the goal of territorial integrity.

What Would Moses Do?

The Sinai is Israeli sovereign territory that they've won three times, but had to give back because of Muzziphile pressure from the duplicitous American government. Hamas was supplied and trained by the Egyptian Moslem Brotherhood through its outposts in the Sinai.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

It's Okay. Everything Liberals touch turns to SHIT! (eventually)...

America Is Stuck in Their Porta Potty

 

[Shusha]

You cannot inherit someone else's property.

When new States are created, unless otherwise agreed in a treaty, they inherit the legal boundaries of the last administration. That is international customary law, applied universally. It applies to Israel. The Mandate is very clear on the boundaries of the new State for the Jewish people.

I keep asking you for the details of the formation of another State in the territory who could possibly lay sovereign claim to any part of the territory. There are four things they need to be a State: a defined people; a defined territory; a government; recognition.

This mysterious other State. What was the territory of that State? What are its boundaries? Who is its government? In which treaty would I find all of this information? (You can't, because there isn't one).

You are not arguing from a legal perspective. You are arguing from a moral and political perspective. That's fine. The principle of self-determination is an applicable political concept, and can have international law applied to it. The people who are seeking this self-determination can be defined. They are the group of people with Arab ethnicity, and all their descendants, who were resident in the Mandate for Palestine circa 1948, who decline Israeli citizenship, and wish to have self-determination in the form of a State in the territory.

The trouble is that in order for them to form such a State, they have to make an agreement with Israel as to where Israel ends and Palestine starts. IF there is such an agreement, just name it. Problem solved. Argument won. But there is not an agreement. And so. There is no occupation.

 

[sparky]

So, let us be clear.

well you're not

because this 'war' started almost a century ago, Oct 7th simply serving as inspiration for it to all manifest further along

all anyone needs know is the zionists want to kill any muzzie for 'greater israel' , with hamas (their created tool) being the stool pigeon for it

~S~

 

[sparky]

America Is Stuck in Their Porta Potty

~S~

 

[Shusha]

... Just like they did in Poland. Today, they are doing it in Palestine.

Except that Poland was already a State, with sovereignty and defined boundaries. (Bonus question: guess how they got those boundaries?)

 

[Shusha]

The Sinai is Israeli sovereign territory

The Sinai has never been sovereign Israeli territory. It certainly is not now, as the peace treaty between Israel and Egypt clearly demonstrates.

 

[GLASNOST]

The Sinai is Israeli sovereign territory that they've won three times, but had to give back because of Muzziphile pressure from the duplicitous American government.

No. It had to be given back because Ariel Sharon specifically disobeyed orders.