Israel to Prevent UN Mission from Investigating West Bank Settlements

[georgephillip]

Seems to me that CONSIDERING what is going on ELSEWHERE----the UN investigating teams should be paying attention to high death areas Anyone care at all why churches are being attacked in egypt? or why christians are being sentenced to death in Iran? or what is happening to chaldeans in Iraq? for that matter why is the UN not investigating the overt racism going on in SAUDI ARABIA?----or protecting the hundreds of thousands of exploited slave like workers in the EMIRATI???

ANYWHERE except Area C, right?

Because the "chosen people" have divine rights to lands their ancestors pillaged three thousand years ago.

 

[irosie91]

Israel has no borders to recognize.

Right In 1948 the borders of Israel could not be established because its arab neighbors refused to recognize the existence of Israel despite being bound to do so by UN rules. Thus a quaisi-border was established at the ARMISTICE LINE with real borders to be established at a later date-------that late date never happened and the borders have yet to be established Maps in muslim countries often do not even show Israel In the past sometimes if israel showed up on a map-----it would redacted in muslim countries . Fret not----someday there will be borders -----whether the mullahs and imams like it or not

It is true that Israel could not establish borders but it has nothing to do with the neighboring states.

Borders are a natural product of land ownership. The edge of land owned forms a natural border. That border says that everything inside is yours and everything that is not is not
yours. You can't have land without borders and you can't have borders without land.

LOL you are struggling to convince yourself that you are clever----Your
silly little sophistry has is worthless. Countries have had border disputes
for thousands of years and even on a very local scale---municipal courts
are crowded with issues of LAND TITLE DISPUTES and BORDER
disputes between householders who own less than an acre. Is you silly little
detour into sophisty had merit----NO COUNTRY WOULD EXIST -----and there
would be no land ownership in the world. As to land ownership----are you suggesting
that is land was not purchased then it is not owned???? good----saudi arabia does not exist-----those arabs never paid for an inch

 

[P F Tinmore]

None of Palestine's neighbors dispute their borders.

 

[docmauser1]

None of Palestine's neighbors dispute their borders.

Of course! "Palestine" is no mo.

 

[georgephillip]

None of Palestine's neighbors dispute their borders.

Of course! "Palestine" is no mo.

While "Greater Israel" takes its place?

"Under international law, Israel’s rule in the West Bank and Gaza is considered 'belligerent occupation' and, therefore, its actions must be justified by military necessity only. If there is no occupation, Israel has no military grounds to hold on to the territories.

"In that case, it must either return the land to the Palestinians, and move out the settlers, or defy international law by annexing the territories, as it did earlier with East Jerusalem, and establish a state of Greater Israel."

Jonathan Cook: Israel’s annexation plan | Israeli Occupation Archive

 

[docmauser1]

Because the "chosen people" have divine rights to lands their ancestors pillaged three thousand years ago.

Envy much?

 

[docmauser1]

None of Palestine's neighbors dispute their borders.

Of course! "Palestine" is no mo.

"Under international law, Israel’s rule in the West Bank and Gaza is considered 'belligerent occupation' and, therefore, its actions must be justified by military necessity only. If there is no occupation, Israel has no military grounds to hold on to the territories."

Jonathan Kook's an emotionally imbalanced asshole, attracting like-minded individuals, of course. The International Court of Justice was way more interesting:

• The ICJ ruled that, it had jurisdiction over the case, but it involved only a dispute between Israel and the UN, rather than a dispute between Israel and palistanians.
• The ICJ ruled that, provisions of the international law regarding israeli right of self-defense are inapplicable, since there is no state involved other than Israel.
• The ICJ ruled that the West Bank is an occupied territory.
• Thus, the ICJ holds that, there exists an armed conflict, and that territories are occupied territories of another state; and at the same time the ICJ asserts that, Israel has no right to defend itself, because there is no other state involved.

Indeed, a virtual-reality occupation, making real money for palistanian conmen, their UN fellow-travelers and a diverse pack of other occupational scummmbags and Kooks.

 

[Lipush]

Fuck Israel!​

 

[ForeverYoung436]

None of Palestine's neighbors dispute their borders.

Of course! "Palestine" is no mo.

While "Greater Israel" takes its place?

"Under international law, Israel’s rule in the West Bank and Gaza is considered 'belligerent occupation' and, therefore, its actions must be justified by military necessity only. If there is no occupation, Israel has no military grounds to hold on to the territories.

"In that case, it must either return the land to the Palestinians, and move out the settlers, or defy international law by annexing the territories, as it did earlier with East Jerusalem, and establish a state of Greater Israel."

Jonathan Cook: Israel’s annexation plan | Israeli Occupation Archive

"Greater Israel"--sounds like an area as big as the Roman Empire, not a tiny sliver of land like New Jersey.

 

[Lipush]

None of Palestine's neighbors dispute their borders.

Of course! "Palestine" is no mo.

While "Greater Israel" takes its place?

"Under international law, Israel’s rule in the West Bank and Gaza is considered 'belligerent occupation' and, therefore, its actions must be justified by military necessity only. If there is no occupation, Israel has no military grounds to hold on to the territories.

"In that case, it must either return the land to the Palestinians, and move out the settlers, or defy international law by annexing the territories, as it did earlier with East Jerusalem, and establish a state of Greater Israel."

Jonathan Cook: Israel’s annexation plan | Israeli Occupation Archive

"Eretz Israel Hashleima" is only to happen when the Messiah comes. It is pointless arguing over it.

 

[georgephillip]

Of course! "Palestine" is no mo.

While "Greater Israel" takes its place?

"Under international law, Israel’s rule in the West Bank and Gaza is considered 'belligerent occupation' and, therefore, its actions must be justified by military necessity only. If there is no occupation, Israel has no military grounds to hold on to the territories.

"In that case, it must either return the land to the Palestinians, and move out the settlers, or defy international law by annexing the territories, as it did earlier with East Jerusalem, and establish a state of Greater Israel."

Jonathan Cook: Israel’s annexation plan | Israeli Occupation Archive

"Eretz Israel Hashleima" is only to happen when the Messiah comes. It is pointless arguing over it.

Wasn't the Jewish State itself supposed to wait for the Messiah?

Isn't it beyond pointless for the Jewish State to continue pouring its civilians into the Occupied Territories in opposition to International Law?

"They have noted that Theodor Meron, the foreign ministry’s legal adviser in 1967, expressly warned the government in the wake of the Six-Day War that settling civilians in the newly seized territory was a violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention."

Jonathan Cook: Israel’s annexation plan | Israeli Occupation Archive

 

[uscitizen]

Israel to Prevent UN Mission from Investigating West Bank Settlements

Well that is it then Israel has Wmd's and if they wont let the inspectors in we have to invade!

 

[irosie91]

sorry---the fact is that the UN does not have the authority to enter a sovereign country without its persmission----that is the way it is In fact ----when Nasser decided to create a war in the middle east -----the first thing he did was expel UN "peace keeping" UN forces from the SINAI----no one objected because the fact is that Nasser had the authority to do what he did------then he started a war which he not only lost but he also murdered thousands of his own soldiers

 

[uscitizen]

But the US can invade a sovern nation without it's permission.

 

[irosie91]

you can hold your breath and wait

 

[georgephillip]

sorry---the fact is that the UN does not have the authority to enter a sovereign country without its persmission----that is the way it is In fact ----when Nasser decided to create a war in the middle east -----the first thing he did was expel UN "peace keeping" UN forces from the SINAI----no one objected because the fact is that Nasser had the authority to do what he did------then he started a war which he not only lost but he also murdered thousands of his own soldiers

Nasser didn't strike first:

"After a period of high tension between Israel and its neighbors, the war began on June 5 with Israel launching surprise bombing raids against Egyptian air-fields. Within six days, Israel had won a decisive land war. Israeli forces had taken control of the Gaza Strip and the Sinai Peninsula from Egypt, the West Bank and East Jerusalem from Jordan, and the Golan Heights from Syria."

Six-Day War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[freedombecki]

But the US can invade a sovern nation without it's permission.

Then they shouldn't be sending upgraded and stronger IEDs to terrorists in countries where US troops are called in to do peace keeping. Especially when those terrorists order them to blow up America's super-reinforced troop humvees and other armed vehicles necessary for doing their tasks of making sure the terrorists aren't killing civilians who are not cooperating with them.

 

[georgephillip]

If, in the next few years, US forces are called into Mexico for "peace keeping" purposes, will you support the politicians, civilian and military, making that decision?

 

[Hossfly]

If, in the next few years, US forces are called into Mexico for "peace keeping" purposes, will you support the politicians, civilian and military, making that decision?

The drug cartels are getting stronger. The drugs are a detriment to the US. I would applaud an American expedition into Mexico to wipe out the drug gangs. Mexico and her Army aren't capable and then theres ever present corruption.

 

[georgephillip]

How many innocent American civilian deaths will you applaud?