Official: Egypt turns back Hamas group with cash

[jillian]

they don't like road blocks? (which Israeli's have to go through when they ride through the west bank also)... they shouldn't blow up children on schoolbuses.

don't like "confiscated land"? don't start wars you can't win.

*yawn*

If you think that Hamas is the same as "palestinians", you prove the point of the far right who think all pals are the same. You kind of prove that yourself, actually, in everything you write.

and you're right...occupation is probably the wrong word. Do you prefer "coup"?

the pals could have had 98% of what they want. they keep sending missiles instead. ijits? or just terrorists who don't care about having their own state? (If the latter, my sympathy for them is non-existent. If the former, they need leadership that will smarten them up and not cowards saying they should die to the last civilian while themselve sitting in the safety of Damascus).

 

[Zein El Nour]

they don't like road blocks? (which Israeli's have to go through when they ride through the west bank also)... they shouldn't blow up children on schoolbuses.

Also please get your facts straight. Israelis have bypass roads, so NO they don't have to pass through the checkpoints. That is not to mention: What on earth are they doing there in the first place?

don't like "confiscated land"? don't start wars you can't win.

The only ones staring wars that can't be won are the Israelis.... (Lebanon 2006 and Gaza 2008-9, and it seems more to come.) If you actually think that what the Palestinians are doing is war, then you are in for a big surprise: this is not war. these are people under siege using whatever they have. Maybe we will see a war in the future and I can assure you that is will not look anything like this.

If you think that Hamas is the same as "palestinians", you prove the point of the far right who think all pals are the same. You kind of prove that yourself, actually, in everything you write.

and you're right...occupation is probably the wrong word. Do you prefer "coup"?

Hamas are Palestinians, and so is Abbas and his Fatah, as well as Arafat and his Fatah, the refugees in Lebanon are also Palestinian, and anywhere in the world, even those collaborating with Israel!

If that is what the Israeli right says than they are right! If you say otherwise, then let me ask you this: who appointed you to decide who is Palestinian and who is not? Or did it just become a habit?

the pals could have had 98% of what they want. they keep sending missiles instead. ijits? or just terrorists who don't care about having their own state? (If the latter, my sympathy for them is non-existent. If the former, they need leadership that will smarten them up and not cowards saying they should die to the last civilian while themselve sitting in the safety of Damascus).

98% of what they want? don't make me laugh. This lie has gone for too long!

First the infamous 98% only addressed the land (of the 22% of historic Palestine). Of course you fail to mention the conditions laid for Israel to generously give back what doesn't belong to them:
1. Palestinian airspace would be Israeli airspace
2. Israel would have partial control over the borders
3. Palestinians are not allowed to have an armed forces.
4. Water in the West Bank would be shared with Israel (as well as other natural resources)
The list goes on. And this is not to mention Palestinian refugees and Jerusalem. So what kind of state is that?

So please spare us the 98% "generous offer" propaganda bit.

And it is good to know how much you care about Palestinian civilians and how much you want to protect them from their own leadership. Here I'd like to express my concern over Israeli civilians whose leaders take them to war after massacre after war before heading to prison over corruption charges. I am sure that they were at the front the whole time!

The Israeli regime has become another corrupt regime in the region, where they are willing to sacrifice the lives of their soldiers and citizens just to stay in power.

Good luck defending these corrupt criminals.

 

[Sunni Man]

Jillian's statement about Israel gaving the Palestinians a "generous offer" is completely ridiculous

That's like having a gang of thugs stage a home invasion at your house.

The thugs take up residence in your home and give you a "generous offer" to let you and your family live in the basement.

 

[Shogun]

Are you kidding me? did anyone EXPECT a zionist jew to be anything other than scheisty when bringing up such a "good deal" that she would never accept for jews were the roles reversed?


I'm beginning to think that the ONLY way piece will ever be achieved is to let israel elect their mini-hitler Bibi so that more dirty goyim can die for the sake of jewish racism and we come to the point where we have to drag some jews to Nuremberg, ironically.

 

[toomuchtime_]

The facts and logic I presented are accurate and valid, but the question of justice is really a subjective issue.

First, being an occupying power is not illegal under international law. In fact, international law prescribes the responsibilities and limitations of occupying powers. However, since Israel does not assert the authority of government over the territories or deny that authority to the PA, it does not technically qualify as a occupying power although in some respects it does occupy the West Bank and control the borders of Gaza. This is quite apart from whether you or I believe Israel's actions with regard to the territories are necessary or just. We can specify, if you like, that I think Israel's actions, for the most part, are necessary and justified by Israel's need to defend the state and people of Israel against attacks by Palestinian militants.

I don't know what you mean by Palestine. Do you mean the territories or do you mean the territories and Israel? And I don't know what agency of the UN you are referring to or asking my opinion of, so I can't respond to that issue.

As to the Golan Heights, under Security Council 242, the parties involved in the 1967 war are to withdraw behind safe and secure borders as a part of a peace treaty, but since Syria still considers itself at war with Israel, Israel is under no obligation to withdraw, and even within the context of peace negotiations, the strategic importance of the Golan plateau makes the issue of what border would be safe and secure for Israel unclear.

As to the legal status of the Golan Heights, under the authority of 242, Israel is the legitimate occupying power until there is a peace treaty between Israel and Syria that redefines the border and under the authority of Israel's Golan Heights Law, Israel is the legitimate government of the Golan Heights. In either case, the issue will only be finally resolved in a final peace treaty between Israel and Syria, and as long as Syria remains allied with Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas, all of which are committed to the destruction of Israel as a Jewish state, such a peace treaty is unlikely, so for all practical purposes, the Golan Heights will remain a part of Israel for the foreseeable future.

Trust me, I haven't even begun to touch on the subject of justice. We are still very much talking legal aspects here.

1. Regarding whether Israel is an occupying power or not I'll refer you to the definition:

Article 42 of the 1907 Hague Regulations (HR) states that a "territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army. The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised."

So you see it is not about what Israel claims, but rather the facts on the ground.

2. I was asking about the UN in general, but if you want to be more specific: how about the General Assembly, Security Counsel, Social and Economic Counsel, Commission on Human Rights.... They all attest that Israel is an occupation force.

3. When I talked about Palestine, I did so in the context of UNSC Resolutions, meaning the West Bank and Gaza, and not historic Palestine (that has a completely different story)

4. As for the Golan, I don't know which UNSC Resolution 242 you are talking about. Here is an exert:

"The Security Council,

Expressing its continuing concern with the grave situation in the Middle East,

Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in which every State in the area can live in security,

Emphasizing further that all Member States in their acceptance of the Charter of the United Nations have undertaken a commitment to act in accordance with Article 2 of the Charter,

1. Affirms that the fulfillment 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 acknowledgment 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;"

http://http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/d744b47860e5c97e85256c40005d01d6/7d35e1f729df491c85256ee700686136!OpenDocument

So you see the prerequisite for peace is Israel's withdrawal from the occupied Golan and not annexation, pending the enforcement of new facts on the ground.

5. And I think you are the one mixing political and legal aspects here when you say that Syria should stop supporting Hamas and Hezbullah to have peace with Israel. First let us implement international law and resolutions, and then can talk politics.

6. As long as Israel continues to occupy Arab land (Palestinian and Syrian) it will shall not live in peace, since any people under occupation have right to "regain its rights by all means". And believe me that the Palestinians will continue to apply this right for as long as it takes.

7. Please mind that I have not began to discuss illegal Israeli practices in the occupied territories, and believe me when I say there are volumes on that.

I will get some of the rationales used to justify previous occupations and crimes against humanity. They look very similar to what you are trying to do here.

A territory is placed under the authority of a hostile army when that army or its representatives actually assume powers of government or deny the existing government that authority. Since Israel does neither in Gaza or the West Bank, Israel is not an occupying power. In fact, the PA, under either Abbas and Fayyad or Hamas continues to pass and enforce laws, collect taxes, provide for public safety and order, distribute social welfare benefits and carry on relations with foreign powers, all without interference from Israel, so clearly Israel is not an occupying power despite the fact that it controls Gaza's borders and has deployed some troops in the West Bank.

2. I am not familiar with the UN statements you are referencing so I cannot respond to your claims about what was said. In any case, only certain UNSC resolutions carry legal weight, and other statements from other sources in the UN are only opinions.

242 clearly states that both (i) and (ii) should be fulfilled at the same time, not first (i) and then (ii), so as long as a state of war is maintained by Syria, Israel is under no obligation to return the Golan Heights, and since that state of war will only end with a peace treaty, what will be returned will be determined by that treaty. Until then, under the authority of 242, Israel is the legitimate occupying power in the Golan Heights and Syria has no legitimate claim to that territory until a peace treaty is signed by the two countries.

Moreover, Syria's borders were defined and determined by the League of Nations and the League's authorities have passed to the UN, so since Syria has refused to recognize the UN's authority to create the state of Israel and define its borders, in much the same way Syria was created and defined by the League of Nations, one can hardly take seriously Syria's claim to the Golan Heights simply because the League of Nations once defined Syria to include it.

Clearly, the issue of the Golan Heights can only be resolved through negotiations between Syria and Israel in which Syria acknowledges Israel's "sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence" and its "right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force" as 242 requires.

5. Clearly, 242 requires that an Israeli withdrawal behind safe and secure borders will occur in the context of a peace treaty which will define those borders, so as a practical matter, as long as Syria is allied with Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas, all committed to the destruction of Israel as a Jewish state, Syria cannot enter into a peace treaty with Israel in good faith; that is to say, Syria's legal obligations under 242 to recognize the "sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence" of Israel and its "right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force" is clearly incompatible with it political alliances with Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas, so there is no way to separate Syria's legal obligations from its politics in this case.

6. I agree with you that the prospects for a formal peace with Syria and a final agreement with the Palestinians seem dim, but the prospects for relative peacefulness are today better than they have ever been for Israel. It is Syria and the Palestinians that lose the most by this current state of affairs.

 

[DiveCon]

Jillian's statement about Israel gaving the Palestinians a "generous offer" is completely ridiculous

That's like having a gang of thugs stage a home invasion at your house.

The thugs take up residence in your home and give you a "generous offer" to let you and your family live in the basement.

except in this case, the thugs are the palestinians