U.N. rights inquiry says Israel must remove settlers

[Lipush]

OT: I just heard about the explosion on your embacy in Turkey. are your people ok?

 

[Billo_Really]

The boy screwing, pedophile worshipping, arab scumbags have been trying to get the Jews out of that land for over 60yrs and haven't been able to do so despite the fact that they outnumber the Jews 100's to 1. Proof positive that the brave muslim "warriors" can only suceed in making war on unarmed woman and children, including their own. You would think the muslim hordes would be able to accomplish this by force of arms wouldn't you? Unfortunately the Jews fight back and the muslim "warrior" is a cowardly piece of shit that only makes war on the unarmed and on their wives and daughters.

It's not "jew land" jerkoff, so shove that little speech up your ass!

 

[Billo_Really]

Lol, so you admit, the arabic followers of the pedophilic prophet lack the means to do it themselves. You agree with me that they are too cowardly and weak to get out from behind their wive's skirts and throw the Jews out themselves huh? I understand. I mean after getting your asses kicked EVERY time you've tried in the past you sorta lose faith in your abilities and start to think those stories of arabic glory on the battlefields of yesteryear have nothing to do with the arabs of today and their abilities. Seems like the arab can only make war on defenseless woman and children and when faced with the IDF, they whine and cry for others to do their fighting for them. Cowards.

Israel is the big dog in the ME and no other nation comes close.

That's why it is so ridiculous using that "wipe them off the map" argument, because there isn't a single nation in the ME that has that kind of military capability.

However, Russia does!

 

[proudveteran06]

The boy screwing, pedophile worshipping, arab scumbags have been trying to get the Jews out of that land for over 60yrs and haven't been able to do so despite the fact that they outnumber the Jews 100's to 1. Proof positive that the brave muslim "warriors" can only suceed in making war on unarmed woman and children, including their own. You would think the muslim hordes would be able to accomplish this by force of arms wouldn't you? Unfortunately the Jews fight back and the muslim "warrior" is a cowardly piece of shit that only makes war on the unarmed and on their wives and daughters.

It's not "jew land" jerkoff, so shove that little speech up your ass!

It's not " Palestinian land" you C**K- SUCKER so shove your posts up your ass!!! The Arabs didn't want the 67 Borders then; Israel doesn't have to accept them now ! BTW, C**K- SUCKER why did Hamas initiate more Rocket attacks after Israel withdrew From Gaza???

 

[SherriMunnerlyn]

The boy screwing, pedophile worshipping, arab scumbags have been trying to get the Jews out of that land for over 60yrs and haven't been able to do so despite the fact that they outnumber the Jews 100's to 1. Proof positive that the brave muslim "warriors" can only suceed in making war on unarmed woman and children, including their own. You would think the muslim hordes would be able to accomplish this by force of arms wouldn't you? Unfortunately the Jews fight back and the muslim "warrior" is a cowardly piece of shit that only makes war on the unarmed and on their wives and daughters.

It's not "jew land" jerkoff, so shove that little speech up your ass!

It's not " Palestinian land" you C**K- SUCKER so shove your posts up your ass!!! The Arabs didn't want the 67 Borders then; Israel doesn't have to accept them now ! BTW, C**K- SUCKER why did Hamas initiate more Rocket attacks after Israel withdrew From Gaza??? [/QUOTE



God owns the land!

 

[RoccoR]

SherriMunnerlyn, et al,

Yes, I've heard this before.

Legally, without Annexation, this was one of Israel's most vulnerable legal points. It has the greatest probable cause and is outline directly in both the GCIV and Rome Statues.

... ... ...
Annexations are not recognized by the UN, they violate The Fourth Geneva Convention.
... ... ...
Sherri

(QUESTION)

I thought the GCIV was silent on the issue.

Can you tell me where you get this? What is you logic under the GCIV?

My understanding is, that the GCIV essentially states that under conditions of annexation, ownership of private property must be protected.

(COMMENT)

Now, the intent was to allow for both a Jewish Homeland and a Palestinian Homeland, with Jerusalem as a free City State. Both the Balfour Declaration and the GA Resolution 181 support this idea. But the Palestinians claim is that GA Res 181 is void because they rejected their statehood as specified. So, in the absents of the original grant intention, the Palestinians are not sovereign and have no claim.

However, the Israelis have Occupied Territories which belong to no sovereign entity. Thus, the question becomes: Can Israel annex that territory in the same fashion as it did East Jerusalem?

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Billo_Really]

It's not " Palestinian land" you C**K- SUCKER so shove your posts up your ass!!! The Arabs didn't want the 67 Borders then; Israel doesn't have to accept them now ! BTW, C**K- SUCKER why did Hamas initiate more Rocket attacks after Israel withdrew From Gaza???

Because they didn't withdraw from Gaza!

 

[SherriMunnerlyn]

SherriMunnerlyn, et al,

Yes, I've heard this before.

Legally, without Annexation, this was one of Israel's most vulnerable legal points. It has the greatest probable cause and is outline directly in both the GCIV and Rome Statues.

... ... ...
Annexations are not recognized by the UN, they violate The Fourth Geneva Convention.
... ... ...
Sherri

(QUESTION)

I thought the GCIV was silent on the issue.

Can you tell me where you get this? What is you logic under the GCIV?

My understanding is, that the GCIV essentially states that under conditions of annexation, ownership of private property must be protected.

(COMMENT)

Now, the intent was to allow for both a Jewish Homeland and a Palestinian Homeland, with Jerusalem as a free City State. Both the Balfour Declaration and the GA Resolution 181 support this idea. But the Palestinians claim is that GA Res 181 is void because they rejected their statehood as specified. So, in the absents of the original grant intention, the Palestinians are not sovereign and have no claim.

However, the Israelis have Occupied Territories which belong to no sovereign entity. Thus, the question becomes: Can Israel annex that territory in the same fashion as it did East Jerusalem?

Most Respectfully,
R

No, annexations are changing the character of occupied lands and are unlawful. And the UN has addressed the illegality of the annexation of Jerusalem in many resolutions and other documents The Intl Court of Justice confirmed this and intl authorities unanimously take this position.

 

[P F Tinmore]

SherriMunnerlyn, et al,

Yes, I've heard this before.

Legally, without Annexation, this was one of Israel's most vulnerable legal points. It has the greatest probable cause and is outline directly in both the GCIV and Rome Statues.

... ... ...
Annexations are not recognized by the UN, they violate The Fourth Geneva Convention.
... ... ...
Sherri

(QUESTION)

I thought the GCIV was silent on the issue.

Can you tell me where you get this? What is you logic under the GCIV?

My understanding is, that the GCIV essentially states that under conditions of annexation, ownership of private property must be protected.

(COMMENT)

Now, the intent was to allow for both a Jewish Homeland and a Palestinian Homeland, with Jerusalem as a free City State. Both the Balfour Declaration and the GA Resolution 181 support this idea. But the Palestinians claim is that GA Res 181 is void because they rejected their statehood as specified. So, in the absents of the original grant intention, the Palestinians are not sovereign and have no claim.

However, the Israelis have Occupied Territories which belong to no sovereign entity. Thus, the question becomes: Can Israel annex that territory in the same fashion as it did East Jerusalem?

Most Respectfully,
R

It is illegal to annex land that you occupy. Jordan tried with the West Bank an failed. Israel tried with East Jerusalem and failed.

In both cases it was illegal.

BTW, the Palestinians never rejected statehood.

 

[SherriMunnerlyn]

SherriMunnerlyn, et al,

Yes, I've heard this before.

... ... ...
Annexations are not recognized by the UN, they violate The Fourth Geneva Convention.
... ... ...
Sherri

(QUESTION)

I thought the GCIV was silent on the issue.

Can you tell me where you get this? What is you logic under the GCIV?

My understanding is, that the GCIV essentially states that under conditions of annexation, ownership of private property must be protected.

(COMMENT)

Now, the intent was to allow for both a Jewish Homeland and a Palestinian Homeland, with Jerusalem as a free City State. Both the Balfour Declaration and the GA Resolution 181 support this idea. But the Palestinians claim is that GA Res 181 is void because they rejected their statehood as specified. So, in the absents of the original grant intention, the Palestinians are not sovereign and have no claim.

However, the Israelis have Occupied Territories which belong to no sovereign entity. Thus, the question becomes: Can Israel annex that territory in the same fashion as it did East Jerusalem?

Most Respectfully,
R

No, annexations are changing the character of occupied lands and are unlawful. And the UN has addressed the illegality of the annexation of Jerusalem in many resolutions and other documents The Intl Court of Justice confirmed this and intl authorities unanimously take this position.

Here is a discussion of the annexation question, from an organization associated with The International Red Cross. Besides violating The Fourth Geneva Convention and being renderd invalid on that basis, annexations of occupied lands, this source points out annexation violates the UN Charter, which all nations are bound to by treaty when they are admitted into the UN as member states. In addition, UN Resolutions affirm the annexation by Israel of occupied territories to be null and void.

"What is the legal status of East Jerusalem?

East Jerusalem was occupied and illiegally annexed by Israel after the Six-Day War in 1967. According to international law, East Jerusalem is occupied territory. Land cannot be acquired by means of annexation. Annexation by use of force is contrary to international law. Occupation or annexation? Israel made West Jerusalem its capital in 1950 and established its government offices there. Soon afterwards, Jordan annexed the eastern part of the city along with the remainder of the West Bank. In the six-day war of 1967, Israel conquered and occupied also the parts of the city located east of the 1948 armistice line also known as the Green Line.

The term “East Jerusalem” is today used for the area between the “Green Line” and the eastern boundary of the Jerusalem Municipality, unilaterally drawn by Israel and encompassing the city's Eastern neighborhoods, some nearby villages as well as the Shu'afat refugee camp. Israel considers this area as annexed and applies its own domestic law. The expansion of the municipal boundries of Jerusalem meant a total annexation of 28 percent of the West Bank. Annexation by the use or threat of force is prohibited under international law, as set forth in Article 2(4) of the UN Charter. This principle was restated in GA Resolution 2625 (XXV) of 1970, which noted that states must not use force to violate existing international boundaries or to solve international disputes, including territorial ones. In 1980, the Israeli Knesset passed "Basic Law: Jerusalem, Capital of Israel" which, on a higher constitutional level, declared Jerusalem to be Israel 's "eternal and indivisible" capital including the occupied East Jerusalem territory. In response to this basic law, the UN Security Council (UNSC) affirmed that acquisition of territory, annexation, by force is forbidden according to international law and confirmed the continued application of the Fourth Geneva Convention to the areas annexed by Israel. It also called upon member states to withdraw their diplomatic missions from the city. "

https://www.diakonia.se/sa/node.asp?node=3288

Sherri

 

[RoccoR]

SherriMunnerlyn, et al,

There are many, many principles implied in this exchange. I could never do them all justice in this limited forum of discussion. And I'm sure if I tried, I would definitely bore everyone to death. But I've selected a few points to focus on. If I missed one that you feel is an important concept --- please don't hesitate to yank my chain. I will certainly pick it up.

Yes, I've heard this before.


(QUESTION)

I thought the GCIV was silent on the issue.

Can you tell me where you get this? What is you logic under the GCIV?

My understanding is, that the GCIV essentially states that under conditions of annexation, ownership of private property must be protected.

(COMMENT)

Now, the intent was to allow for both a Jewish Homeland and a Palestinian Homeland, with Jerusalem as a free City State. Both the Balfour Declaration and the GA Resolution 181 support this idea. But the Palestinians claim is that GA Res 181 is void because they rejected their statehood as specified. So, in the absents of the original grant intention, the Palestinians are not sovereign and have no claim.

However, the Israelis have Occupied Territories which belong to no sovereign entity. Thus, the question becomes: Can Israel annex that territory in the same fashion as it did East Jerusalem?

No, annexations are changing the character of occupied lands and are unlawful. And the UN has addressed the illegality of the annexation of Jerusalem in many resolutions and other documents The Intl Court of Justice confirmed this and intl authorities unanimously take this position.

Annexation by the use or threat of force is prohibited under international law, as set forth in Article 2(4) of the UN Charter.

This principle was restated in GA Resolution 2625 (XXV) of 1970, which noted that states must not use force to violate existing international boundaries or to solve international disputes, including territorial ones.

In 1980, the Israeli Knesset passed "Basic Law: Jerusalem, Capital of Israel" which, on a higher constitutional level, declared Jerusalem to be Israel 's "eternal and indivisible" capital including the occupied East Jerusalem territory. In response to this basic law, the UN Security Council (UNSC) affirmed that acquisition of territory, annexation, by force is forbidden according to international law and confirmed the continued application of the Fourth Geneva Convention to the areas annexed by Israel. It also called upon member states to withdraw their diplomatic missions from the city. "

https://www.diakonia.se/sa/node.asp?node=3288

(COMMENT)

Let's see if I can address these, one-by-one:

All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.
SOURCE: Charter of the United Nations: Chapter I: Purposes and Principles

POINT 1:

• The Palestinians have no territorial integrity. There is no State of Palestine. It was rejected several times.
• By contrast, there is a recognized State of Israel.
• If anyone is violating the principle here, it is the Palestinians attempting to dismantle Israel.

The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.
SOURCE: International Humanitarian Law - Fourth 1949 Geneva Convention

Protected persons who are in occupied territory shall not be deprived, in any case or in any manner whatsoever, of the benefits of the present Convention by any change introduced, as the result of the occupation of a territory, into the institutions or government of the said territory, nor by any agreement concluded between the authorities of the occupied territories and the Occupying Power, nor by any annexation by the latter of the whole or part of the occupied territory.
SOURCE: International Humanitarian Law - Fourth 1949 Geneva Convention

POINT 2:

• Granted, prima facia evidence would suggest that Israel is in violation of Article 49, GCIV. But that would become moot if Annexed.
• Article 47 does not deny the right to Annexation. The prohibition is against using force across the international boundary. The West Bank and Gaza are not sovereignty states.
• There is no international boundary.

The principle that States shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered.

The parties to a dispute have the duty, in the event of failure to reach a solution by any one of the above peaceful means, to continue to seek a settlement of the dispute by other peaceful means agreed upon by them.

No State may use or encourage the use of economic political or any other type of measures to coerce another State in order to obtain from it the subordination of the exercise of its sovereign rights and to secure from it advantages of any kind. Also, no State shall organize, assist, foment, finance, incite or tolerate subversive, terrorist or armed activities directed towards the violent overthrow of the regime of another State, or interfere in civil strife in another State.
SOURCE: A/RES/25/2625 - Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations - UN Documents: Gathering a body of global agreements

POINT 3:

Of the documents you cite as reference, the one most enjoining and celestial in principles is the "Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations;" with excerpts cited (supra). If they are binding, then the principles must be binding to all; even the Palestinians (Hamas, Hezbollah, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, etc); or not at all.

• settle their international disputes by peaceful means
• continue to seek a settlement of the dispute by other peaceful means
• no State shall organize, assist, foment, finance, incite or tolerate subversive, terrorist or armed activities directed towards the violent overthrow of the regime of another State

I do not see evidence that the Palestinians collectively, or individually adhere to these principles. And if they do not apply to the Palestinians in the settlement of the dispute, then they certainly do not apply to the Israelis.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[pbel]

SherriMunnerlyn, et al,

There are many, many principles implied in this exchange. I could never do them all justice in this limited forum of discussion. And I'm sure if I tried, I would definitely bore everyone to death. But I've selected a few points to focus on. If I missed one that you feel is an important concept --- please don't hesitate to yank my chain. I will certainly pick it up.

No, annexations are changing the character of occupied lands and are unlawful. And the UN has addressed the illegality of the annexation of Jerusalem in many resolutions and other documents The Intl Court of Justice confirmed this and intl authorities unanimously take this position.

Annexation by the use or threat of force is prohibited under international law, as set forth in Article 2(4) of the UN Charter.

This principle was restated in GA Resolution 2625 (XXV) of 1970, which noted that states must not use force to violate existing international boundaries or to solve international disputes, including territorial ones.

In 1980, the Israeli Knesset passed "Basic Law: Jerusalem, Capital of Israel" which, on a higher constitutional level, declared Jerusalem to be Israel 's "eternal and indivisible" capital including the occupied East Jerusalem territory. In response to this basic law, the UN Security Council (UNSC) affirmed that acquisition of territory, annexation, by force is forbidden according to international law and confirmed the continued application of the Fourth Geneva Convention to the areas annexed by Israel. It also called upon member states to withdraw their diplomatic missions from the city. "

https://www.diakonia.se/sa/node.asp?node=3288

(COMMENT)

Let's see if I can address these, one-by-one:

POINT 1:

• The Palestinians have no territorial integrity. There is no State of Palestine. It was rejected several times.
• By contrast, there is a recognized State of Israel.
• If anyone is violating the principle here, it is the Palestinians attempting to dismantle Israel.

Protected persons who are in occupied territory shall not be deprived, in any case or in any manner whatsoever, of the benefits of the present Convention by any change introduced, as the result of the occupation of a territory, into the institutions or government of the said territory, nor by any agreement concluded between the authorities of the occupied territories and the Occupying Power, nor by any annexation by the latter of the whole or part of the occupied territory.
SOURCE: International Humanitarian Law - Fourth 1949 Geneva Convention

POINT 2:

• Granted, prima facia evidence would suggest that Israel is in violation of Article 49, GCIV. But that would become moot if Annexed.
• Article 47 does not deny the right to Annexation. The prohibition is against using force across the international boundary. The West Bank and Gaza are not sovereignty states.
• There is no international boundary.

The principle that States shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered.

The parties to a dispute have the duty, in the event of failure to reach a solution by any one of the above peaceful means, to continue to seek a settlement of the dispute by other peaceful means agreed upon by them.

No State may use or encourage the use of economic political or any other type of measures to coerce another State in order to obtain from it the subordination of the exercise of its sovereign rights and to secure from it advantages of any kind. Also, no State shall organize, assist, foment, finance, incite or tolerate subversive, terrorist or armed activities directed towards the violent overthrow of the regime of another State, or interfere in civil strife in another State.
SOURCE: A/RES/25/2625 - Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations - UN Documents: Gathering a body of global agreements

POINT 3:

Of the documents you cite as reference, the one most enjoining and celestial in principles is the "Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations;" with excerpts cited (supra). If they are binding, then the principles must be binding to all; even the Palestinians (Hamas, Hezbollah, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, etc); or not at all.

• settle their international disputes by peaceful means
• continue to seek a settlement of the dispute by other peaceful means
• no State shall organize, assist, foment, finance, incite or tolerate subversive, terrorist or armed activities directed towards the violent overthrow of the regime of another State

I do not see evidence that the Palestinians collectively, or individually adhere to these principles. And if they do not apply to the Palestinians in the settlement of the dispute, then they certainly do not apply to the Israelis.

Most Respectfully,
R

The recent UN recognition of Palestine to the 67 borders as a non-member State has changed the equation…sure Israel can and will ignore the will of the UN.

What has really changed is that NO European Nation voted against the resolution. Why?
The answer is simple…Even though America is withdrawing its forces from Islamic Wars bankrupting her but only imports 17% of her oil from the region, America is telling the Europeans to get more involved in defending their-own oil pipeline. You can see that with France.

The Europeans prefer their Economic pipe-line over Israeli hard-line policies.

I see a change in American Foreign Policy in the ME in allowing her major European allies to abstain.

 

[P F Tinmore]

SherriMunnerlyn, et al,

There are many, many principles implied in this exchange. I could never do them all justice in this limited forum of discussion. And I'm sure if I tried, I would definitely bore everyone to death. But I've selected a few points to focus on. If I missed one that you feel is an important concept --- please don't hesitate to yank my chain. I will certainly pick it up.

No, annexations are changing the character of occupied lands and are unlawful. And the UN has addressed the illegality of the annexation of Jerusalem in many resolutions and other documents The Intl Court of Justice confirmed this and intl authorities unanimously take this position.

Annexation by the use or threat of force is prohibited under international law, as set forth in Article 2(4) of the UN Charter.

This principle was restated in GA Resolution 2625 (XXV) of 1970, which noted that states must not use force to violate existing international boundaries or to solve international disputes, including territorial ones.

In 1980, the Israeli Knesset passed "Basic Law: Jerusalem, Capital of Israel" which, on a higher constitutional level, declared Jerusalem to be Israel 's "eternal and indivisible" capital including the occupied East Jerusalem territory. In response to this basic law, the UN Security Council (UNSC) affirmed that acquisition of territory, annexation, by force is forbidden according to international law and confirmed the continued application of the Fourth Geneva Convention to the areas annexed by Israel. It also called upon member states to withdraw their diplomatic missions from the city. "

https://www.diakonia.se/sa/node.asp?node=3288

(COMMENT)

Let's see if I can address these, one-by-one:

POINT 1:

• The Palestinians have no territorial integrity. There is no State of Palestine. It was rejected several times.
• By contrast, there is a recognized State of Israel.
• If anyone is violating the principle here, it is the Palestinians attempting to dismantle Israel.

Protected persons who are in occupied territory shall not be deprived, in any case or in any manner whatsoever, of the benefits of the present Convention by any change introduced, as the result of the occupation of a territory, into the institutions or government of the said territory, nor by any agreement concluded between the authorities of the occupied territories and the Occupying Power, nor by any annexation by the latter of the whole or part of the occupied territory.
SOURCE: International Humanitarian Law - Fourth 1949 Geneva Convention

POINT 2:

• Granted, prima facia evidence would suggest that Israel is in violation of Article 49, GCIV. But that would become moot if Annexed.
• Article 47 does not deny the right to Annexation. The prohibition is against using force across the international boundary. The West Bank and Gaza are not sovereignty states.
• There is no international boundary.

The principle that States shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered.

The parties to a dispute have the duty, in the event of failure to reach a solution by any one of the above peaceful means, to continue to seek a settlement of the dispute by other peaceful means agreed upon by them.

No State may use or encourage the use of economic political or any other type of measures to coerce another State in order to obtain from it the subordination of the exercise of its sovereign rights and to secure from it advantages of any kind. Also, no State shall organize, assist, foment, finance, incite or tolerate subversive, terrorist or armed activities directed towards the violent overthrow of the regime of another State, or interfere in civil strife in another State.
SOURCE: A/RES/25/2625 - Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations - UN Documents: Gathering a body of global agreements

POINT 3:

Of the documents you cite as reference, the one most enjoining and celestial in principles is the "Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations;" with excerpts cited (supra). If they are binding, then the principles must be binding to all; even the Palestinians (Hamas, Hezbollah, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, etc); or not at all.

• settle their international disputes by peaceful means
• continue to seek a settlement of the dispute by other peaceful means
• no State shall organize, assist, foment, finance, incite or tolerate subversive, terrorist or armed activities directed towards the violent overthrow of the regime of another State

I do not see evidence that the Palestinians collectively, or individually adhere to these principles. And if they do not apply to the Palestinians in the settlement of the dispute, then they certainly do not apply to the Israelis.

Most Respectfully,
R

Your opinion is based on false premise. Can you post documents showing when Israel legally acquired the land that it sits on. Show where the Palestinians ceded land to Israel and established borders. (an agreement with Palestine to change its borders)

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Maybe it is the other way around.

Your opinion is based on false premise. Can you post documents showing when Israel legally acquired the land that it sits on. Show where the Palestinians ceded land to Israel and established borders. (an agreement with Palestine to change its borders)

(COMMENT)

The sovereign control of the territory was never in the hands of the Palestinians. It was in the hands of the Allied Command, acquired from the Ottoman Empire.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[CMike]

The occupying settelers are the jordinanians who won't go back to their homeland.

Also, I could care less of what some arab terrorist supporters think or say.

 

[jtpr312]

It's not "jew land" jerkoff, so shove that little speech up your ass!

It's not " Palestinian land" you C**K- SUCKER so shove your posts up your ass!!! The Arabs didn't want the 67 Borders then; Israel doesn't have to accept them now ! BTW, C**K- SUCKER why did Hamas initiate more Rocket attacks after Israel withdrew From Gaza??? [/QUOTE



God owns the land!

Only intelligent thing you've ever posted. You're right, God owns the land, He gave it, along with much of the land now occupied by filthy muslims arab nations, to the Jews, it's their land, the muslim scum need to vacate, end of story. Now piss off.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Maybe it is the other way around.

Your opinion is based on false premise. Can you post documents showing when Israel legally acquired the land that it sits on. Show where the Palestinians ceded land to Israel and established borders. (an agreement with Palestine to change its borders)

(COMMENT)

The sovereign control of the territory was never in the hands of the Palestinians. It was in the hands of the Allied Command, acquired from the Ottoman Empire.

Most Respectfully,
R

Is military control the same as sovereign control, or is that called occupation?

 

[irosie91]

Calm down folks---both sherri and tinnie have admitted
that the theft of jewish east jerusalem --1947 by
STARVATION SIEGE ----was utterly illegal and, there-
fore VOID. No need for further discussion---tinnie and
sherri have me convinced. Time to clear east
Jerusalem of all arabs------peeballs has informed us
that doing so is consistent with DEMOCRACY-----
just deprive all arabs of the vote just as DEMOCRATIC
MALDIVES has deprived all non muslims of the vote--
DEMOCRATICALLY-----and then VOTE THEM TO
HELL---democratically

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Interesting.

P F Tinmore, et al,

Maybe it is the other way around.

Your opinion is based on false premise. Can you post documents showing when Israel legally acquired the land that it sits on. Show where the Palestinians ceded land to Israel and established borders. (an agreement with Palestine to change its borders)

(COMMENT)

The sovereign control of the territory was never in the hands of the Palestinians. It was in the hands of the Allied Command, acquired from the Ottoman Empire.

Is military control the same as sovereign control, or is that called occupation?

(COMMENT-Thumbnail)

The Allied Command took control as a result of the Partitioning of the Ottoman Empire, after the Occupation of Istanbul. The Treaty of Lausanne replaced the Treaty of Sèvres, setting new borders and creating several mandates.

• British Mandate of Mesopotamia
• French Mandate of Syria and Lebanon
• British Mandate of Palestine

Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have agreed, for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, to entrust to a Mandatory selected by the said Powers the administration of the territory of Palestine, which formerly belonged to the Turkish Empire, within such boundaries as may be fixed by them;

ARTICLE 1.

The Mandatory shall have full powers of legislation and of administration, save as they may be limited by the terms of this mandate.​

SOURCE: The Avalon Project : The Palestine Mandate

The Allied Powers established the control. It is why, as an example, the Passports were UK. This is not an unusual arrangement. Most Mandates are similar.

A mandatory has full powers.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Abel]

Everyone has a basterd goverment in other countrys eyes, and those counrtys then turn around and do something stupid.