Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You need to stop watching re-runs of Walker, Texas Ranger, it's polluted your brain. Hamas didn't induce anything, it was Israel's decision to attack and they went out of their way to make up bullshit lies to do it.From Occupied Territories to Disputed Territories byDore Gold
Facts are not the friend of those whose aims are to deligitimise Israel. They have the same credibility as those who enter schoolyards or shops and kill and maim children, teachers or anyone who happens to be in the area at the time. Hamas has NO credibility and Abbas has so far been a disappointment. And yet: Abbas is the last slim hope in this round of Hamas induced destruction!! The "death to Israel" crowd should remember the words of those disgusted by the events that led up to the return of Jews to their lands: NEVER AGAIN!!
Greg
And shove that "disputed territory" shit up your ass! They've been the "occupied territories" for the last half-century and you fuckers aren't changing that description now. You people got serious reality issues.
Sovereignty of the West Bank
It is sometimes said that Israeli military occupation of the West Bank (as opposed to civilian settlements in the territory) is illegal. There is no basis for this claim.
There is at the moment (2013) no internationally recognized sovereignty over the West Bank (or Gaza). Before the State of Israel was established in 1948, all of what is now Israel and the West Bank (and Jerusalem, and Gaza) was the League of Nations Mandated Territory of Palestine, with Britain holding the mandate.1 When the British announced they would leave Palestine, the United Nations, successor to the League of Nations, proposed a partition of the territory between the Jews and the Arabs. The Jews were offered a portion smaller than the present State of Israel, and accepted the proposal. The Arabs rejected the proposal, preferring to fight for the land. The British left, the Arabs invaded the former Mandate and fought for the land, and they lost. The cease-fire line (the so-called Green Line) was never an international boundary – it was just where the armies happened to be when the armistice took effect in 1949. Israel was in military control of a part of the old Mandate, and Arabs had military control of other parts (the West Bank administered by Jordan, Gaza by Egypt). The territory held by the Jews within the cease-fire line was recognized by the United Nations as the State of Israel in 1949. No sovereignty was recognized in the West Bank or Gaza.
In 1950 Jordan annexed the West Bank, but this was not internationally recognized either. In the 1967 war Israel conquered but did not annex it – it continued to be a non-sovereign territory, the rump remainder of the old Mandate, but now under Israeli instead of Jordanian administration. In 1988 Jordan renounced its purported annexation of the West Bank and ceded its claim, such as it was, to the Palestine Liberation Organization. No sovereignty over the West Bank has ever been claimed by Israel, and since the termination of the Mandate in 1948 no sovereignty in that territory has ever been internationally recognized. The final disposition of the territory has not been settled – that is what the two-state solution is intended to do.
Question: Now thinking about the dispute between Israel and the Palestinians, which side do you sympathize with more, Israel or the Palestinians? [754]
Note that the question is not 'What do you think of Israel.' Which is what this thread is about.Pew has also done surveys and this question is most interesting.
Question: Now thinking about the dispute between Israel and the Palestinians, which side do you sympathize with more, Israel or the Palestinians? [754]
"...terrorist empathizers..."?You are in error. They have been disputed since the Jordanian invasion and even prior to that they were part of the discussions regarding the formation of Jordan. You see it is only in the minds of terrorist empathisers that they are occupied territories. Who had Sovereignty over those territories prior to 1948?
This is not a debatable issue!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.
This issue has nothing to do with sovereignty. You cannot hold onto land seized in a war. The very definition of an "occupation", makes no mention of sovereignty as a determining factor.Sovereignty of the West Bank
It is sometimes said that Israeli military occupation of the West Bank (as opposed to civilian settlements in the territory) is illegal. There is no basis for this claim.
There is at the moment (2013) no internationally recognized sovereignty over the West Bank (or Gaza). Before the State of Israel was established in 1948, all of what is now Israel and the West Bank (and Jerusalem, and Gaza) was the League of Nations Mandated Territory of Palestine, with Britain holding the mandate.1 When the British announced they would leave Palestine, the United Nations, successor to the League of Nations, proposed a partition of the territory between the Jews and the Arabs. The Jews were offered a portion smaller than the present State of Israel, and accepted the proposal. The Arabs rejected the proposal, preferring to fight for the land. The British left, the Arabs invaded the former Mandate and fought for the land, and they lost. The cease-fire line (the so-called Green Line) was never an international boundary – it was just where the armies happened to be when the armistice took effect in 1949. Israel was in military control of a part of the old Mandate, and Arabs had military control of other parts (the West Bank administered by Jordan, Gaza by Egypt). The territory held by the Jews within the cease-fire line was recognized by the United Nations as the State of Israel in 1949. No sovereignty was recognized in the West Bank or Gaza.
In 1950 Jordan annexed the West Bank, but this was not internationally recognized either. In the 1967 war Israel conquered but did not annex it – it continued to be a non-sovereign territory, the rump remainder of the old Mandate, but now under Israeli instead of Jordanian administration. In 1988 Jordan renounced its purported annexation of the West Bank and ceded its claim, such as it was, to the Palestine Liberation Organization. No sovereignty over the West Bank has ever been claimed by Israel, and since the termination of the Mandate in 1948 no sovereignty in that territory has ever been internationally recognized. The final disposition of the territory has not been settled – that is what the two-state solution is intended to do.
So it doesn't matter who owns the land, all that matters is, Israel has no clear title to it.Under IHL, there is occupation when a State exercises an unconsented-to effective control over a territory on which it has no sovereign title. Article 42 of The Hague Regulations of 1907 defines occupation as follows: “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.”
No, when I speak of the OPT, I'm speaking of the territory Israel seized in the 6-day war. From that point on, it became a "belligerent occupation", thus making it illegal for Israel to change the demographics of that area by transferring a portion of their population into it. Israel's own legal advisor in '67 warned them of this...So when you speak of Occupied Territories you speak of Jordan's occupation from 1950 until 1967. Since then they are in dispute. Jordan's claim to Sovereignty was never recognised and hence their "giving" the West bank to anyone is...well...without substance.
"...settling civilians in the newly seized territory was a violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention."
- Theodor Meron, (foreign ministry’s legal adviser in 1967, expressly warned the government in the wake of the Six-Day War)
You think so? Then name me one country that has recognized Israel's right to that land. Just one!Puerile insults are a sign that you have NOTHING but some leftist nonsense to go on.
Greg
maintains apartheid regimes,
steals,
commits war crimes,
wags the US,
doesn't keep its promises,
casts itself as a victim,
won't join courts because it will be found guilty,
imposes collective punishments on occupied territiories,
provokes wars of convenience,
is living a self centred fantasy where other people's views don't count,
restricts the economic growth of Palestine,
believes it can do no wrong,
suborns citzens of other nations to subvert those nations' interests,
does not separate religion and government,
is favoured too much by US Policies in the ME.
“We can forgive the Arabs for killing our children. We cannot forgive them for forcing us to kill their children. We will only have peace with the Arabs when they love their children more than they hate us.”
Normal people think Israel is and they have evidence to back their opinion. Shall we do stealing first? I like that one.Israel is NOT guilty of:
There is at the moment (2013) no internationally recognized sovereignty over the West Bank (or Gaza). Before the State of Israel was established in 1948, all of what is now Israel and the West Bank (and Jerusalem, and Gaza) was the League of Nations Mandated Territory of Palestine, with Britain holding the mandate.1 When the British announced they would leave Palestine, the United Nations, successor to the League of Nations, proposed a partition of the territory between the Jews and the Arabs. The Jews were offered a portion smaller than the present State of Israel, and accepted the proposal. The Arabs rejected the proposal, preferring to fight for the land. The British left, the Arabs invaded the former Mandate and fought for the land, and they lost. The cease-fire line (the so-called Green Line) was never an international boundary – it was just where the armies happened to be when the armistice took effect in 1949. Israel was in military control of a part of the old Mandate, and Arabs had military control of other parts (the West Bank administered by Jordan, Gaza by Egypt). The territory held by the Jews within the cease-fire line was recognized by the United Nations as the State of Israel in 1949. No sovereignty was recognized in the West Bank or Gaza.
In 1950 Jordan annexed the West Bank, but this was not internationally recognized either. In the 1967 war Israel conquered but did not annex it – it continued to be a non-sovereign territory, the rump remainder of the old Mandate, but now under Israeli instead of Jordanian administration. In 1988 Jordan renounced its purported annexation of the West Bank and ceded its claim, such as it was, to the Palestine Liberation Organization. No sovereignty over the West Bank has ever been claimed by Israel, and since the termination of the Mandate in 1948 no sovereignty in that territory has ever been internationally recognized. The final disposition of the territory has not been settled – that is what the two-state solution is intended to do.