What Kind of State in Israel?

[irosie91]

For those confused by the allusion of islamo nazi sows to "UNLAWFUL KILLING" please keep in mind that AL AZHAR UNIVERSITY---considered THE MAJOR AUTHORITY ON KORANIC LAW BY SCORES OF MILLIONS OF MUSLIMS----has in the past few years rendered the KILLING OF ANY JEW---REGARDLESS OF AGE OF GENDER---to be legal------a few score years ago Al Azhar koranic scholars determined that the killing of any Israeli --regardless of age or gender is legal. In her use of the term LAW----it is important to know what law sherri refers. The NUREMBURG LAWS legalized genocide----in fact so did the JUSTINIAN LAWS which made legal the Inquisition bon fires in which sherri still delights

 

[irosie91]

And the UN Charter does not recognize the legitimacy of the acquisition of territory by military conquest!

Who cares?

People all over the world who respect international law!

I grew up on the lands of the LENILENAPE INDIANS----it was the pigs
of the "HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE" who murdered them.
In fact----since I am a jew----the only reason I lived there
as a child is because the pigs of the 'holy' roman
empire---needed to sell an excess of houses they
had built in the post world war II era. In prior times
the nazi pigs and sows there kept the town "RESTRICTED"

 

[nesta]

israel is a racist state, clearly, the worlds only one.

 

[toomuchtime_]

artfulcodger, et al,

Where I have my home, has very little to do with the issue of sovereignty or territorial control.


(COMMENT)

I own my home, and it is in the City of Reynoldsburg, State of Ohio, USA. But if the State of Ohio dissolves the city charter and folds it over into the City of Columbus, then I live in Columbus.

If the US sells that State of Ohio to Canada, or Canada invades and captures Ohio (why they would want it --- I wouldn't know), then I live in Canada. Land Grants, property ownership, historical residence have nothing to do with the national sovereignty.

Ohio is an American-Indian name. This entire region (The Ohio Valley) was once Shawnee Indians territory, then Iroquois territory. My house sets not 20 miles from sacred Indian Burial Grounds. But neither the Indians, or the French, or even the British that once controlled this valley are anywhere to be seen. But for thousands of years, the American Indian lived on this land. Now I live here.

National sovereignty (under what system of government the land is ruled) is something entirely different than what you are talking about; a much different thing. Other than nice to know trivia, "13 successive centuries of residence" get you nothing in term of national sovereignty.

Most Respectfully,
R

OK, but let us say that Canada comes across Lake Erie and occupies Ohio. Until such time that there is an agreement between the US and Canada ceding that land, it still belongs to the US.

And the UN Charter does not recognize the legitimacy of the acquisition of territory by military conquest!

Bullshit. The UN recognizes Israel on land it acquired during its War of Independence. Under any reading of any international law or treaty, Israel has at least as much claim to the West Bank as the Palestinian mafia that runs the PA. Since most of the world, including the UN, recognizes the land Israel acquire by conquest in the 1948-1950 war as legally and legitimately Israel's, there is no reason not to recognize the land it acquired in 1967 as legally and legitimately Israel's if Israel decides to claim it. The land in question is the unincorporated remnants of the former Mandate for Palestine and no other country of people has a stronger legal claim to it than Israel.

This is a political issue, not a legal issue, and ill informed self righteous rants about international laws are irrelevant.

 

[nesta]

OK, but let us say that Canada comes across Lake Erie and occupies Ohio. Until such time that there is an agreement between the US and Canada ceding that land, it still belongs to the US.

And the UN Charter does not recognize the legitimacy of the acquisition of territory by military conquest!

Bullshit. The UN recognizes Israel on land it acquired during its War of Independence. Under any reading of any international law or treaty, Israel has at least as much claim to the West Bank as the Palestinian mafia that runs the PA. Since most of the world, including the UN, recognizes the land Israel acquire by conquest in the 1948-1950 war as legally and legitimately Israel's, there is no reason not to recognize the land it acquired in 1967 as legally and legitimately Israel's if Israel decides to claim it. The land in question is the unincorporated remnants of the former Mandate for Palestine and no other country of people has a stronger legal claim to it than Israel.

This is a political issue, not a legal issue, and ill informed self righteous rants about international laws are irrelevant.

you are wrong. intl law states you cannot keep land gained by war. israel gained control of the west bank during the 67 war. intl law makes it very clear israel has no right to any of that land and all settlements built on it are illegal.

 

[toomuchtime_]

And the UN Charter does not recognize the legitimacy of the acquisition of territory by military conquest!

Bullshit. The UN recognizes Israel on land it acquired during its War of Independence. Under any reading of any international law or treaty, Israel has at least as much claim to the West Bank as the Palestinian mafia that runs the PA. Since most of the world, including the UN, recognizes the land Israel acquire by conquest in the 1948-1950 war as legally and legitimately Israel's, there is no reason not to recognize the land it acquired in 1967 as legally and legitimately Israel's if Israel decides to claim it. The land in question is the unincorporated remnants of the former Mandate for Palestine and no other country of people has a stronger legal claim to it than Israel.

This is a political issue, not a legal issue, and ill informed self righteous rants about international laws are irrelevant.

you are wrong. intl law states you cannot keep land gained by war. israel gained control of the west bank during the 67 war. intl law makes it very clear israel has no right to any of that land and all settlements built on it are illegal.

You are mistaken. The Hague Regulations and the UN Charter refer to lands captured by one country from another, the land Israel captured in 1967 belonged to no country and therefore no international law applies to it. These lands were simply the unincorporated remnants of the former Mandate for Palestine just as the lands Israel captured in the 1948-1950 war which nearly the entire world, including the UN recognizes as legitimately and legally Israel's.

 

[nesta]

Bullshit. The UN recognizes Israel on land it acquired during its War of Independence. Under any reading of any international law or treaty, Israel has at least as much claim to the West Bank as the Palestinian mafia that runs the PA. Since most of the world, including the UN, recognizes the land Israel acquire by conquest in the 1948-1950 war as legally and legitimately Israel's, there is no reason not to recognize the land it acquired in 1967 as legally and legitimately Israel's if Israel decides to claim it. The land in question is the unincorporated remnants of the former Mandate for Palestine and no other country of people has a stronger legal claim to it than Israel.

This is a political issue, not a legal issue, and ill informed self righteous rants about international laws are irrelevant.

you are wrong. intl law states you cannot keep land gained by war. israel gained control of the west bank during the 67 war. intl law makes it very clear israel has no right to any of that land and all settlements built on it are illegal.

You are mistaken. The Hague Regulations and the UN Charter refer to lands captured by one country from another, the land Israel captured in 1967 belonged to no country and therefore no international law applies to it. These lands were simply the unincorporated remnants of the former Mandate for Palestine just as the lands Israel captured in the 1948-1950 war which nearly the entire world, including the UN recognizes as legitimately and legally Israel's.

actually the un and the entire world except israel and america recognises thats nonsense. land doesnt have to belong to a state, only to a people, there is no dispute it belonged to people, therefore israel has no right to it. there is no point arguing the illegality of israels actions this is really old, basic stuff, everybody accepts they are in the wrong legally. go and do some reading.

 

[nesta]

Putting down the Propaganda, Fallacies, Mis-conceptions, Myths and Lies « First, find out what isn't true…

 

[nesta]

…It’s actually quite simple. If it isn’t the “acknowledged” sovereign territory of Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Egypt or Israel, by default it’s a territory of Palestine, regardless of whether it is a state or not…

 

[georgephillip]

"The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies."

Fourth Geneva Convention - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Hossfly]

"The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies."

Fourth Geneva Convention - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"There shall be no whine before it's time."
~~Tinhead the Terrible

 

[toomuchtime_]

you are wrong. intl law states you cannot keep land gained by war. israel gained control of the west bank during the 67 war. intl law makes it very clear israel has no right to any of that land and all settlements built on it are illegal.

You are mistaken. The Hague Regulations and the UN Charter refer to lands captured by one country from another, the land Israel captured in 1967 belonged to no country and therefore no international law applies to it. These lands were simply the unincorporated remnants of the former Mandate for Palestine just as the lands Israel captured in the 1948-1950 war which nearly the entire world, including the UN recognizes as legitimately and legally Israel's.

actually the un and the entire world except israel and america recognises thats nonsense. land doesnt have to belong to a state, only to a people, there is no dispute it belonged to people, therefore israel has no right to it. there is no point arguing the illegality of israels actions this is really old, basic stuff, everybody accepts they are in the wrong legally. go and do some reading.

If there is not a particular law that is being violated, then it makes no sense to talk about the legality of an action.

 

[toomuchtime_]

…It’s actually quite simple. If it isn’t the “acknowledged” sovereign territory of Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Egypt or Israel, by default it’s a territory of Palestine, regardless of whether it is a state or not…

That may be your opinion, but there is no legal basis for that claim. Again, this is a political issue, not a legal issue.

 

[toomuchtime_]

"The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies."

Fourth Geneva Convention - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Israel did not transfer its population to the West Bank any more than it has transferred Israeli citizens who live in the US to the US. The Israeli government simply allowed its citizens to move to the West Bank or the US or elsewhere. In fact, the Israeli government has acted to slow down the movement of Israelis to the West Bank by only approving a small percentage of the building permits applied for.

 

[BecauseIKnow]

A state that sponsors violence by threatening the Palestinians or any activists of the matter who try to stop illegal settlement construction in occupied territories. They threaten them by arresting them or killing them.

 

[toomuchtime_]

A state that sponsors violence by threatening the Palestinians or any activists of the matter who try to stop illegal settlement construction in occupied territories. They threaten them by arresting them or killing them.

The only illegal construction is that which has not been approved by the Israeli government.

 

[BecauseIKnow]

A state that sponsors violence by threatening the Palestinians or any activists of the matter who try to stop illegal settlement construction in occupied territories. They threaten them by arresting them or killing them.

The only illegal construction is that which has not been approved by the Israeli government.

Only in the Israeli governments eyes......

 

[toomuchtime_]

A state that sponsors violence by threatening the Palestinians or any activists of the matter who try to stop illegal settlement construction in occupied territories. They threaten them by arresting them or killing them.

The only illegal construction is that which has not been approved by the Israeli government.

Only in the Israeli governments eyes......

No, it's a statement of fact. For the construction to be illegal it would have to be in violation of a particular law and it is not.

 

[BecauseIKnow]

The only illegal construction is that which has not been approved by the Israeli government.

Only in the Israeli governments eyes......

No, it's a statement of fact. For the construction to be illegal it would have to be in violation of a particular law and it is not.

I believe 'nesta' went over this with you on another thread......

 

[toomuchtime_]

Only in the Israeli governments eyes......

No, it's a statement of fact. For the construction to be illegal it would have to be in violation of a particular law and it is not.

I believe 'nesta' went over this with you on another thread......

She tried to, but couldn't support her claims.