What Kind of State in Israel?

[P F Tinmore]

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.

I'm not aware of the IDF providing security for Israeli Jews living in the US.
Israel's government had no authority to provide any "building permits" on territory it acquired by conquest.
The Zionist imperative of "creeping annexation" (Dunam by dunam) has reached its logical, moral, and legal end point.
The only remaining question is when do the Jews start leaving the West Bank?

Since the disputed territories were not sovereign territories when they fell under Israel's control, there are no treaties or international laws that can be appealed to to establish Israel's authority to issue building permits or to dispute its authority. These are political issues, not legal issues, and as such, rights and authorities can only be established by war or negotiation. If the Palestinian Arabs are unhappy about the building permits the Israeli government is approving, the way to settle this issue is to come to the negotiating table and make realistic proposals for a final settlement that would explicitly state the extent of the Israeli government's rights and authorities.

As long as the Palestinian Arabs continue to talk about Israel while refusing to talk to Israel, it is fair to assume they have abandoned all interest in influencing facts on the ground and have de facto approved the policies of the Israeli government even as they whine about them.

So are you saying that Jordan and Egypt did not occupy the West Bank and Gaza?

What then were those relationships?

 

[georgephillip]

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.

"The preamble[UNSCR 242] emphasizes the 'inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in the Middle East in which every State in the area can live in security.'

"Operative Paragraph One '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." [4]

United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If the "chosen" people think they are going to rule all the land between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River by conquest, they are on the wrong side of History.(Again)

242 addresses the parties to the conflict, Israel and the Arab states, and does not address any issues between Israel and any Palestinian state, real or imagined. Regarding the West Bank and Gaza, the issues between Israel and the Arab states involved have been resolved, so 242 has no relevance any longer.

242 addressed the issue of "land for peace", calling for Israeli withdrawal from "territories" it occupied in 1967 in exchange for peace with its neighbors. Instead, over the last 45 years, the Jewish State has filled the occupied territories with hundreds of thousands of Jews from all parts of the globe. The goal of the Zionists hasn't changed in the last hundred years: Jewish rule over all the land between the Mediterranean Sea and Jordan River regardless of the political will of a majority of those who live on that land.

 

[georgephillip]

Ah, simple answer. Never

The Fourth Geneva Convention.
Section III.
Article 49.

Seems pretty straightforward to me.
Would you be less confused if five million Arabs were occupying six million Jews in Palestine?

Let me ask you something. How did Israel come to occupying the West Bank ?

By the same methods the US came to occupy the west bank of the Mississippi and Kabul.
Israel's timing wasn't as good primarily because of international legal covenants like the Fourth Geneva Convention which outlawed military conquest for territorial expansion. Are you ducking my question about the five million Arabs ruling over six million Jews?

 

[toastman]

The Fourth Geneva Convention.
Section III.
Article 49.

Seems pretty straightforward to me.
Would you be less confused if five million Arabs were occupying six million Jews in Palestine?

Let me ask you something. How did Israel come to occupying the West Bank ?

By the same methods the US came to occupy the west bank of the Mississippi and Kabul.
Israel's timing wasn't as good primarily because of international legal covenants like the Fourth Geneva Convention which outlawed military conquest for territorial expansion. Are you ducking my question about the five million Arabs ruling over six million Jews?

Your question is stupid, like most of them. It falls under the 'IF' category. What IF this and what IF that. Useless
What IF you are artfulcodger weren't such tools

 

[georgephillip]

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.

I'm not aware of the IDF providing security for Israeli Jews living in the US.
Israel's government had no authority to provide any "building permits" on territory it acquired by conquest.
The Zionist imperative of "creeping annexation" (Dunam by dunam) has reached its logical, moral, and legal end point.
The only remaining question is when do the Jews start leaving the West Bank?

Since the disputed territories were not sovereign territories when they fell under Israel's control, there are no treaties or international laws that can be appealed to to establish Israel's authority to issue building permits or to dispute its authority. These are political issues, not legal issues, and as such, rights and authorities can only be established by war or negotiation. If the Palestinian Arabs are unhappy about the building permits the Israeli government is approving, the way to settle this issue is to come to the negotiating table and make realistic proposals for a final settlement that would explicitly state the extent of the Israeli government's rights and authorities.

As long as the Palestinian Arabs continue to talk about Israel while refusing to talk to Israel, it is fair to assume they have abandoned all interest in influencing facts on the ground and have de facto approved the policies of the Israeli government even as they whine about them.

There are treaties and legal issues which Israel violated in 1967 and continues to ignore today. Namely the Fourth Geneva Convention which prohibits an Occupying Power from deporting or transferring its citizens into the territories.

Moshe Dayan made it clear forty-five years ago that Israeli settlements in the occupied territories provided Israel with even greater security than the IDF did. Since without Jewish "civilians" living on the West Bank, the world would (rightly) perceive the IDF as an alien force ruling over a foreign people.

As long as Jews continue to violate international law by creating more "facts on the ground" by continuing their settlement building on the West Bank, Arabs have no choice but to refuse "negotiations" with those who are proving their indifference to any final settlement that doesn't guarantee Jewish rule over all the land between the Jordan and the Mediterranean.

 

[georgephillip]

Let me ask you something. How did Israel come to occupying the West Bank ?

By the same methods the US came to occupy the west bank of the Mississippi and Kabul.
Israel's timing wasn't as good primarily because of international legal covenants like the Fourth Geneva Convention which outlawed military conquest for territorial expansion. Are you ducking my question about the five million Arabs ruling over six million Jews?

Your question is stupid, like most of them. It falls under the 'IF' category. What IF this and what IF that. Useless
What IF you are artfulcodger weren't such tools

You might have to find a real job?

 

[P F Tinmore]

Ah, simple answer. Never

The Fourth Geneva Convention.
Section III.
Article 49.

Seems pretty straightforward to me.
Would you be less confused if five million Arabs were occupying six million Jews in Palestine?

Let me ask you something. How did Israel come to occupying the West Bank ?

The West bank was Palestinian land that was occupied by Jordan. Since Israel cannot win Palestinian land from Jordan, it merely won the occupation.

 

[AnjelicaT]

Two core questions that need to be answered: what kind of state is Israel and "who are the Palestinians that state is in conflict with?"

The CounterPunch POV:

"Israel was established to be a Jewish state. Its institutions have always been shaped and constrained so as to ensure the continued existence of a Jewish majority and character.

"Passing a test of Jewishness entitles someone to Israeli citizenship regardless of where in the world she lives.

"Furthermore, her citizenship comes with a bundle of political, social and economic rights which are preferential to that of citizens who do not qualify as Jewish.

"This inbuilt discriminatory premise highlights the apartheid nature of the state. But apartheid is not an accidental feature of Israel. Its very creation involved immense injustice and suffering."

Counterpunch: Tells the Facts, Names the Names

Middle East



" PALESTINE" WILL BE A NJA STATE !!!!!

Abbas vows: No room for Israelis in Palestinian state

By KHALED ABU TOAMEH

LAST UPDATED: 12/25/2010 17:33

PA president says US has failed to pressure J’lem, accuses Israel of ‘deception’ for blaming PA for impasse in talks.
Photo: AP
Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas announced on Saturday that when a Palestinian state is established, it will have no Israelis in it.

“We have frankly said, and always will say: If there is an independent Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital, we won’t agree to the presence of one Israeli in it,” Abbas told reporters in Ramallah.

RELATED:
Abbas: We reached deal with Olmert on security
Washington Watch: Settlements are excuse, not obstacle

He was commenting on unconfirmed reports suggesting that the PA leadership might agree to the presence of the IDF in the West Bank after the establishment of a Palestinian state.

“We are ready to have peace on the basis of international legitimacy and the road map, which we have accepted, as well as the Arab Peace Initiative,” Abbas said. “But when a Palestinian state is established, it would have no Israeli presence in it.”

The PA president criticized Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and accused him of placing obstacles on the road to peace.

“He who prefers settlements over peace is responsible for the obstacles to peace,” he added.

“If he really was interested in peace, he would have at least preferred peace to settlements.”

Abbas accused the Israeli government of “deception” with the purpose of blaming the Palestinians for the current impasse in the peace talks. He also criticized the US administration for failing to put pressure on Israel to stop the construction in the settlements and east Jerusalem.

“The US administration has tried to stop the settlements, but Netanyahu refused,” he said. “We know that there’s a clear American position, but these days we don’t hear it any more. We hope we will hear it in the future.”

Abbas said that the PA has presented in writing to the US its position regarding all the core issues, but has still not heard Israel’s reply.

“All the final-status issues must be solved according to international resolutions,” he said. “All these issues will be resolved at the negotiating table, and this includes the issue of the refugees, which Israel tried to get rid of, but to no avail.”


Does the Pro- Palestinian poster see anything wrong with the above? Of course not. Are there Muslims in " Israel proper?" Of course there are. Just one more example of how Pro- Palestinian posters are incapable of intelligent discussion

no link

There was a link at the top, you've cut it awwffff

 

[irosie91]

~~~~~long live jewish yathrib~~~~~
************************************************

 

[georgephillip]

"Dr. T., a medical doctor, is a Palestinian living in Gaza City.

"He is still reeling from days of aerial bombardment.

"When I asked about the children in his community he told me his church would soon be making Christmas preparations to lift the children’s spirits. Looking at his kindly smile and ruddy cheeks, I couldn’t help wondering if he’d be asked to dress up as 'Baba Noel,' as Santa Claus.

"I didn’t dare ask this question aloud. 'The most recent war was more severe and vigorous than the Operation Cast Lead,' he said slowly, leaning back in his chair and looking into the distance. 'I was more affected this time. The weapons were very strong, destroying everything. One rocket could completely destroy a building.'

"The 8-day Israeli offensive in November lasted for fewer days and brought fewer casualties, but it was nonstop and relentless, and everywhere.

“'At 1:00 a.m. the bank was bombed, and everyone in the area was awakened from sleep. Doors were broken and windows were shattered. There was an agonizing sound, as if we were in a battlefield.'”

“'The bombing went on every day. F16 U.S. jets were hitting hard.'”

“'This is more than anyone can tolerate. We were unsafe at any place at any time.'”

Would the good doctor have been safer in Medina?

Counterpunch: Tells the Facts, Names the Names

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

While this is a very common believe and interpretation, it is not quite accurate. Some often miss the importance and distinction.

But Chapter V: THE SECURITY COUNCIL (Articles 24 and 25) do have an impact with respect to the implementation of UNSC Res 242 and 338 (the companion).

... ... ...

UNSC 242 (S/RES/242 NOV 67) was adopted immediately after the 1967 Arab-Israeli War (5-11 JUNE 67) to prevent the permanent acquisition by conquest.

UNSC 242 did not create the law against acquisition of land by conquest. It merely referenced existing law.

(COMMENT)

There is a huge difference between "acquisition by conquest" and the territorial outcome after the "defense of the nation." Acquisition by Conquest" is some performed by the aggressor. Territorial outcomes, as the result of a "defensive of the nation" is compensation.

POINT #1: The standing law negate the "acquisition by conflict" if they are the aggressor and are employing military might for the purpose of expansion.

POINT #2: Article 51 of the Charter, allows the right of self defense and allows the continuation of the conflict until such time as the UNSC can address the issue.

POINT #3: Standing Law does not prevent a nation, acting in self defense, from holding land acquired through defense of the nation as compensation for the aggressors action.​

The UNSC had to create UNSC Res 242 because the standing law did not apply to a nation in defense (Israel) having a more favorable outcome than the aggressor (Arab Coalition). The UNSC adopted Res 242 under:

The Members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council in accordance with the present Charter.

UNSC Res 242 was required because the entire Assembly understood that Israel, was and continues to be, in a defensive posture. It did not initiate hostilities for the express purpose of acquiring territory, but to defend against Arab Military Forces. No one denies this or argues this interpretation.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

While this is a very common believe and interpretation, it is not quite accurate. Some often miss the importance and distinction.

But Chapter V: THE SECURITY COUNCIL (Articles 24 and 25) do have an impact with respect to the implementation of UNSC Res 242 and 338 (the companion).

... ... ...



UNSC 242 did not create the law against acquisition of land by conquest. It merely referenced existing law.

(COMMENT)

There is a huge difference between "acquisition by conquest" and the territorial outcome after the "defense of the nation." Acquisition by Conquest" is some performed by the aggressor. Territorial outcomes, as the result of a "defensive of the nation" is compensation.

POINT #1: The standing law negate the "acquisition by conflict" if they are the aggressor and are employing military might for the purpose of expansion.

POINT #2: Article 51 of the Charter, allows the right of self defense and allows the continuation of the conflict until such time as the UNSC can address the issue.

POINT #3: Standing Law does not prevent a nation, acting in self defense, from holding land acquired through defense of the nation as compensation for the aggressors action.​

The UNSC had to create UNSC Res 242 because the standing law did not apply to a nation in defense (Israel) having a more favorable outcome than the aggressor (Arab Coalition). The UNSC adopted Res 242 under:

The Members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council in accordance with the present Charter.

UNSC Res 242 was required because the entire Assembly understood that Israel, was and continues to be, in a defensive posture. It did not initiate hostilities for the express purpose of acquiring territory, but to defend against Arab Military Forces. No one denies this or argues this interpretation.

Most Respectfully,
R

One point is that Israel cannot win Palestinian land from Egypt, Jordan, etc. because it is not theirs to lose.

Another point, since Israel is inside Palestine, it cannot claim to be defending itself from the Palestinians. Being in Palestine is an aggressive position.

 

[irosie91]

of course-----Nasser and ---dozens of diplomats who spoke in the UN---during televised GENERAL ASSEMBLY MEETINGS -----and were interviewed on televised programs in the USA were all THREATENING TO ANNHILATE THE "ZIONIST ENTITY" and Nasser EMBARGOED the STRAITS OF TIRAN and LINED HIS ARMY UP IN THE SINAI---along with russian military advisors and billions in new tanks and weapons ----ALL TO GIVE THE JOOOOOS AN EXCUSE TO "EXPAND" thanks for mentioning those days-----I was young----just done with final exams and ABLE TO MEMORIZE like-----uhm-----a not yet made COMPUTER it seems you missed it------it was very interesting----it took my FULL ATTENTION FOR WEEKS-----as I recovered from those final exams-------for the record----I ACED EVERY COURSE THAT SEMESTER------my mind was never before or never since SO SHARP. I am always amused at how IDIOTIC idiots like you paint up Nasser and his UAR CLOWNS

 

[RoccoR]

artfulcodger,

Where did you get this nonsense?

once again Rocky, your ignorance is astounding, but you should probably be aware that this version of eventS stands in stark contradiction to the public statementS of Menachem Begin...Ezer Weitzman and Mosche Dayan---all of whom confirm Israel's role in initiating the 67 land-grab for purposes of expansion...I think these three carry a tad more authority on the matter....LMFAO!!!!!

(COMMENT)

Israel entered the conflict in '67 as a defensive measure.

Certain key points and position were taken as strategic military value. Yes they admit to that. In fact, the continued occupation of selected points are still justified for that reason.

GEN Moshe Dayan has been reported to have expressed some misgiving in the capture of the Golan Heights.

But the conflict would not have been triggered if the various Arab Forces had not been massed for attack. So there was no intent at the time of the conflict for land acquisition.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

This is a bit disingenuous and subterfuge.

Another point, since Israel is inside Palestine, it cannot claim to be defending itself from the Palestinians. Being in Palestine is an aggressive position.

(COMMENT)

Today, the Palestinian call themselves "Palestinians." Half the terrorist organization in the Region claim to be Palestinian. And generally speaking, I think it is fairly common enough and understanding what is meant by the "Palestinian Authority" and the "Israelis." I don't think anyone is going to confuse the two.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

This is a bit disingenuous and subterfuge.

Another point, since Israel is inside Palestine, it cannot claim to be defending itself from the Palestinians. Being in Palestine is an aggressive position.

(COMMENT)

Today, the Palestinian call themselves "Palestinians." Half the terrorist organization in the Region claim to be Palestinian. And generally speaking, I think it is fairly common enough and understanding what is meant by the "Palestinian Authority" and the "Israelis." I don't think anyone is going to confuse the two.

Most Respectfully,
R

Terrorist is an Israeli propaganda term so it is no surprise that most Palestinian organizations get called this name.

If you take a close look at these groups:

(1)They do not operate outside of Palestine's borders.

(2)They do not target "civilians" (the legal term is "protected persons") as defined by the Fourth Geneva Convention.

They simply do not match the definition of terrorists.

The PA was set up by foreigners to outsource Israel's occupation to a Palestinian face.

 

[ima]

What Kind of State in Israel?

it's the kind of state that the Pals don't need permission from to advance their cause.

 

[irosie91]

What Kind of State in Israel?

it's the kind of state that the Pals don't need permission from to advance their cause.

what "cause"???

 

[ima]

What Kind of State in Israel?

it's the kind of state that the Pals don't need permission from to advance their cause.

what "cause"???

Whatever it is.

 

[irosie91]

What Kind of State in Israel?

it's the kind of state that the Pals don't need permission from to advance their cause.

what "cause"???

Whatever it is.

I knew I would get a specific answer