What's new
US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Addressing the Occupation Myth

Boston1

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 26, 2015
Messages
3,421
Reaction score
501
Points
170
Location
Colorado
There is no occupation. its a political myth invented by Arafat in something like 1967 in order to foment unrest and build a false narrative for the Arab Muslim racist movement

See
There is No "Occupation" - Take A Pen
Quote

From the standpoint of international law, it is important to note that prior to 1967, there was no other recognized sovereign power in the territories. Israel's capture of Judea-Samaria-Gaza and the Old City of Jerusalem in 1967 did not constitute an illegal "occupation" of someone else's land, because prior to 1967, there was no legal or recognized sovereign power there. The Jordanian occupation Judea-Samaria and Jerusalem during 1949-1967 was illegal, having been carried out in defiance of the United Nations Security Council. The only countries in the world to recognize it were Pakistan and (in part) England.

Furthermore, Israel captured the territories in self-defense. Israel took over Judea-Samaria-Gaza and the Old City of Jerusalem in self-defense, in response to aggression by Jordan and Egypt in June 1967. Had Jordan not invaded Israel --ignoring pleas by Israel to stay out of the war-- Israel would not control Judea and Samaria today. As former State Department Legal Adviser and former head of the International Court of Justice in the Hague, Stephen Schwebel, has written: "Where the prior holder of territory had seized that territory unlawfully, the state which subsequently takes that territory in the lawful exercise of self-defence has, against that prior holder, better title."

It is also significant that U.N. Security Council Resolution 242 does not require complete Israeli withdrawal from the territories. Resolution 242 requires Israel to withdraw "from territories" captured in 1967, but the authors of the resolution deliberately left out the word 'the' before 'territories' because it was their conviction --as articulated by then-British foreign secretary George Brown-- "that Israel will not withdraw from all the territories." The Soviets tried to insert 'the', but that effort was specifically rejected so as not to suggest that Israel is obliged to surrender all of the territories.

Finally, it should also be noted that the Oslo Accords recognize Israel's right to remain in the territories, at least until a final settlement is reached. The Oslo accords accept Israel's presence in the territories at least until an Israel-PA agreement on the final status of those areas. Chapter 2, Article X, Clause 4, specifically recognize that in the disputed territories, "Israel shall continue to carry the responsibility for external security, as well as the responsibility for overall security of Israelis for the purpose of safeguarding their internal security and public order" until a final accord is reached. Furthermore, the Oslo accords do not require Israel to dismantle any of the Israeli communities in Judea-Samaria-Gaza--in effect, an acknowledgment of Israel's right to maintain those communities, at least until a final-status agreement is reached.

In short, the notion that there is an illegal Israeli "occupation" is a myth.

End Quote
 

emilynghiem

Constitutionalist / Universalist
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jan 21, 2010
Messages
22,826
Reaction score
3,623
Points
290
Location
National Freedmen's Town District
If neither side recognizes or respects the other's right to coexist peacefully and reside as neighbors, then both are going to feel the other is imposing on them.

Why not enforce a rule that the only people allowed residency there are those who agree to live in peace. Put such high standards on residency and land ownership that only the truly peaceful people who promote unified relations between Jews, Christians, Muslims etc. will be in charge.

Anyone else who cannot make or keep a commitment to live civilly can be a guest there only if a resident or property owner agrees to take responsibility for them as guest. Anything goes wrong, such as commit a crime or act of violence against a neighbor, and either that resident or both the guest and their sponsoring resident lose their right to live there.

Similar to getting kicked out of school for starting a fight.

Organize all the communities, groups, neighborhoods to agree to a civil ordinance and a way to police it and to resolve grievances or complaints. Only pick people for the mediation who are truly inclusive and can work with all people.

Put the peacemakers in charge, instead of just letting the warmongers issue ultimatums back and forth, and see what a difference it makes if people are required to live in peace if they want ownership and residency there.
 

Andylusion

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2014
Messages
20,974
Reaction score
6,215
Points
290
Location
Central Ohio
If neither side recognizes or respects the other's right to coexist peacefully and reside as neighbors, then both are going to feel the other is imposing on them.

Why not enforce a rule that the only people allowed residency there are those who agree to live in peace. Put such high standards on residency and land ownership that only the truly peaceful people who promote unified relations between Jews, Christians, Muslims etc. will be in charge.

Anyone else who cannot make or keep a commitment to live civilly can be a guest there only if a resident or property owner agrees to take responsibility for them as guest. Anything goes wrong, such as commit a crime or act of violence against a neighbor, and either that resident or both the guest and their sponsoring resident lose their right to live there.

Similar to getting kicked out of school for starting a fight.

Organize all the communities, groups, neighborhoods to agree to a civil ordinance and a way to police it and to resolve grievances or complaints. Only pick people for the mediation who are truly inclusive and can work with all people.

Put the peacemakers in charge, instead of just letting the warmongers issue ultimatums back and forth, and see what a difference it makes if people are required to live in peace if they want ownership and residency there.

Yeah, because it was the Israelis that kidnapped, and executed high school students.

Look, you keep trying to claim that the problem is equal between them. It isn't. I don't see Israel trying to wipe the Muslim countries off the face of the Earth. I DO see their enemies trying to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth.

There are many Arabs that are Israel, as Israeli citizens, and even some elected to political office in Israel.

How many Jews live in the west bank? Based on that alone, who doesn't recognize who's right to exist?

This idea that somehow both sides are equally to blame, I reject.

That doesn't mean they are blame-less.... but don't even attempt to say they are equally at fault.

And while your idea "only let them live there if they agree to live in peace" sounds nifty, that presents a million problems.

How do you determine if they intend to live in peace? Give them a survey?

And even if they do, it's normally these people's kids that cause the problems. The mother and father have to work. It's their teenagers that go out attacking, tossing rocks, and kidnapping people.

And then when they do cause problems, how do you fix it? Deport them? To where? No one wants these people.
 

AVG-JOE

American Mutt
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2008
Messages
24,992
Reaction score
6,121
Points
280
Location
Your Imagination
Any country that successfully labels itself as a 'Jewish nation' or a 'Muslim nation' or a 'Christian nation' or by any single religion can not also call itself a free nation. A free nation is one that labels itself as a free nation and does it's best to keep religion out of public policy no matter how popular any given sect becomes.

The first generation to understand the right of everyone else to be religiously wrong gets to watch their grandchildren begin to explore the stars.

Peace will come with tolerance.​
 
OP
Boston1

Boston1

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 26, 2015
Messages
3,421
Reaction score
501
Points
170
Location
Colorado
At this point peace will come once the pali's have earned it.

Israel has learned the hard way not to trust the Arabs.

But regardless, the occupation is a myth. The only people illegally occupying that land are the remnants of the defeated Arab Muslim armies.
 

Billo_Really

Litre of the Band
Joined
Aug 14, 2005
Messages
31,149
Reaction score
2,596
Points
1,115
Location
Long Beach, Ca
If neither side recognizes or respects the other's right to coexist peacefully and reside as neighbors, then both are going to feel the other is imposing on them.

Why not enforce a rule that the only people allowed residency there are those who agree to live in peace. Put such high standards on residency and land ownership that only the truly peaceful people who promote unified relations between Jews, Christians, Muslims etc. will be in charge.

Anyone else who cannot make or keep a commitment to live civilly can be a guest there only if a resident or property owner agrees to take responsibility for them as guest. Anything goes wrong, such as commit a crime or act of violence against a neighbor, and either that resident or both the guest and their sponsoring resident lose their right to live there.

Similar to getting kicked out of school for starting a fight.

Organize all the communities, groups, neighborhoods to agree to a civil ordinance and a way to police it and to resolve grievances or complaints. Only pick people for the mediation who are truly inclusive and can work with all people.

Put the peacemakers in charge, instead of just letting the warmongers issue ultimatums back and forth, and see what a difference it makes if people are required to live in peace if they want ownership and residency there.
They were living that way before the Zionists showed up.

But as you can see from the OP, Zionists aren't about peace, they're about occupation.
 

Billo_Really

Litre of the Band
Joined
Aug 14, 2005
Messages
31,149
Reaction score
2,596
Points
1,115
Location
Long Beach, Ca
At this point peace will come once the pali's have earned it.

Israel has learned the hard way not to trust the Arabs.

But regardless, the occupation is a myth. The only people illegally occupying that land are the remnants of the defeated Arab Muslim armies.
If the occupation is a myth, then why isn't there one country on the planet willing to admit that?
 
OP
Boston1

Boston1

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 26, 2015
Messages
3,421
Reaction score
501
Points
170
Location
Colorado
At this point peace will come once the pali's have earned it.

Israel has learned the hard way not to trust the Arabs.

But regardless, the occupation is a myth. The only people illegally occupying that land are the remnants of the defeated Arab Muslim armies.
If the occupation is a myth, then why isn't there one country on the planet willing to admit that?

There is, Israel ;--)

I can't help but notice you failed to address a single point made in the article. On any number of points there is no illegal Israeli occupation and you have nothing which which to refute that reality.

The revisionist palestinian diatribe simply doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
 

Billo_Really

Litre of the Band
Joined
Aug 14, 2005
Messages
31,149
Reaction score
2,596
Points
1,115
Location
Long Beach, Ca
Yeah, because it was the Israelis that kidnapped, and executed high school students.
The Israeli's would rather target kids playing soccer on the beach with a drone strike.

Look, you keep trying to claim that the problem is equal between them. It isn't.
I agree. Israel is responsible for 90% of the violence.

I don't see Israel trying to wipe the Muslim countries off the face of the Earth.
Then open your eyes.

I DO see their enemies trying to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth.
With what? Rocks?

There are many Arabs that are Israel, as Israeli citizens, and even some elected to political office in Israel.
And they are treated like 2nd class citizens.

How many Jews live in the west bank?
Quite a few and they get along fine with their neighbor's.

Based on that alone, who doesn't recognize who's right to exist?
Since Israel is against a two-state solution, it's the Israeli's who won't allow the Pals right to exist.

This idea that somehow both sides are equally to blame, I reject.
Me to. The occupation is the cause of all the violence.

That doesn't mean they are blame-less.... but don't even attempt to say they are equally at fault.
Israel is 90% at fault; the Pals 10%.

And while your idea "only let them live there if they agree to live in peace" sounds nifty, that presents a million problems.
Living in peace, presents a million problems? Your mindset is the problem.

How do you determine if they intend to live in peace? Give them a survey?
Stop attacking them.

And even if they do, it's normally these people's kids that cause the problems.
Because they have no intention of appeasing Israel, like Neville Chamberlain did with Germany.

The mother and father have to work.
Not after Israel destroyed their economy.

It's their teenagers that go out attacking, tossing rocks, and kidnapping people.
That's much worse than administrative detention.

And then when they do cause problems, how do you fix it?
They're not the ones causing problems, you are.

Deport them? To where? No one wants these people.
Yeah, you're not trying to wipe them out?
 

Searcher44

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2015
Messages
1,131
Reaction score
229
Points
130
Location
Vancouver, British Columbia
There is no occupation. its a political myth invented by Arafat in something like 1967 in order to foment unrest and build a false narrative for the Arab Muslim racist movement

See
There is No "Occupation" - Take A Pen
Quote

From the standpoint of international law, it is important to note that prior to 1967, there was no other recognized sovereign power in the territories. Israel's capture of Judea-Samaria-Gaza and the Old City of Jerusalem in 1967 did not constitute an illegal "occupation" of someone else's land, because prior to 1967, there was no legal or recognized sovereign power there. The Jordanian occupation Judea-Samaria and Jerusalem during 1949-1967 was illegal, having been carried out in defiance of the United Nations Security Council. The only countries in the world to recognize it were Pakistan and (in part) England.

Furthermore, Israel captured the territories in self-defense. Israel took over Judea-Samaria-Gaza and the Old City of Jerusalem in self-defense, in response to aggression by Jordan and Egypt in June 1967. Had Jordan not invaded Israel --ignoring pleas by Israel to stay out of the war-- Israel would not control Judea and Samaria today. As former State Department Legal Adviser and former head of the International Court of Justice in the Hague, Stephen Schwebel, has written: "Where the prior holder of territory had seized that territory unlawfully, the state which subsequently takes that territory in the lawful exercise of self-defence has, against that prior holder, better title."

It is also significant that U.N. Security Council Resolution 242 does not require complete Israeli withdrawal from the territories. Resolution 242 requires Israel to withdraw "from territories" captured in 1967, but the authors of the resolution deliberately left out the word 'the' before 'territories' because it was their conviction --as articulated by then-British foreign secretary George Brown-- "that Israel will not withdraw from all the territories." The Soviets tried to insert 'the', but that effort was specifically rejected so as not to suggest that Israel is obliged to surrender all of the territories.

Finally, it should also be noted that the Oslo Accords recognize Israel's right to remain in the territories, at least until a final settlement is reached. The Oslo accords accept Israel's presence in the territories at least until an Israel-PA agreement on the final status of those areas. Chapter 2, Article X, Clause 4, specifically recognize that in the disputed territories, "Israel shall continue to carry the responsibility for external security, as well as the responsibility for overall security of Israelis for the purpose of safeguarding their internal security and public order" until a final accord is reached. Furthermore, the Oslo accords do not require Israel to dismantle any of the Israeli communities in Judea-Samaria-Gaza--in effect, an acknowledgment of Israel's right to maintain those communities, at least until a final-status agreement is reached.

In short, the notion that there is an illegal Israeli "occupation" is a myth.

End Quote

The final paragraph says it all, there is no illegal Israeli occupation until Israel agrees there is. And demonstrates once more that history, especially legalese dripping history,is written by the winners.

"...until a final-status agreement is reached."
"...until a final accord is reached."
"...until an Israel-PA agreement..."
",,,at least until a final settlement is reached...."

Like I said, nothing happened, is happening, or will happen until Israel agrees. In a negotiation that is absolute power and we know the result of absolute power.
 

Billo_Really

Litre of the Band
Joined
Aug 14, 2005
Messages
31,149
Reaction score
2,596
Points
1,115
Location
Long Beach, Ca
There is no occupation. its a political myth invented by Arafat in something like 1967 in order to foment unrest and build a false narrative for the Arab Muslim racist movement
Arafat didn't invent Israel rolling its tanks into Egypt.

I like your "Take A Pen" boys.

They claim...

"We are not part of any religious or political organization..."
but state...

"It is our goal to...perfect our Christian-Jewish alliance."
"We...cooperate with major religious ...institutions"
They also say they're not part of any political organization, but go on to comment about issues of international law.

From the standpoint of international law, it is important to note that prior to 1967, there was no other recognized sovereign power in the territories.
Doesn't have to be. You don't have to be a sovereign nation, to be an occupied territory.

Israel's capture of Judea-Samaria-Gaza and the Old City of Jerusalem in 1967 did not constitute an illegal "occupation" of someone else's land, because prior to 1967, there was no legal or recognized sovereign power there.
It was an area Israel had no clear title to, that's what constituted the occupation.

The Jordanian occupation Judea-Samaria and Jerusalem during 1949-1967 was illegal, having been carried out in defiance of the United Nations Security Council. The only countries in the world to recognize it were Pakistan and (in part) England.
Off topic in your own OP. Now that's new!

Furthermore, Israel captured the territories in self-defense.
Rolling your tanks into Egypt, was not self defense and Conquer by Conquest has been outlawed since the end of WWII.

Israel took over Judea-Samaria-Gaza and the Old City of Jerusalem in self-defense, in response to aggression by Jordan and Egypt in June 1967.
See above.

Had Jordan not invaded Israel --ignoring pleas by Israel to stay out of the war-- Israel would not control Judea and Samaria today.
Had Israel not invaded Egypt, Jordan would not have invaded Israel.

As former State Department Legal Adviser and former head of the International Court of Justice in the Hague, Stephen Schwebel, has written: "Where the prior holder of territory had seized that territory unlawfully, the state which subsequently takes that territory in the lawful exercise of self-defence has, against that prior holder, better title."
Attacking a country that did not attack you first, is not legal.

It is also significant that U.N. Security Council Resolution 242 does not require complete Israeli withdrawal from the territories. Resolution 242 requires Israel to withdraw "from territories" captured in 1967, but the authors of the resolution deliberately left out the word 'the' before 'territories' because it was their conviction --as articulated by then-British foreign secretary George Brown-- "that Israel will not withdraw from all the territories." The Soviets tried to insert 'the', but that effort was specifically rejected so as not to suggest that Israel is obliged to surrender all of the territories.
242 tells Israel to withdraw from the territories seized in the '67 war. It has nothing to do with your "thee's" and "the's". 242 also states that it is inadmissible to acquire land by force. So why are you still on it?

Finally, it should also be noted that the Oslo Accords recognize Israel's right to remain in the territories, at least until a final settlement is reached. The Oslo accords accept Israel's presence in the territories at least until an Israel-PA agreement on the final status of those areas. Chapter 2, Article X, Clause 4, specifically recognize that in the disputed territories, "Israel shall continue to carry the responsibility for external security, as well as the responsibility for overall security of Israelis for the purpose of safeguarding their internal security and public order" until a final accord is reached. Furthermore, the Oslo accords do not require Israel to dismantle any of the Israeli communities in Judea-Samaria-Gaza--in effect, an acknowledgment of Israel's right to maintain those communities, at least until a final-status agreement is reached.
Once Israel became in breach of the Oslo agreement, you cannot use it as proof.

In short, the notion that there is an illegal Israeli "occupation" is a myth.
Then why can't people in Gaza leave?
 

Humanity

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2014
Messages
5,089
Reaction score
361
Points
130
At this point peace will come once the pali's have earned it.

Israel has learned the hard way not to trust the Arabs.

But regardless, the occupation is a myth. The only people illegally occupying that land are the remnants of the defeated Arab Muslim armies.
If the occupation is a myth, then why isn't there one country on the planet willing to admit that?

There is, Israel ;--)

I can't help but notice you failed to address a single point made in the article. On any number of points there is no illegal Israeli occupation and you have nothing which which to refute that reality.

The revisionist palestinian diatribe simply doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

Ah yes, the occupier disagrees that there is an occupation yet the Supreme Court of the occupier disagrees with that assumption, along with every other nation on the planet!

There is NO point in addressing the propaganda article when it is simply that, propaganda!

No matter how zionuts try and dress up the illegal occupation as something else, the whole world knows that it IS illegal occupation!
 

Phoenall

Platinum Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2012
Messages
39,171
Reaction score
2,100
Points
1,115
If neither side recognizes or respects the other's right to coexist peacefully and reside as neighbors, then both are going to feel the other is imposing on them.

Why not enforce a rule that the only people allowed residency there are those who agree to live in peace. Put such high standards on residency and land ownership that only the truly peaceful people who promote unified relations between Jews, Christians, Muslims etc. will be in charge.

Anyone else who cannot make or keep a commitment to live civilly can be a guest there only if a resident or property owner agrees to take responsibility for them as guest. Anything goes wrong, such as commit a crime or act of violence against a neighbor, and either that resident or both the guest and their sponsoring resident lose their right to live there.

Similar to getting kicked out of school for starting a fight.

Organize all the communities, groups, neighborhoods to agree to a civil ordinance and a way to police it and to resolve grievances or complaints. Only pick people for the mediation who are truly inclusive and can work with all people.

Put the peacemakers in charge, instead of just letting the warmongers issue ultimatums back and forth, and see what a difference it makes if people are required to live in peace if they want ownership and residency there.






That rule is already in place if you look at the UN resolutions in regards to Palestine, the muslims flout this law all the time and laugh in the UN's face if they say anything. They should be removed from the UN and told they are no longer recognised until they can show they accept the rule of law.
 

Phoenall

Platinum Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2012
Messages
39,171
Reaction score
2,100
Points
1,115
If neither side recognizes or respects the other's right to coexist peacefully and reside as neighbors, then both are going to feel the other is imposing on them.

Why not enforce a rule that the only people allowed residency there are those who agree to live in peace. Put such high standards on residency and land ownership that only the truly peaceful people who promote unified relations between Jews, Christians, Muslims etc. will be in charge.

Anyone else who cannot make or keep a commitment to live civilly can be a guest there only if a resident or property owner agrees to take responsibility for them as guest. Anything goes wrong, such as commit a crime or act of violence against a neighbor, and either that resident or both the guest and their sponsoring resident lose their right to live there.

Similar to getting kicked out of school for starting a fight.

Organize all the communities, groups, neighborhoods to agree to a civil ordinance and a way to police it and to resolve grievances or complaints. Only pick people for the mediation who are truly inclusive and can work with all people.

Put the peacemakers in charge, instead of just letting the warmongers issue ultimatums back and forth, and see what a difference it makes if people are required to live in peace if they want ownership and residency there.
They were living that way before the Zionists showed up.

But as you can see from the OP, Zionists aren't about peace, they're about occupation.





According to which white supremacist source, as the historical evidence shows that the Jews and Christians were nothing more than slaves to the muslims. How many times have I and others shown you the massacres and atrocities carried out by muslims against the Jews over the last 1400 years. and still you deny them because you are so steeped in Jew hatred.

As any intelligent person can see by the historical evidence the Jews are all about peace which is why they have a proven track record of accepting peace with everyone who wants to live and work with them. It is only Jew haters and muslims that spew out the LIE that Israel is not interested in peace, and at the same time fire illegal weapons at Israel.
 

Humanity

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2014
Messages
5,089
Reaction score
361
Points
130
If neither side recognizes or respects the other's right to coexist peacefully and reside as neighbors, then both are going to feel the other is imposing on them.

Why not enforce a rule that the only people allowed residency there are those who agree to live in peace. Put such high standards on residency and land ownership that only the truly peaceful people who promote unified relations between Jews, Christians, Muslims etc. will be in charge.

Anyone else who cannot make or keep a commitment to live civilly can be a guest there only if a resident or property owner agrees to take responsibility for them as guest. Anything goes wrong, such as commit a crime or act of violence against a neighbor, and either that resident or both the guest and their sponsoring resident lose their right to live there.

Similar to getting kicked out of school for starting a fight.

Organize all the communities, groups, neighborhoods to agree to a civil ordinance and a way to police it and to resolve grievances or complaints. Only pick people for the mediation who are truly inclusive and can work with all people.

Put the peacemakers in charge, instead of just letting the warmongers issue ultimatums back and forth, and see what a difference it makes if people are required to live in peace if they want ownership and residency there.






That rule is already in place if you look at the UN resolutions in regards to Palestine, the muslims flout this law all the time and laugh in the UN's face if they say anything. They should be removed from the UN and told they are no longer recognised until they can show they accept the rule of law.

Israel would NEVER violate UN Resolutions would it.... :cuckoo:

I think Israel holds the record for the number of violations!

Violations of UN Resolutions
 

Phoenall

Platinum Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2012
Messages
39,171
Reaction score
2,100
Points
1,115
At this point peace will come once the pali's have earned it.

Israel has learned the hard way not to trust the Arabs.

But regardless, the occupation is a myth. The only people illegally occupying that land are the remnants of the defeated Arab Muslim armies.
If the occupation is a myth, then why isn't there one country on the planet willing to admit that?





There is, until the muslims threaten to send their terrorists there to change their minds
 

Humanity

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2014
Messages
5,089
Reaction score
361
Points
130
At this point peace will come once the pali's have earned it.

Israel has learned the hard way not to trust the Arabs.

But regardless, the occupation is a myth. The only people illegally occupying that land are the remnants of the defeated Arab Muslim armies.
If the occupation is a myth, then why isn't there one country on the planet willing to admit that?





There is, until the muslims threaten to send their terrorists there to change their minds

Other than Israel who else?
 

RoccoR

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2010
Messages
10,810
Reaction score
2,962
Points
290
Location
Reynoldsburg, OH
Boston1, et al,

Well, I'm not so sure that this is actually true... It is arguable on both sides.

There is no occupation. its a political myth invented by Arafat in something like 1967 in order to foment unrest and build a false narrative for the Arab Muslim racist movement

See
[URL='https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwibnPDm4s7KAhUJ4WMKHSybBSgQFggcMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.takeapen.org%2FTakeapen%2FTemplates%2Fshowpage.asp%3FDBID%3D1%26LNGID%3D1%26TMID%3D84%26FID%3D1001&usg=AFQjCNGhl229nt5JAXVdSQAK6ygVlOdPMQ&sig2=V-441obM4AAhjNpbP1-bdA' said:
There is No "Occupation" - Take A Pen[/URL]]
[URL='https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwibnPDm4s7KAhUJ4WMKHSybBSgQFggcMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.takeapen.org%2FTakeapen%2FTemplates%2Fshowpage.asp%3FDBID%3D1%26LNGID%3D1%26TMID%3D84%26FID%3D1001&usg=AFQjCNGhl229nt5JAXVdSQAK6ygVlOdPMQ&sig2=V-441obM4AAhjNpbP1-bdA' said:
From the standpoint of international law, it is important to note that prior to 1967, there was no other recognized sovereign power in the territories. Israel's capture of Judea-Samaria-Gaza and the Old City of Jerusalem in 1967 did not constitute an illegal "occupation" of someone else's land, because prior to 1967, there was no legal or recognized sovereign power there. The Jordanian occupation Judea-Samaria and Jerusalem during 1949-1967 was illegal, having been carried out in defiance of the United Nations Security Council. The only countries in the world to recognize it were Pakistan and (in part) England.
(COMMENT)

I don't really think that this aspect is relevant anymore.

OK, in the form of strict compliance to the Hague Convention (1907), the West Bank is under the "authority" of the IDF and that "authority" extends to every corner of the West Bank; less Area "A". And under the same regulation, the Gaza Strip cannot be considered occupied because the IDF cannot "authority" and the control cannot be exercised.

The argument that the Gaza Strip is "Occupied" rests on the case that the IDF can go into Gaza.

{REFERENCE}

[URL='https://www.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/Treaty.xsp?action=openDocument&documentId=4D47F92DF3966A7EC12563CD002D6788' said:
The Hague, 18 October 1907[/URL]]

Article 42: 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.

There is an argument to be made that very much like the Allied Powers ended the Enemy Occupied Territory Administration (EOTA) over the Mandate and placed it under Civil Administration (CA) (1920); a similar argument can be advanced that Israel moved the occupied Territories from an EOTA to a CA.

There is No "Occupation" - Take A Pen
Furthermore, Israel captured the territories in self-defense. Israel took over Judea-Samaria-Gaza and the Old City of Jerusalem in self-defense, in response to aggression by Jordan and Egypt in June 1967. Had Jordan not invaded Israel --ignoring pleas by Israel to stay out of the war-- Israel would not control Judea and Samaria today. As former State Department Legal Adviser and former head of the International Court of Justice in the Hague, Stephen Schwebel, has written: "Where the prior holder of territory had seized that territory unlawfully, the state which subsequently takes that territory in the lawful exercise of self-defence has, against that prior holder, better title."
(COMMENT)

This is arguable, but the option of a preemptive strike against an inevitable attack as incitement and provocation is not the theme of the day. It would be a wasted effort to spend to much time on this Issue. What is done, is done. In any even, it does not help the Arab Palestinians in the least. In 1967, the West Bank had been annexed by Jordan for 17 years. The Jordanians did not abandon it until August 1988 - place in the hands of Israel which maintained effective control absent any government. While Gaza was a little different, essentially the All Palestine Government has been dissolved and again the territory was left in the hands of the Israeli Government which maintained effective control.

There is No "Occupation" - Take A Pen
It is also significant that U.N. Security Council Resolution 242 does not require complete Israeli withdrawal from the territories. Resolution 242 requires Israel to withdraw "from territories" captured in 1967, but the authors of the resolution deliberately left out the word 'the' before 'territories' because it was their conviction --as articulated by then-British foreign secretary George Brown-- "that Israel will not withdraw from all the territories." The Soviets tried to insert 'the', but that effort was specifically rejected so as not to suggest that Israel is obliged to surrender all of the territories.
(COMMENT)

This is all political racket ball.

Journal of Palestine Studies[/I said:
, “An Interview with Lord Caradon,” Spring - Summer 1976, pgs 144-45:]
Journal of Palestine Studies[/I said:
In addition to the twisted language with the "THE;" there were other issues with Resolution 242
Q. The basis for any settlement will be United Nations Security Council Resolution 242, of which you were the architect. Would you say there is a contradiction between the part of the resolution that stresses the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and that which calls for Israeli withdrawal from “occupied territories,” but not from “the occupied territories”?
A. I defend the resolution as it stands. What it states, as you know, is first the general principle of inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war. That means that you can’t justify holding onto territory merely because you conquered it. We could have said: well, you go back to the 1967 line. But I know the 1967 line, and it’s a rotten line. You couldn’t have a worse line for a permanent international boundary. It’s where the troops happened to be on a certain night in 1948. It’s got no relation to the needs of the situation.

Had we said that you must go back to the 1967 line, which would have resulted if we had specified a retreat from all the occupied territories, we would have been wrong. In New York, what did we know about Tayyibe and Qalqilya? If we had attempted in New York to draw a new line, we would have been rather vague. So what we stated was the principle that you couldn’t hold territory because you conquered it, therefore there must be a withdrawal to – let’s read the words carefully – “secure and recognized boundaries.” They can only be secure if they are recognized. The boundaries have to be agreed; it’s only when you get agreement that you get security. I think that now people begin to realize what we had in mind – that security doesn’t come from arms, it doesn’t come from territory, it doesn’t come from geography, it doesn’t come from one side domination the other, it can only come from agreement and mutual respect and understanding.

Therefore, what we did, I think, was right; what the resolution said was right and I would stand by it. It needs to be added to now, of course. ... We didn’t attempt to deal with [the questions of the Palestinians and of Jerusalem] then, but merely to state the general principles of the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war. We meant that the occupied territories could not be held merely because they were occupied, but we deliberately did not say that the old line, where the troops happened to be on t
that particular night many years ago, was an ideal demarcation line.

There is No "Occupation" - Take A Pen
Finally, it should also be noted that the Oslo Accords recognize Israel's right to remain in the territories, at least until a final settlement is reached. The Oslo accords accept Israel's presence in the territories at least until an Israel-PA agreement on the final status of those areas. Chapter 2, Article X, Clause 4, specifically recognize that in the disputed territories, "Israel shall continue to carry the responsibility for external security, as well as the responsibility for overall security of Israelis for the purpose of safeguarding their internal security and public order" until a final accord is reached. Furthermore, the Oslo accords do not require Israel to dismantle any of the Israeli communities in Judea-Samaria-Gaza--in effect, an acknowledgment of Israel's right to maintain those communities, at least until a final-status agreement is reached.
(COMMENT)

In short, the notion that there is an illegal Israeli "occupation" is a myth.


Most Respectfully,
R
 

ForeverYoung436

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2009
Messages
6,050
Reaction score
1,222
Points
245
Yeah, because it was the Israelis that kidnapped, and executed high school students.
The Israeli's would rather target kids playing soccer on the beach with a drone strike.

Look, you keep trying to claim that the problem is equal between them. It isn't.
I agree. Israel is responsible for 90% of the violence.

I don't see Israel trying to wipe the Muslim countries off the face of the Earth.
Then open your eyes.

I DO see their enemies trying to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth.
With what? Rocks?

There are many Arabs that are Israel, as Israeli citizens, and even some elected to political office in Israel.
And they are treated like 2nd class citizens.

How many Jews live in the west bank?
Quite a few and they get along fine with their neighbor's.

Based on that alone, who doesn't recognize who's right to exist?
Since Israel is against a two-state solution, it's the Israeli's who won't allow the Pals right to exist.

This idea that somehow both sides are equally to blame, I reject.
Me to. The occupation is the cause of all the violence.

That doesn't mean they are blame-less.... but don't even attempt to say they are equally at fault.
Israel is 90% at fault; the Pals 10%.

And while your idea "only let them live there if they agree to live in peace" sounds nifty, that presents a million problems.
Living in peace, presents a million problems? Your mindset is the problem.

How do you determine if they intend to live in peace? Give them a survey?
Stop attacking them.

And even if they do, it's normally these people's kids that cause the problems.
Because they have no intention of appeasing Israel, like Neville Chamberlain did with Germany.

The mother and father have to work.
Not after Israel destroyed their economy.

It's their teenagers that go out attacking, tossing rocks, and kidnapping people.
That's much worse than administrative detention.

And then when they do cause problems, how do you fix it?
They're not the ones causing problems, you are.

Deport them? To where? No one wants these people.
Yeah, you're not trying to wipe them out?

I not only visited Israel, but I have also lived there for periods of time. Leaving the Palestinians in the West Bank aside for the moment, the Arabs who live in Israel proper are not second-class citizens. 35% of all the doctors in Israel are Arab.
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$505.00
Goal
$350.00

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top