Call Apartheid in Israel by Its Name

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, and they can misstate existing law.

P F Tinmore, et al,

Help me out here. When did General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960 come into force as International Law?

Help me out here. When did anything in the Middle East become a Non-Self-Governing Territory (NSGT).

(REFERENCE)

Committee of 24 (Special Committee on Decolonization)

The Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence of Colonial Countries and Peoples (also known as the Special Committee on decolonization or C-24), the United Nations entity exclusively devoted to the issue of decolonization, was established in 1961 by the General Assembly with the purpose of monitoring the implementation of the Declaration (General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960).

The Special Committee annually reviews the list of Territories to which the Declaration is applicable and makes recommendations as to its implementation. It also hears statements from NSGTs representatives, dispatches visiting missions, and organizes seminars on the political, social and economic situation in the Territories. Further, the Special Committee annually makes recommendations concerning the dissemination of information to mobilize public opinion in support of the decolonization process, and observes the Week of Solidarity with the Peoples of Non-Self-Governing Territories.
​

View attachment 66028​

(COMMENT)

There is no NSGT anywhere in the Middle East. Not only is the GA/RES/1514 (XV) NOT LAW, but even if it was, there is no applicable territory (relative to the Palestinians) for which this non-binding Resolution applies.

Most Respectfully,
R

This is not a comprehensive list of NSGTs. Tibet, Kashmir, Palestine, etc are not listed.

Maybe because they are not NSGT's outside of your wild imagination.

But once again you ignore the most pertinent fact that you are trying once again to use UN resolutions as International law, and then to use them retrospectively.

It is true that the the UN General Assembly does not make law. They do, however, reference existing international law, i.e. laws that already existed prior to the resolution.

3. Reaffirms the inalienable right of the Namibian people, the
Palestinian people and all peoples under foreign and colonial domination to
self-determination, national independence, territorial integrity, national
unity and sovereignty without outside interference;

A/RES/37/43. Importance of the universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination and of the speedy granting of independence to colonial countries and peoples for the effective guarantee and observance of human rights​

(COMMENT)

Yes, the General Assembly is not telling you what they are reaffirming. But the UN Special Committee 24 says what it says: They don't consider Palestine a NSGT.

The Resolution you cite does not actually say that Palestine is state or NSGT subject to decolonization, was established in 1961 by the General Assembly with the purpose of monitoring the implementation of the Declaration (General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960). What is actually says is, if it were ever to become a colonial territory or otherwise a NSGT, THEN --- it would be a Territory to which the Declaration is applicable and makes recommendations as to its implementation. Even the United States could be, if someone were to bring it under their domain, it would conceptually fall under the Decolonization policy. BUT, remember, 1524 (XV) is not LAW. What the resolution is citing is the intent of the UN Charter which I've discussed earlier.

It would be helpful if you were to cite the exact law to which you thing is being reaffirmed, when you make these allegations.

Most Respectfully,
R

Is this what you are arguing against?

3. Reaffirms the inalienable right of the Namibian people, the
Palestinian people and all peoples under foreign and colonial domination to
self-determination, national independence, territorial integrity, national
unity and sovereignty without outside interference;

A/RES/37/43. Importance of the universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination and of the speedy granting of independence to colonial countries and peoples for the effective guarantee and observance of human rights​

What do you have that refutes this?

NSGT is a political designation. Who determines that designation and how is the process initiated?

So once again you are using a UN recommendation from 1960 claiming it was International law in place in 1923. So can we use the same resolution against the invaders and colonisers of the Americas and will you lead by your example ?

 

[Phoenall]

The land, which is near the small Jewish settlement of Gvaot in the Etzion bloc south of Jerusalem, has now officially been declared “state land,” as opposed to land privately owned by Palestinians, clearing the way for the potential approval of Israeli building plans there.

But the mayor of the nearby Palestinian town of Surif, Ahmad Lafi, said the land belonged to Palestinian families. He told the official Palestinian news agency Wafa that Israeli Army forces and personnel posted orders early Sunday announcing the seizure of land that was planted with olive and forest trees in Surif and the nearby villages of Al-Jaba’a and Wadi Fukin.​

It was not privately owned land. It was public land. And it was in Area C -- land under Israeli civil and security control.

So what makes it "Palestinian land" (under Palestinian sovereignty -- more properly 'control' since there is no sovereign Palestine yet) and not "Israeli land" (under Israeli sovereignty)? Why should Palestinians be permitted to build on that land while Israel is not permitted to build on that land?

What makes it Jewish land? Why aren't Paletsinians permitted to build there or even live there?

If it is in the OPT shouldn't it be Palestinian private or state land?

WHY when the land was owned by Jews, paid for and worked by the Jews. By your criteria your home is built on first nations lands, so when will you be giving it up

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

In 1947, the UNPC as a name, has not been selected yet.

The Security Council take the necessary measures as provided for in the plan for its implementation;

The Avalon Project : UN General Assembly Resolution 181​

The UNPC was not mentioned.

Where was the UNPC when they were to protect the people and territory of Palestine?

(COMMENT)

I copied and pasted the exact verbage from the 1947 Resolution 181(II). It refers to it as "Commission."

View attachment 66167​

Quite trying to confuse the issue with your effects to misdirect the process.

Most Respectfully,
R

The administration of Palestine shall, as the mandatory Power withdraws its armed forces, be progressively turned over to the Commission, which shall act in conformity with the recommendations of the General Assembly, under the guidance of the Security Council. The mandatory Power shall to the fullest possible extent coordinate its plans for withdrawal with the plans of the Commission to take over and administer areas which have been evacuated.​

When did all this happen?

When the British left in a hurry after being attacked once too often by the arab muslims.

Why do you argue against the evidence that is in your own cut and pastes

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, almost right --- pretty damn close actually.

If it is in the OPT shouldn't it be Palestinian private or state land?

(COMMENT)

Unless there are preemptive or predetermined international agreement/instructions, advanced domestic coordination, and/or treaty requirements, --- all private property (tangible/intangible) is just that. War, Conflict, it makes no matter. The property goes with the owner.

State Property (tangible), profit (earned/owed revenue streams) and debt (outstanding credits and obligations/contractual terms/ principal and interest) are relinquished (transferred/assumed) with the establishment of governmental control and sovereignty.

Most Respectfully,
R

This is confusing. How then was Israel able to legally confiscate land under the Absentee landowner rules?

Because they followed the Palestinian practice set out in 1949. Remember that when they passed a law in Jordan to legally steal Jewish owned land and you turn a blind eye to it happening.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You always address the issues as if "you were some kind of authority" to which the implementation teams/elements had to answer to meet your expectations. Get over that. I have sent you document. The British Mandatory accomplished it coordination the way it wanted.

P F Tinmore, et al,

In 1947, the UNPC as a name, has not been selected yet.

The Security Council take the necessary measures as provided for in the plan for its implementation;

The Avalon Project : UN General Assembly Resolution 181​

The UNPC was not mentioned.

Where was the UNPC when they were to protect the people and territory of Palestine?

(COMMENT)

I copied and pasted the exact verbage from the 1947 Resolution 181(II). It refers to it as "Commission."

View attachment 66167​

Quite trying to confuse the issue with your effects to misdirect the process.

Most Respectfully,
R

The administration of Palestine shall, as the mandatory Power withdraws its armed forces, be progressively turned over to the Commission, which shall act in conformity with the recommendations of the General Assembly, under the guidance of the Security Council. The mandatory Power shall to the fullest possible extent coordinate its plans for withdrawal with the plans of the Commission to take over and administer areas which have been evacuated.​

When did all this happen?

(COMMENT)

These are instructions to the Mandatory (British) to assist the Palestine Commission. What the Mandatory did or did not do --- does not change the historical actions relative to the establishment of the Jewish State.

Most Respectfully,
R

Of course the whole point is moot because the UN had nothing to do with the creation of Israel.

Correct it was the LoN way back in 1923 that set the ball rolling, it took 25 years for the Jews to make their move

 

[Phoenall]

Coyote, et al,

This is a very good question. This actually has nothing to do with the conflict or war.

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, almost right --- pretty damn close actually.

If it is in the OPT shouldn't it be Palestinian private or state land?

(COMMENT)

Unless there are preemptive or predetermined international agreement/instructions, advanced domestic coordination, and/or treaty requirements, --- all private property (tangible/intangible) is just that. War, Conflict, it makes no matter. The property goes with the owner.

State Property (tangible), profit (earned/owed revenue streams) and debt (outstanding credits and obligations/contractual terms/ principal and interest) are relinquished (transferred/assumed) with the establishment of governmental control and sovereignty.

Most Respectfully,
R

This is confusing. How then was Israel able to legally confiscate land under the Absentee landowner rules?

(COMMENT)

Almost universally, this is called "asset forfeiture/seizure." Each nation has different rules. There is actually no right or wrong to it. I don't know the exact law in Israel, but, it is probably similar to the US general concept.
• Who Can Acquire Abandoned Property?

Generally, when property is abandoned by its rightful owner, it must remain unused for a specified period of time, before the government is permitted to acquire control of the property. In most instances, this period ranges from 3 years to 5 years. During the period of inactivity, banks, landlords, and insurance companies must work to locate the absent owner.
​

• US Legal corollaries and examples!

This is very different from the Criminal Forfeiture Actions (subject to forfeiture and named in the indictment that charges the criminal offense), Civil Forfeiture Actions (in cases where the action is not contested in a timely manner, any legal claim to the property is thereafter barred and the agency may declare the property forfeited), Administrative Forfeiture (the forfeiture action is against real property, the proceedings must be judicial, regardless of the value of the property --- usually tax issues), and Judicial Forfeitures (court order or legislative action). In criminal forfeitures, the property usually must have a connection with the criminal activity. There are many countries that confiscate houses, cars, boats, aircraft, etc in the transport of contraband (drugs and weapons) or the used in a serious crime or in connection with terrorism or safe havens.​

Again, this has nothing to do with the the Arab-Israeli Conflict. This is done everyday in the Western World.

Most Respectfully,
R

The way the absentee property law works in Israel.

The military drives the Palestinians off their land and declares it to be a closed military zone. Then three years later the civil administration declares it to be "unused" property and claims it for the state.

LINK from a reliable unbiased and non partisan source

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, almost right --- pretty damn close actually.

If it is in the OPT shouldn't it be Palestinian private or state land?

(COMMENT)

Unless there are preemptive or predetermined international agreement/instructions, advanced domestic coordination, and/or treaty requirements, --- all private property (tangible/intangible) is just that. War, Conflict, it makes no matter. The property goes with the owner.

State Property (tangible), profit (earned/owed revenue streams) and debt (outstanding credits and obligations/contractual terms/ principal and interest) are relinquished (transferred/assumed) with the establishment of governmental control and sovereignty.

Most Respectfully,
R

This is confusing. How then was Israel able to legally confiscate land under the Absentee landowner rules?

At no point in any of the Arab wars of aggression was any country constrained to not gain land through warfare.

That was a UN Arab block move retroactive to the Arab aggression of 1967 after Jordan lost the rest of the Israeli mandated area west of the Jordan river.

So at the time Israel won land in a defensive action it was perfectly legal for it to keep it.

So the question becomes, are there any other examples of the UN retroactively creating a law that targets just one country and attempts to force them to relinquish a defensive stance in an active war ?

Retroactive?

Targeting just one country?

YEP look at the dates of implementation, then look at the nation it is aimed at.




A resolution passed in November 1967 has no legal force prior to that date, so how can it be used against Israel for what happened in June and July of that year ?


How far back do you want to go back with your "laws" as they will eventually land in your lap and take away your home.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, almost right --- pretty damn close actually.

(COMMENT)

Unless there are preemptive or predetermined international agreement/instructions, advanced domestic coordination, and/or treaty requirements, --- all private property (tangible/intangible) is just that. War, Conflict, it makes no matter. The property goes with the owner.

State Property (tangible), profit (earned/owed revenue streams) and debt (outstanding credits and obligations/contractual terms/ principal and interest) are relinquished (transferred/assumed) with the establishment of governmental control and sovereignty.

Most Respectfully,
R

This is confusing. How then was Israel able to legally confiscate land under the Absentee landowner rules?

At no point in any of the Arab wars of aggression was any country constrained to not gain land through warfare.

That was a UN Arab block move retroactive to the Arab aggression of 1967 after Jordan lost the rest of the Israeli mandated area west of the Jordan river.

So at the time Israel won land in a defensive action it was perfectly legal for it to keep it.

So the question becomes, are there any other examples of the UN retroactively creating a law that targets just one country and attempts to force them to relinquish a defensive stance in an active war ?

Retroactive?

Targeting just one country?

I don't know why I'm doing your homework for you but yes, retroactively

And yes targeting just one country while in the middle of a war.

The 1967 situation stabilized in June 11 1967. When the UN brokered a cease fire.

On November 22 1967 the UNSC then passed resolution 242, a non-binding resolution which demanded that Israel withdraw from its defensive positions and allow the Arabs to return to their previously illegally held positions

See
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&sqi=2&ved=0ahUKEwjLwN_gqq3LAhVBt4MKHYPLAokQFggjMAE&url=https://unispal.un.org/DPA/DPR/unispal.nsf/0/7D35E1F729DF491C85256EE700686136&usg=AFQjCNEBfvcb7Pa44oqYK4equwojBADcaQ&sig2=_B8bNhi22CnMy_SPOddksw&bvm=bv.116274245,d.amc

Now as I recall ;--) June comes BEFORE November on the calendar

Ergo the stipulation that Israel return to its former position and give up its improved defensive stature was retroactivly applied.

And yes, ONLY Israel is mentioned in the resolution .

So, up until then, no other country has been required to return territory it gained in conflict?

Correct as there was no anti semitic UN to tell them to

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, almost right --- pretty damn close actually.

(COMMENT)

Unless there are preemptive or predetermined international agreement/instructions, advanced domestic coordination, and/or treaty requirements, --- all private property (tangible/intangible) is just that. War, Conflict, it makes no matter. The property goes with the owner.

State Property (tangible), profit (earned/owed revenue streams) and debt (outstanding credits and obligations/contractual terms/ principal and interest) are relinquished (transferred/assumed) with the establishment of governmental control and sovereignty.

Most Respectfully,
R

This is confusing. How then was Israel able to legally confiscate land under the Absentee landowner rules?

At no point in any of the Arab wars of aggression was any country constrained to not gain land through warfare.

That was a UN Arab block move retroactive to the Arab aggression of 1967 after Jordan lost the rest of the Israeli mandated area west of the Jordan river.

So at the time Israel won land in a defensive action it was perfectly legal for it to keep it.

So the question becomes, are there any other examples of the UN retroactively creating a law that targets just one country and attempts to force them to relinquish a defensive stance in an active war ?

Retroactive?

Targeting just one country?

I don't know why I'm doing your homework for you but yes, retroactively

And yes targeting just one country while in the middle of a war.

The 1967 situation stabilized in June 11 1967. When the UN brokered a cease fire.

On November 22 1967 the UNSC then passed resolution 242, a non-binding resolution which demanded that Israel withdraw from its defensive positions and allow the Arabs to return to their previously illegally held positions

See
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&sqi=2&ved=0ahUKEwjLwN_gqq3LAhVBt4MKHYPLAokQFggjMAE&url=https://unispal.un.org/DPA/DPR/unispal.nsf/0/7D35E1F729DF491C85256EE700686136&usg=AFQjCNEBfvcb7Pa44oqYK4equwojBADcaQ&sig2=_B8bNhi22CnMy_SPOddksw&bvm=bv.116274245,d.amc

Now as I recall ;--) June comes BEFORE November on the calendar

Ergo the stipulation that Israel return to its former position and give up its improved defensive stature was retroactivly applied.

And yes, ONLY Israel is mentioned in the resolution .

According to the resolution: United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Israel was not "singled out". The resolution called on all participating states:

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."


It also states this:
John McHugo says that by the 1920s, international law no longer recognized that a state could acquire title to territory by conquest.[17] Article 2 of the Charter of the United Nations requires all members to 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.[18]

Michael Lynk says that article 2 of the Charter embodied a prevailing legal principle that there could be "no title by conquest". He says that principle had been expressed through numerous international conferences, doctrines and treaties since the late 19th Century. Lynk cites the examples of the First International Conference of American States in 1890; the United States Stimson Doctrine of 1932; the 1932 League of Nations resolution on Japanese aggression in China; the Buenos Aires Declaration of 1936; and the Atlantic Charter of 1941.[19] Surya Sharma says that a war in self-defense cannot result in acquisition of title by conquest. He says that even if a war is lawful in origin it cannot exceed the limits of legitimate self-defense.[20]

It does not say that in 242 at all, that is the words of John Mchugo.


This is where your Jew hatred is shown the most when you attribute things to UN resolutions that are not there. Both of your little snippets are individuals views of how they interpret the resolution.

Right up until November of 1967 land was won in war, and in the case of muslims it is still the case. Look at what is happening in Africa, and who is claiming land conquered in war. Then look at the former Yugoslavia for more evidence.

 

[Phoenall]

At no point in any of the Arab wars of aggression was any country constrained to not gain land through warfare.

That was a UN Arab block move retroactive to the Arab aggression of 1967 after Jordan lost the rest of the Israeli mandated area west of the Jordan river.

So at the time Israel won land in a defensive action it was perfectly legal for it to keep it.

So the question becomes, are there any other examples of the UN retroactively creating a law that targets just one country and attempts to force them to relinquish a defensive stance in an active war ?

Retroactive?

Targeting just one country?

I don't know why I'm doing your homework for you but yes, retroactively

And yes targeting just one country while in the middle of a war.

The 1967 situation stabilized in June 11 1967. When the UN brokered a cease fire.

On November 22 1967 the UNSC then passed resolution 242, a non-binding resolution which demanded that Israel withdraw from its defensive positions and allow the Arabs to return to their previously illegally held positions

See
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&sqi=2&ved=0ahUKEwjLwN_gqq3LAhVBt4MKHYPLAokQFggjMAE&url=https://unispal.un.org/DPA/DPR/unispal.nsf/0/7D35E1F729DF491C85256EE700686136&usg=AFQjCNEBfvcb7Pa44oqYK4equwojBADcaQ&sig2=_B8bNhi22CnMy_SPOddksw&bvm=bv.116274245,d.amc

Now as I recall ;--) June comes BEFORE November on the calendar

Ergo the stipulation that Israel return to its former position and give up its improved defensive stature was retroactivly applied.

And yes, ONLY Israel is mentioned in the resolution .

So, up until then, no other country has been required to return territory it gained in conflict?

I don't think so. Or at least thats how 242 is widely interpreted. No acquisition of land through force of arms.

The concept didn't hit international law until the ICC established the Rome Statutes in about 1988. But all in all the 67 war was the first instance where a country was demanded to give up a defensive position while still engaged in war.

No, it sounds to me that it was required to return the territories it had taken AND the other countries were required to make peace and recognize Israel's sovereignty and right to exist peacefully.

Then try reading the authors views on what 242 really meant, and get your eyes opened, not some idiots that were not even there when the resolution was written.

From your link



Upon presenting the draft resolution to the Security Council, the U.K. representative Lord Caradon said:

All of us recognize that peace is the prize. None of us wishes a temporary truce or a superficial accommodation. We could never advocate a return to uneasy hostility. As I have said, my Government would never wish to be associated with any so-called settlement which was only a continuation of a false truce, and all of us without any hesitation at all can agree that we seek a settlement within the principles laid down in Article 2 of the Charter. So much for the preamble.

As to the first operative paragraph, and with due respect for fulfillment of Charter principles, we consider it essential that there should be applied the principles of both withdrawal and security, and we have no doubt that the words set out throughout that paragraph are perfectly clear.

As to the second operative paragraph, there is I believe no vestige of disagreement between us all that there must be a guarantee of freedom of navigation through international waterways. There must be a just settlement of the refugee problem. There must be a guarantee and adequate means to ensure the territorial inviolability and political independence of every State in the area.

As to the third operative paragraph, I have said before that I consider that the United Nations special representative should be free to decide himself the exact means and methods by which he pursues his endeavors in contact with the States concerned both to promote agreement and to assist efforts to achieve a peaceful and accepted and final settlement."[8]

Secretary of State Dean Rusk commented on the most significant area of disagreement regarding the resolution:

There was much bickering over whether that resolution should say from "the" territories or from "all" territories. In the French version, which is equally authentic, it says withdrawal de territory, with de meaning "the." We wanted that to be left a little vague and subject to future negotiation because we thought the Israeli border along the West Bank could be "rationalized"; certain anomalies could easily be straightened out with some exchanges of territory, making a more sensible border for all parties. We also wanted to leave open demilitarization measures in the Sinai and the Golan Heights and take a fresh look at the old city of Jerusalem. But we never contemplated any significant grant of territory to Israel as a result of the June 1967 war. On that point we and the Israelis to this day remain sharply divided. This situation could lead to real trouble in the future. Although every President since Harry Truman has committed the United States to the security and independence of Israel, I'm not aware of any commitment the United States has made to assist Israel in retaining territories seized in the Six-Day War.[9]





Clears up many of the LIES and propaganda written about 242.

 

[Phoenall]

Coyote, et al,

It is always helpful to speak to the people who wrote a document to actually understand what the purpose and intent was for the writing.

“The phrasing of the Resolution was very carefully worked out, and it was a difficult and complicated exercise to get it accepted by the UN Security Council. I formulated the Security Council Resolution. Before we submitted it to the Council, we showed it to Arab leaders. The proposal said ‘Israel will withdraw from territories that were occupied,’ and not from ‘the’ territories, which means that Israel will not withdraw from all the territories.” Quote From: Lord George A. Brown, British Foreign Secretary from 1966 to 1968, who helped Draft Resolution 242,

According to the resolution: United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Israel was not "singled out". The resolution called on all participating states:

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."

(COMMENT)

Well this is very specific and politically crafted language that sounds misleading. Understanding the intent of UNSC Res 242:

“Five-and-a-half months of vehement public diplomacy in 1967 made it perfectly clear what the missing definite article in Resolution 242 means. Ingeniously drafted resolutions calling for withdrawals from ‘all’ the territories were defeated in the Security Council and the General Assembly. Speaker after speaker made it explicit that Israel was not to be forced back to the ‘fragile’ and ‘vulnerable’ Armistice Demarcation Lines, but should retire once peace was made to what Resolution 242 called ‘secure and recognized’ boundaries, agreed to by the parties. In negotiating such agreements, the parties should take into account, among other factors, security considerations, access to the international waterways of the region, and, of course, their respective legal claims.” Quote From: Eugene Rostow, Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs from 1966-1969, who helped draft Resolution 242.
​

It also states this:
John McHugo says that by the 1920s, international law no longer recognized that a state could acquire title to territory by conquest.[17] Article 2 of the Charter of the United Nations requires all members to 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.[18]

(COMMENT)

Yes I've heard, over and over again, this explanation. But it is not correct. The phrase "acquire title to territory by conquest" does not mean territory secured in the process of a defense or by treaty in surrender. Even the Treaty of Lausanne (1924) divided up the Ottoman Empire that had maintain the territories for 800 years or more. By 1920 (as John McHugo, points out) you must remember that the San Remo Convention of the Principle Allied Powers was meeting and crafting the language for the Mandate for Palestine. (McHugo is just plain wrong.) Even today a century later, the McHugo Concept is not made its way into customary law. One needs only look at the events of the events of the Russian - Crimean dispute and the 2014 events where Russia acquired the Crimea and nullified the "right to self-determination."

Yes, you have correctly quoted Article 2(4) of the UN Charter. But this aspect of the Charter is no more applicable to the 1967 War (defending against an eminent attack) than it was when the Arab League (5 nations simultaneously) attacked Israel in 1948. In 1967, three countries of the Arab League were staging forces in preparation to invade Israel yet again:

• 8 Brigades from Syria in the North
• 10 Brigades from Jordan in the center and East
• 100,000 troops, 900 tanks and 800 artillery pieces from the sourth
​

Now Article 2(4) does not over rule Article 51 (Self-Defense).

Michael Lynk says that article 2 of the Charter embodied a prevailing legal principle that there could be "no title by conquest". He says that principle had been expressed through numerous international conferences, doctrines and treaties since the late 19th Century. Lynk cites the examples of the First International Conference of American States in 1890; the United States Stimson Doctrine of 1932; the 1932 League of Nations resolution on Japanese aggression in China; the Buenos Aires Declaration of 1936; and the Atlantic Charter of 1941.[19] Surya Sharma says that a war in self-defense cannot result in acquisition of title by conquest. He says that even if a war is lawful in origin it cannot exceed the limits of legitimate self-defense.[20]

(COMMENT)

You will notice that in no instance, does Surya Sharma (who writes his book over a century after the First International Conference of American States in 1890, make a quote. Why, because it is simply not true to form in its meaning. The United States alone, had several exchanges in which territory was acquired as a result of a military outcome:

West Florida

• Declared to be a U.S. possession in 1810 after the territory had declared its independence from Spain and US Forces took take control 6 weeks later. General Andrew Jackson accepted the delivery of West Florida from its Spanish governor on July 17, 1821.

Texas

• In the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo of 1848, Mexico formally relinquished New Mexico (captured 1848) and Texas (annexed 1845).

Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Philippines

• ALL Three were ceded to the US after the the victory in Spanish–American War in the 1898 Treaty of Paris.

Cuba

• Under the 1898 Treaty of Paris, Spain relinquished all claim of sovereignty over and title to Cuba, with the island to be occupied by the United States.

Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands

• The Trust Territory of these Pacific Islands were part of a UN Trusteeship over Micronesia administered by America after July 1947, a former League of Nations Mandate --- taken by the U.S. in 1944 from the empire of Japan.

The Atlantic Charter of 1941 is really quite short.

Atlantic Charter
AUGUST 14, 1941​

The President of the United States of America and the Prime Minister, Mr. Churchill, representing His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom, being met together, deem it right to make known certain common principles in the national policies of their respective countries on which they base their hopes for a better future for the world.

First, their countries seek no aggrandizement, territorial or other;

Second, they desire to see no territorial changes that do not accord with the freely expressed wishes of the peoples concerned;

Third, they respect the right of all peoples to choose the form of government under which they will live; and they wish to see sovereign rights and self government restored to those who have been forcibly deprived of them;

Fourth, they will endeavor, with due respect for their existing obligations, to further the enjoyment by all States, great or small, victor or vanquished, of access, on equal terms, to the trade and to the raw materials of the world which are needed for their economic prosperity;

Fifth, they desire to bring about the fullest collaboration between all nations in the economic field with the object of securing, for all, improved labor standards, economic advancement and social security;

Sixth, after the final destruction of the Nazi tyranny, they hope to see established a peace which will afford to all nations the means of dwelling in safety within their own boundaries, and which will afford assurance that all the men in all lands may live out their lives in freedom from fear and want;

Seventh, such a peace should enable all men to traverse the high seas and oceans without hindrance;

Eighth, they believe that all of the nations of the world, for realistic as well as spiritual reasons must come to the abandonment of the use of force. Since no future peace can be maintained if land, sea or air armaments continue to be employed by nations which threaten, or may threaten, aggression outside of their frontiers, they believe, pending the establishment of a wider and permanent system of general security, that the disarmament of such nations is essential. They will likewise aid and encourage all other practicable measure which will lighten for peace-loving peoples the crushing burden of armaments.
​

If you scan this document, you will see that it in NO WAY expresses any limits of self-defense or any prohibition on securing territory. What it says is, "they desire to see no territorial changes that do not accord with the freely expressed wishes of the peoples concerned."

In the Buenos Aires Declaration of 1936, the concepts are

DECLARES:

1. That the American Nations, true to their republican institutions, proclaim their absolute juridical liberty, their unqualified respect for their respective sovereignties and the existence of a common democracy throughout America;

2. That every act susceptible of disturbing the peace of America affects each and every one of them, and justifies the initiation of the procedure of consultation provided for in the Convention for the Maintenance, Preservation and Reestablishment of Peace, signed at this Conference; and

3. That the following principles are accepted by the American community of Nations:

(a) Proscription of territorial conquest and that, in consequence, no acquisition made through violence shall be recognized;

(b) Intervention by one State in the internal or external affairs of another State is condemned;

(c) Forcible collection of pecuniary debts is illegal; and

(d) Any difference or dispute between the American nations, whatever its nature or origin, shall be settled by the methods of conciliation, or unrestricted arbitration, or through operation of international justice.
​

It is probably the closest, but not binding. Disputes are settled by peaceful means, not dissimilar to the Declaration of Principles of Friendly Nations.

(The PARADOX)

If the concept that an aggressor set of nations, like the Arab League, is allowed to attack (Israel) and fails, but then the defender (Israel) has to give back (to the Arab League) any territorial losses, THEN what is to prevent them from repeating the cycle over and over again, until they win?

• Attack --- Defeated --- Lost Territory Returned --- restock, resupply, reconstitute forces THEN
• Attack --- Defeated --- Lost Territory Returned --- restock, resupply, reconstitute forces THEN
• Attack --- Defeated --- Lost Territory Returned --- restock, resupply, reconstitute forces THEN
• Attack --- ... ... ...
​

No law, convention, treaty, or binding agreement purposely gives the unfair military advantage to the aggressor (the Arab League). At some point, the aggressor nations of the Arab League must be disabled and disarmed to end the cycle of violence.

Each Member nation that is under the constant threat from military assault and jihadist action will exercise its national sovereignty --- and ultimately withdraw from the CHARTER and the Treaty ... if Israel decides that extraordinary events, related to the survival of the Jewish National Home, jeopardized the supreme interests of The Jewish State of Israel.

Most Respectfully,
R

War (defending against an eminent attack) than it was when the Arab League (5 nations simultaneously) attacked Israel in 1948.​

Not true but let's play along with the propaganda.

Israel claims that it won land when the 5 Arab states (Lebanon, Syria, Jordan/Iraq, Egypt) lost the 1948 war.

First off, nobody lost that war. Hostilities stopped when a UN Security Council resolution called for an armistice.

Let's confirm this.

What did Lebanon lose in the war?
What did Syria lose in the war?
What did Jordan/Iraq lose in the war?
What did Egypt lose in the war?

Soldiers, arms, ammunition, military vehicles, land in the case of Jordan and Egypt. And most of all face in the muslim world

THEY LOST BECAUSE THEY DID NOT WIN, it is that simple.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Let's assume your inference is correct.

What did Lebanon lose in the war?
What did Syria lose in the war?
What did Jordan/Iraq lose in the war?
What did Egypt lose in the war?

(COMMENT)

If the Arab League lost nothing, THEN what is the issue? Why even raise the issue of military conquest?

So, according to your inference (What did Arab League Nations lose in the war?) then --- is that the Arab League is at war with Israel because they lost nothing.

Most Respectfully,
R

Then how does Israel claim that it won land in that war?

Because the arab nations claimed the west bank, gaza and Jerusalem. If The arab nations did not lose anything then why are they so upset over it, and why are some still at war with Israel

 

[Phoenall]

You have more patience than I Rocco.

These people will stop at nothing to try and weaken the Israeli position. And it aggravates them no end that many of us or even Israel itself, isn't buying into it.

Demanding that a country under attack give up its defensive position while still in the middle of a war is just ridiculous.

I ask again when did that ever happen before.

What other nation is denied the right to defend itself again and again.

and then we have this nonsense about apartheid, wow. Nothing even remotely similar to apartheid exists in Israel and yet inevitably in the course of these kinds of conversations we here someone start singing the militant islamist party line.

Ridiculous hardly covers it.

Oh bugger off. Rocco provides a good explanation and manages to do so without constantly insulting opposing points of view simply because they disagree with you. Apartheid doesn't exist but some pretty powerful discrimination and inequalities exist that you just want to breeze right on over because it's Israel and since Israel is not as bad as it's neighbors it's ok.

These people? I get pretty darn sick of "these people" too only I suspect it's a different set of "these people".

"These people"? Stuff it.

‘The crime of apartheid’ means inhumane acts of a character similar to
those referred to in paragraph 1, committed in the context of an
institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime;

https://www.icc-cpi.int/nr/rdonlyres/ea9aeff7-5752-4f84-be94-0a655eb30e16/0/rome_statute_english.pdf​

Many acts of Israel fit that description.

Many acts of many nations fit that description also, but it does not make them apartheid nations. What acts in Israel constitute apartheid, and compare them to what the Palestinians, Egyptians, Jordanians, Saudis etc. have in place

 

[Phoenall]

You have more patience than I Rocco.

These people will stop at nothing to try and weaken the Israeli position. And it aggravates them no end that many of us or even Israel itself, isn't buying into it.

Demanding that a country under attack give up its defensive position while still in the middle of a war is just ridiculous.

I ask again when did that ever happen before.

What other nation is denied the right to defend itself again and again.

and then we have this nonsense about apartheid, wow. Nothing even remotely similar to apartheid exists in Israel and yet inevitably in the course of these kinds of conversations we here someone start singing the militant islamist party line.

Ridiculous hardly covers it.

Oh bugger off. Rocco provides a good explanation and manages to do so without constantly insulting opposing points of view simply because they disagree with you. Apartheid doesn't exist but some pretty powerful discrimination and inequalities exist that you just want to breeze right on over because it's Israel and since Israel is not as bad as it's neighbors it's ok.

These people? I get pretty darn sick of "these people" too only I suspect it's a different set of "these people".

"These people"? Stuff it.

‘The crime of apartheid’ means inhumane acts of a character similar to
those referred to in paragraph 1, committed in the context of an
institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one
racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the
intention of maintaining that regime;

https://www.icc-cpi.int/nr/rdonlyres/ea9aeff7-5752-4f84-be94-0a655eb30e16/0/rome_statute_english.pdf​

Many acts of Israel fit that description.

Apartheid was a distinct system of separation and inequality hardwired into law: Apartheid - Facts & Summary - HISTORY.com

I see with Israel a system closer to what existed between white Americans and Native Americans.

So not apartheid as your fellow team Palestine members claim. While the arab muslims have the right to stand for election and are promoted to positions or authority apartheid is not in evidence. What happens outside of Israel is not apartheid either as it only applies to nations.

 

[Phoenall]

You have more patience than I Rocco.

These people will stop at nothing to try and weaken the Israeli position. And it aggravates them no end that many of us or even Israel itself, isn't buying into it.

Demanding that a country under attack give up its defensive position while still in the middle of a war is just ridiculous.

I ask again when did that ever happen before.

What other nation is denied the right to defend itself again and again.

and then we have this nonsense about apartheid, wow. Nothing even remotely similar to apartheid exists in Israel and yet inevitably in the course of these kinds of conversations we here someone start singing the militant islamist party line.

Ridiculous hardly covers it.

Oh bugger off. Rocco provides a good explanation and manages to do so without constantly insulting opposing points of view simply because they disagree with you. Apartheid doesn't exist but some pretty powerful discrimination and inequalities exist that you just want to breeze right on over because it's Israel and since Israel is not as bad as it's neighbors it's ok.

These people? I get pretty darn sick of "these people" too only I suspect it's a different set of "these people".

"These people"? Stuff it.

‘The crime of apartheid’ means inhumane acts of a character similar to
those referred to in paragraph 1, committed in the context of an
institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one
racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the
intention of maintaining that regime;

https://www.icc-cpi.int/nr/rdonlyres/ea9aeff7-5752-4f84-be94-0a655eb30e16/0/rome_statute_english.pdf​

Many acts of Israel fit that description.

Apartheid was a distinct system of separation and inequality hardwired into law: Apartheid - Facts & Summary - HISTORY.com

I see with Israel a system closer to what existed between white Americans and Native Americans.

Indeed, That was domination by colonial powers over the natives. Exactly the case of Israel over the Palestinians.

Gaza and all the little pieces left of the West Bank are the reservations.

And the arab muslims that flooded the area are not colonisers are they. The little pieces that they have left of gaza and the west bank are not their reservations are they ?

 

[Phoenall]

I should have said libel since its written

Quote

li·bel

ˈlībəl/

noun

noun: libel; plural noun: libels

1. 1.
   LAW
   a published false statement that is damaging to a person's reputation; a written defamation.
2. synonyms:
3. defamation, defamation of character, character assassination, calumny, misrepresentation, scandalmongering; Moreaspersions, denigration, vilification, disparagement, derogation, insult, slander, malicious gossip;
   lie, slur, smear, untruth, false report;
   informalmudslinging, bad-mouthing
   "she sued two newspapers for libel"
   
4. 1. • the action or crime of publishing a false statement about a person."a councilor who sued two national newspapers for libel"
        
      • a false and malicious statement about a person.
      • a thing or circumstance that brings undeserved discredit on a person by misrepresentation.
   2. 
      
      
      
   3. 2.
      (in admiralty and ecclesiastical law) a plaintiff's written declaration.
   verb
   
   verb: libel; 3rd person present: libels; past tense: libelled; past participle: libelled; gerund or present participle: libelling; past tense: libeled; past participle: libeled; gerund or present participle: libeling
   1. 1.
      LAW
      defame (someone) by publishing a libel."she alleged the magazine had libeled her"
   2. synonyms:
   3. defame, malign, slander, blacken someone's name, sully someone's reputation, speak ill/evil of, traduce, smear, cast aspersions on, drag someone's name through the mud, besmirch, tarnish, taint, tell lies about, stain, impugn someone's character/integrity, vilify, denigrate, disparage, run down, stigmatize, discredit, slur; Moreinformaldis, bad-mouth;
      formalderogate, calumniate
      "she alleged the magazine had libeled her"
      
   4. 1. • make a false and malicious statement about.
      2. 
         
         
         
      3. 2.
         (in admiralty and ecclesiastical law) bring a suit against (someone).

End Quote

Regardless your very first example is miles off

Quote

Inequality: injustice; partiality

Examples:

• The permiting process for new construction: Israel continues to demolish the homes built without permits

End Quote

You have not proven that the permitting process is racially dependent

The process of building with out a permit however is an illegal one. In virtually every country.

If you want to convince anyone the issues are racially based instead of economically as I have. You'd do better supporting your accusations with say, a form that clearly asks for race on a building permit application.

What "false and malicious" statement have I made?

Permitting process: Palestinian building permits 'political', admits Israel

Jerusalem (AFP) - Approval of building plans for Palestinians in the occupied West Bank is subject to political considerations, Israeli defence officials have acknowledged.​

"Political considerations" that discriminate against one ethnic group and favor another ethnic group.

Discrimination?

You have yet to support your claim that the permiting process is skewed because of economics nor have you offered any evidence or specifics to disprove my claims or show them to be libel, slander etc.

Hold on here.

I showed plenty of economic information indicating that Arabs simply can't afford permits.

And of course there is a political process. What else would you call the planing and zoning department ? Its a government agency, highly subject to political whims

A political process that favors one ethnic group over another.

And yes when you make one accusation after another against Israel with nothing but paper thin anecdotal evidence in writing then its libel.

I have supported everyone of my claims with multiple sources and examples. You have not disputed any of my citations or claims with specific evidence. All you have shown is that the poverty rate among Arab Israeli's is much higher. If they can't afford a permit, they aren't going to be able to apply for it and they aren't going to be denied yet they are denied. ONE permit in 2014 approved. That is a number so far out of the ballpark compared with the Jewish permits approved.

It would appear to be malicious and deliberate.

What it appears to be is in your head. If you claim it is, then support it.

Did you ever dig up that building permit application ? Does it mention anything about race ?

I thought apartheid required a racial distinction ?

I never claimed Israel was apartheid.

Similar to your thought process then that favours one group over another


And in most cases they all go back to the same source, that happens to islaminazi propaganda

As is your inability to think clearly when you are demonising Jews and Israel


You have never said that those who do are wrong either.................

 

[Phoenall]

I should have said libel since its written

Quote

li·bel

ˈlībəl/

noun

noun: libel; plural noun: libels

1. 1.
   LAW
   a published false statement that is damaging to a person's reputation; a written defamation.
2. synonyms:
3. defamation, defamation of character, character assassination, calumny, misrepresentation, scandalmongering; Moreaspersions, denigration, vilification, disparagement, derogation, insult, slander, malicious gossip;
   lie, slur, smear, untruth, false report;
   informalmudslinging, bad-mouthing
   "she sued two newspapers for libel"
   
4. 1. • the action or crime of publishing a false statement about a person."a councilor who sued two national newspapers for libel"
        
      • a false and malicious statement about a person.
      • a thing or circumstance that brings undeserved discredit on a person by misrepresentation.
   2. 
      
      
      
   3. 2.
      (in admiralty and ecclesiastical law) a plaintiff's written declaration.
   verb
   
   verb: libel; 3rd person present: libels; past tense: libelled; past participle: libelled; gerund or present participle: libelling; past tense: libeled; past participle: libeled; gerund or present participle: libeling
   1. 1.
      LAW
      defame (someone) by publishing a libel."she alleged the magazine had libeled her"
   2. synonyms:
   3. defame, malign, slander, blacken someone's name, sully someone's reputation, speak ill/evil of, traduce, smear, cast aspersions on, drag someone's name through the mud, besmirch, tarnish, taint, tell lies about, stain, impugn someone's character/integrity, vilify, denigrate, disparage, run down, stigmatize, discredit, slur; Moreinformaldis, bad-mouth;
      formalderogate, calumniate
      "she alleged the magazine had libeled her"
      
   4. 1. • make a false and malicious statement about.
      2. 
         
         
         
      3. 2.
         (in admiralty and ecclesiastical law) bring a suit against (someone).

End Quote

Regardless your very first example is miles off

Quote

Inequality: injustice; partiality

Examples:

• The permiting process for new construction: Israel continues to demolish the homes built without permits

End Quote

You have not proven that the permitting process is racially dependent

The process of building with out a permit however is an illegal one. In virtually every country.

If you want to convince anyone the issues are racially based instead of economically as I have. You'd do better supporting your accusations with say, a form that clearly asks for race on a building permit application.

What "false and malicious" statement have I made?

Permitting process: Palestinian building permits 'political', admits Israel

Jerusalem (AFP) - Approval of building plans for Palestinians in the occupied West Bank is subject to political considerations, Israeli defence officials have acknowledged.​

"Political considerations" that discriminate against one ethnic group and favor another ethnic group.

Discrimination?

You have yet to support your claim that the permiting process is skewed because of economics nor have you offered any evidence or specifics to disprove my claims or show them to be libel, slander etc.

Hold on here.

I showed plenty of economic information indicating that Arabs simply can't afford permits.

And of course there is a political process. What else would you call the planing and zoning department ? Its a government agency, highly subject to political whims

A political process that favors one ethnic group over another.

And yes when you make one accusation after another against Israel with nothing but paper thin anecdotal evidence in writing then its libel.

I have supported everyone of my claims with multiple sources and examples. You have not disputed any of my citations or claims with specific evidence. All you have shown is that the poverty rate among Arab Israeli's is much higher. If they can't afford a permit, they aren't going to be able to apply for it and they aren't going to be denied yet they are denied. ONE permit in 2014 approved. That is a number so far out of the ballpark compared with the Jewish permits approved.

It would appear to be malicious and deliberate.

What it appears to be is in your head. If you claim it is, then support it.

Did you ever dig up that building permit application ? Does it mention anything about race ?

I thought apartheid required a racial distinction ?

I never claimed Israel was apartheid.

Well if your going to claim that the permitting process is racially biased then you might want to do more than just offer conjecture.

Show us the permit application and make particular note of where it asks for race.

presenting op ed pieces that simply complain complain complain and don't do anything to prove this charge of racial discrimination isn't a very strong argument.

Unless the documents ask for race then I don't see how anyone can claim that the permitting process takes race into account.

It doesn't need to be on the application. Everything is right there on everyone's ID.

Is it, then why does Israeli ID have boxes that need to be ticked before it denotes race, religion and such like. It is the same old tired lies that are destroyed every time they are posted , like the registration plates on cars. The arab muslims went to other sections of the area to register their cars so they showed a green plate, then complained that it was racial discrimination to single them out for having a Palestinian registration.

 

[Phoenall]

Apartheid in a nutshell.

Start @ 37:00

Just more islamonazi propaganda and blood libels that show how evil the Palestinians and their enablers are

 

[Phoenall]

Coyote, et al,

While Coyote may have asked for a position on the matter, I'm not sure that Coyote actually promoted the claim that Israel is "apartheid."

I never claimed Israel was apartheid.

(COMMENT)

The entire idea of using the allegation of "Apartheid" as a political means to accomplish, though the use of legal trickery and emotional sympathy, is becoming quite the unsubstantiated process of the day. It is the politically motivated use to suggest that some illegal activity is somehow justified using an argument that is deductively invalid or that has very little inductive strength. The constant allegation of "Apartheid" trying to be used by Arab Palestinians to impugn Israel.

9/4/2014
A US court has ruled against the Khulumani Support Group in its 12-year legal battle to bring US corporations to book for aiding the apartheid government. But Khulumani will appeal against this ruling, says national director Marjorie Jobson.

"We survived multiple assaults on this lawsuit," says Marjorie Jobson, Khulumani's national director.

The group, which has been fighting this battle since 2002, filed a complaint against Ford Motor Company and IBM in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, and in April this year, was offered the opportunity by presiding judge Shira Scheindlin to resubmit the complaint and provide more evidence.
SOURCE: South Africa: US Judge Rules Against Apartheid Claim
​

The general attempt is to suggest that Israel has no justification to establish a system of controls in the Israeli-occupied West Bank to counter Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP) attacks and offense which is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power; including the institution of Identification Systems (a very common security measure in nearly every country).

The HoAP allege that Israeli settlements, pursuant to the Oslo Accords, in which the agreement established both Areas "A" --- "B" --- "C" somehow violate Palestinian territory and sovereignty. Where separate roads military and checkpoints, to mitigate HoAP use of ambushes and improvised bombing is somehow unacceptable. The use of the Barriers to separate Israeli communities and HoAP communities to reduce the potential for infiltration, kidnapping and murders of of innocent civilians.

The HoAP content that Israel is not permitted to establish it own domestic laws pertaining to marriage, citizenship, land ownership and immigration restrictions to meet the needs of the Israeli Population. the HoAP consider all this as a form of an institutionalized regime supporting a systematic domination by one racial group (pick one of several that make-up the Israeli population) over any other racial group ( Arab Palestinians).

The HoAP do not consider any of the attacks against Israel and it citizens as a widespread or systematic attack directed against a civilian population.

Finally, the HoAP, attempt to convince their target audience that the feel-good General Assembly Resolutions have the force of law. They attempt to apply 21st Century considerations to acts that occurred in the 20th Century. They try to establish a belief that the Arab Palestinians had a state prior to the establishment of the Mandate.

All these claims, and many more, have been alleged by the HoAP as a justification for the threat and use of force against Israel.

Most Respectfully,
R

Actually her latest is that apartheid does not exist in Israel. And I failed to acknowledge that. But it seemed like a bit of a backflip as she's so quick to cry foul over every little thing Israel does.

I don't "cry foul" over every little thing.

Even when Israel gives away building permits to the Arab Muslims who otherwise can't afford them I still hear cries of foul rihgt and left. Having read a few of her own posts I think they gave away 1,100 free permits specifically to Arabs and thousands more retroactively which I'd be surprised if they were ever paid in full.

And they gave away many times that number of "free permits" to Jews, in addition to providing funding and infrastructure to illegal settlements (Jewish only). I doubt they were paid for in full or otherwise. What you failed to do is disprove my claims of inequalities and discrimminations beyond resorting to insults.

Deal is unless someone can come along and show where race is mentioned on the application then I call BS.

Really now....discrimmination doesn't exist unless race is specifically mentioned? Is that what you are now claiming? Think about that.

The sad part is that all the while these people are crying over imaginary prejudice in the Israeli system. I'd love to see anyone show a single building permit issued to a Jewish person in Gaza, or Jordan, or Syria or Saudi. Pretty sure thats just some of the Muslim countries where they don't allow Judaic people to buy land.

The sad part is, when you can't come up with a decent rebuttal or disprove my claims - throw in the other Middle East countries and obfuscate. It's kind of like saying well - Country X doesn't kill it's gays, they just throw them in prison for life, you guys shouldn't be complaining because Country Y throws them into bonfires. (and no, this isn't a commentary on gay policy in Israel).

Does kinda screw things up tho when Coyote tries to be reasonable doesn't it ;--)

Warning: criticizing Israel is not allowed.

You can criticize Israel and the Jews as much as you want, as long as it is deserved and the same level of criticism is levied at other nations, races and religions. So when you call out Israel on its building laws you should balance it by showing that the Palestinians in the same place are 5 times as strict when it comes to allowing Jews to build. Or when Israel enforces Jordanian law as required by the Geneva conventions that it cant enforce the same laws on the Jews because of the Geneva conventions

 

[Phoenall]

Here are some more "free permits"....actually, it's kind of a two-fer. Not only do they get retroactive legalization but they get to build on private Palestinian land. Inequities in government policies towards Palestinian landowners and Jewish landowners?

Ofra

Israel Moves to Retroactively Okay Settlement Homes Built on Palestinian Land
Israel announced on Thursday the initiation of a municipal plan that would retroactively legitimize structures in one of the largest West Bank settlements, and which were built on private Palestinian land.

Over 58% of Ofra's structures are built on private Palestinian land, a fact which has delayed potential construction plans.

However, in an attempt to allow further construction in Ofra, the state told the High Court of Justice on Thursday that it was drafting a jurisdiction plan for Ofra, the legal significance of which would be the retroactive approval of past construction plans, even on private Palestinian land.

Ofra - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Status under Israeli law
The Sasson Report in 2003 introduced criteria for determining the legality of a given settlement under Israeli law. In June 2007, Haaretz reported that 179 of the 600 buildings in Ofra are considered illegal by the Israeli administration.[28]

Ofra is built on private Palestinian land.[7] In a December 2008 report, B'Tselem has argued that while all Israeli settlements in the West Bank are illegal under international law, Ofra is illegal even under Israeli law stating that it violates 3 of the 4 established criteria for legality in the Sasson report. According to the report, while Ofra was authorized in 1979, it was never defined a jurisdictional area, never had an outline plan approved and no lawful building permits were issued. The report added that at least 58 percent of the settlement's built-up area is registered in the Land Registry Office under the names of Palestinians. Ofra residents claim the land was purchased legally from the Palestinians.[29][5] They contended that the land was purchased legally but suggested that showing documents of the purchases would lead to Palestinian retribution attacks. Land deals are usually kept secret to protect Palestinian sellers. [30] The Yesha Council accused B'Tselem of trying to remove Jews from their land saying the group "will spare no means - even lies" in order to harm the settlements.[29]

Homes were built on land bought with forged documents. Hundreds of structures in Ofra came under a demolition order from the Civil Administration after the villagers of Ein Yabrud laid a petition at the Israeli High Court of Justice over construction on their private land.[31]

A secret database, published by Haaretz in 2009, confirmed that Ofra was largely built on private Palestinian lands, without approval.[32] In September 2011, the Israeli government set up plans to legitimise the settlement retroactively.[33]

Ofra's settlement fence was built without permits over wide swathes of land belonging to the Palestinian villages of Deir Dibwan and Silwad. The IDF has confirmed that permits were lacking, and undertook to rebuild the fence closer to Ofra within 2012. Top quality soil from this agricultural land is systematically harvested, according to Haaretz 'stolen', for settlement use.[34] One house near the settlement, owned by the Palestinian Shehadeh family, who won a Jerusalem district court judgement in their favour, is still used as a yeshiva for Ofra's married men, and was expropriated by the IDF in favour of the settlers 10 days after the verdict was passed.[35] In the wake of a suit filed in 2008, on 9 February 2015, the Israeli Supreme Court ordered the demolition of 9 Ofra homes as standing on land with Palestinian title. The government was given2 years to demolish the housing,[36]

You keep bringing up " private Palestinian land ", would this happen to be Jewish owned land stolen in 1949 by the Palestinians with the help of Jordan. And then saw Jordan enact laws to "legally" steal the land title from the Jews ?