How can there ever be peace here?

[P F Tinmore]

Got a brain?

Sure.

Got a link?

Idiot, the discussion was about Israel and the Arab nations. The Palestinian Arabs had nothing to do with it.

If they were discussing occupied Palestinian land, why were the Palestinians left out?

 

[toomuchtime_]

Sure.

Got a link?

Idiot, the discussion was about Israel and the Arab nations. The Palestinian Arabs had nothing to do with it.

If they were discussing occupied Palestinian land, why were the Palestinians left out?

Maybe because they were not as stupid as you are.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Idiot, the discussion was about Israel and the Arab nations. The Palestinian Arabs had nothing to do with it.

If they were discussing occupied Palestinian land, why were the Palestinians left out?

Maybe because they were not as stupid as you are.

Where is that link to the Palestinians abandoning their land?

 

[docmauser1]

Arabs owned 90% of that land at the time zionists started populating the area, do the math!

No doubt arabs firmly believe in this idiocy, but we know better. As of 1947, 7% of the land of west palestine was owned by jews. 7-8% was owned by arabs. 16% was owned by absentee landlords, mostly churches. The remainder was state lands, owned first by the sultan and after that - by the british government of palestine.

Not true.

Very much true, of course.

... Arabs owned 85 percent of the land, while Jews owned less than 7 percent, ...

If it were "arabs settled 85 percent of the land", than we'd buy that, more or less. Arabs didn't own the land but rented it from absentee arab landlords. The majority of arabs in palestine were sharecroppers, indebted to their landlords, who were one of a handful of arab clans, which owned land that sultan didn't own.

 

[docmauser1]

Unfortunately, you're not the authority having jurisdiction to draw those conclusions. The AHJ, in this case, is the UNSC. And their legal interpretation of this area, is that of an "occupation".

If it were "legal", the ICJ wouldn't be doing stoopit dancing around the subject, of course:

• The ICJ ruled that, it had jurisdiction over the case, but it involved only a dispute between Israel and the UN, rather than a dispute between Israel and palistanians.
• The ICJ ruled that, provisions of the international law regarding israeli right of self-defense are inapplicable, since there is no state involved other than Israel.
• The ICJ ruled that the West Bank is an occupied territory.
• Thus, the ICJ holds that, there exists an armed conflict, and that territories are occupied territories of another state; and at the same time the ICJ asserts that, Israel has no right to defend itself, because there is no other state involved.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Unfortunately, you're not the authority having jurisdiction to draw those conclusions. The AHJ, in this case, is the UNSC. And their legal interpretation of this area, is that of an "occupation".

If it were "legal", the ICJ wouldn't be doing stoopit dancing around the subject, of course:

• The ICJ ruled that, it had jurisdiction over the case, but it involved only a dispute between Israel and the UN, rather than a dispute between Israel and palistanians.
• The ICJ ruled that, provisions of the international law regarding israeli right of self-defense are inapplicable, since there is no state involved other than Israel.
• The ICJ ruled that the West Bank is an occupied territory.
• Thus, the ICJ holds that, there exists an armed conflict, and that territories are occupied territories of another state; and at the same time the ICJ asserts that, Israel has no right to defend itself, because there is no other state involved.

Everyone dances around the issues when it comes to Israel. It is said that Palestine is not occupied because it is not a state. Yet the West Bank and Gaza were occupied by Jordan and Egypt. Nobody questions that. The West Bank and Gaza are still called occupied Palestinian territories. Nobody, but Israel, questions that.

 

[Billo_Really]

Unfortunately, you're not the authority having jurisdiction to draw those conclusions. The AHJ, in this case, is the UNSC. And their legal interpretation of this area, is that of an "occupation".

If it were "legal", the ICJ wouldn't be doing stoopit dancing around the subject, of course:

• The ICJ ruled that, it had jurisdiction over the case, but it involved only a dispute between Israel and the UN, rather than a dispute between Israel and palistanians.
• The ICJ ruled that, provisions of the international law regarding israeli right of self-defense are inapplicable, since there is no state involved other than Israel.
• The ICJ ruled that the West Bank is an occupied territory.
• Thus, the ICJ holds that, there exists an armed conflict, and that territories are occupied territories of another state; and at the same time the ICJ asserts that, Israel has no right to defend itself, because there is no other state involved.

Oh c'mon, do you really expect people to believe in something so ridiculous as to "Israel does not have a right to defend itself". That's kind of a "universal principle", that everyone on the planet, has a right to defend themselves. Which happens to be codified in Article 51 of the UN Charter.

As much as I am disgusted with the way Israel gives a big FU to international law, even I believe they have a right to fire back at a rocket attack. Can you post a link that backs up that claim?

 

[Billo_Really]

No doubt arabs firmly believe in this idiocy, but we know better. As of 1947, 7% of the land of west palestine was owned by jews. 7-8% was owned by arabs. 16% was owned by absentee landlords, mostly churches. The remainder was state lands, owned first by the sultan and after that - by the british government of palestine.

Not true.

Very much true, of course.

... Arabs owned 85 percent of the land, while Jews owned less than 7 percent, ...

If it were "arabs settled 85 percent of the land", than we'd buy that, more or less. Arabs didn't own the land but rented it from absentee arab landlords. The majority of arabs in palestine were sharecroppers, indebted to their landlords, who were one of a handful of arab clans, which owned land that sultan didn't own.

Like I said, you can't migrate into an area and automatically have more rights than the people indigenous to that area. They have rights too. Let's not forget, over 700,000 of them were driven out through the use of Jewish terrorism at the hands of Irgun. It wasn't muslim's who bombed the Star of David hotel.

And where is Irgun today? Why, they are the Likud Party.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Unfortunately, you're not the authority having jurisdiction to draw those conclusions. The AHJ, in this case, is the UNSC. And their legal interpretation of this area, is that of an "occupation".

If it were "legal", the ICJ wouldn't be doing stoopit dancing around the subject, of course:

• The ICJ ruled that, it had jurisdiction over the case, but it involved only a dispute between Israel and the UN, rather than a dispute between Israel and palistanians.
• The ICJ ruled that, provisions of the international law regarding israeli right of self-defense are inapplicable, since there is no state involved other than Israel.
• The ICJ ruled that the West Bank is an occupied territory.
• Thus, the ICJ holds that, there exists an armed conflict, and that territories are occupied territories of another state; and at the same time the ICJ asserts that, Israel has no right to defend itself, because there is no other state involved.

Oh c'mon, do you really expect people to believe in something so ridiculous as to "Israel does not have a right to defend itself". That's kind of a "universal principle", that everyone on the planet, has a right to defend themselves. Which happens to be codified in Article 51 of the UN Charter.

As much as I am disgusted with the way Israel gives a big FU to international law, even I believe they have a right to fire back at a rocket attack. Can you post a link that backs up that claim?

That's kind of a "universal principle", that everyone on the planet, has a right to defend themselves.

The Palestinians have the right to defend themselves. It is their country.

 

[docmauser1]

Unfortunately, you're not the authority having jurisdiction to draw those conclusions. The AHJ, in this case, is the UNSC. And their legal interpretation of this area, is that of an "occupation".

If it were "legal", the ICJ wouldn't be doing stoopit dancing around the subject, of course:

• The ICJ ruled that, it had jurisdiction over the case, but it involved only a dispute between Israel and the UN, rather than a dispute between Israel and palistanians.
• The ICJ ruled that, provisions of the international law regarding israeli right of self-defense are inapplicable, since there is no state involved other than Israel.
• The ICJ ruled that the West Bank is an occupied territory.
• Thus, the ICJ holds that, there exists an armed conflict, and that territories are occupied territories of another state; and at the same time the ICJ asserts that, Israel has no right to defend itself, because there is no other state involved.

Everyone dances around the issues when it comes to Israel.

Indeed, political correctness and pandering to arabs has proliferated so that even courts sound like a palistanian ministry of agitprop.

It is said that Palestine is not occupied because it is not a state.

Of course! At the very best it is a disputed territory, like James Baker let that be known to Hoda Tawfik of the Al Ahram.

Yet the West Bank and Gaza were occupied by Jordan and Egypt. Nobody questions that.

That's what arabs do!

The West Bank and Gaza are still called occupied Palestinian territories.

Old habits, generously funded by the communist party of the happily dead Soviet Union, evidently die hard.

Nobody, but Israel, questions that.

Evidently Israel knows, Nobel prize winners, brains and all that.

 

[Billo_Really]

Of course, none of this applies to the West Bank. Jordan launched a war of aggression against Israel, not the other way around, and since the Jordanian occupation of the West Bank was considered illegal by everyone except Britain, none of the institutions of government introduced by Jordan had any standing.

There were no forced transfers of populations

Neither the Israeli presence in the West Bank nor the Israeli West Bank communities are in any sense illegal.

Unfortunately, you're not the authority having jurisdiction to draw those conclusions. The AHJ, in this case, is the UNSC. And their legal interpretation of this area, is that of an "occupation".

But not an illegal occupation. Israel offered to give up the land it had captured in return for peace, but the Arab nations that had lost the land refused to take it back when they made peace with Israel. The dispute with the Palestinian Arabs is unrelated to the circumstances that led to the occupation. Since the Jordanian occupation of the land was illegal, its status at the time Israel captured it from Jordan was that of an unincorporated remnant of the former UN Protectorate and that remains its status, with the exception of Jerusalem, because the Palestinian Arabs have been unable to agree among themselves on a two state solution in which they would live in peace with the Jewish state of Israel.

Unfortunately for you, there isn't a single country on the planet that agrees with your position. The only legal document that is in force, is the "Mandate for Palestine".

The “Mandate for Palestine,” an historical League of Nations document, laid down the Jewish legal right to settle anywhere in western Palestine, between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea, an entitlement unaltered in international law. The “Mandate for Palestine” was not a naive vision briefly embraced by the international community. Fifty-one member countries – the entire League of Nations – unanimously declared on July 24, 1922:

“Whereas recognition has been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country.”

It is important to point out that political rights to self-determination as a polity for Arabs were guaranteed by the same League of Nations in four other mandates – in Lebanon and Syria (The French Mandate), Iraq, and later Trans-Jordan [The British Mandate].

Whether you like it or not, that's the law!

 

[P F Tinmore]

If it were "legal", the ICJ wouldn't be doing stoopit dancing around the subject, of course:

• The ICJ ruled that, it had jurisdiction over the case, but it involved only a dispute between Israel and the UN, rather than a dispute between Israel and palistanians.
• The ICJ ruled that, provisions of the international law regarding israeli right of self-defense are inapplicable, since there is no state involved other than Israel.
• The ICJ ruled that the West Bank is an occupied territory.
• Thus, the ICJ holds that, there exists an armed conflict, and that territories are occupied territories of another state; and at the same time the ICJ asserts that, Israel has no right to defend itself, because there is no other state involved.

Everyone dances around the issues when it comes to Israel.

Indeed, political correctness and pandering to arabs has proliferated so that even courts sound like a palistanian ministry of agitprop.Of course! At the very best it is a disputed territory, like James Baker let that be known to Hoda Tawfik of the Al Ahram.That's what arabs do!

The West Bank and Gaza are still called occupied Palestinian territories.

Old habits, generously funded by the communist party of the happily dead Soviet Union, evidently die hard.

Nobody, but Israel, questions that.

Evidently Israel knows, Nobel prize winners, brains and all that.

Evidently Israel knows, Nobel prize winners, brains and all that.

Yeah right! Israel has one of the most powerful militaries in the world. Yet it has been battling Palestinian civilians for over 60 years and has not won yet.

Now that takes brains.

 

[docmauser1]

Everyone dances around the issues when it comes to Israel.

Indeed, political correctness and pandering to arabs has proliferated so that even courts sound like a palistanian ministry of agitprop.Of course! At the very best it is a disputed territory, like James Baker let that be known to Hoda Tawfik of the Al Ahram.That's what arabs do!Old habits, generously funded by the communist party of the happily dead Soviet Union, evidently die hard.Evidently Israel knows, Nobel prize winners, brains and all that.

Yeah right! Israel has one of the most powerful militaries in the world. Yet it has been battling Palestinian civilians for over 60 years and has not won yet. Now that takes brains.

Indeed, Israel is humane. We may say, even too humane for its own good. Dooh.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Unfortunately, you're not the authority having jurisdiction to draw those conclusions. The AHJ, in this case, is the UNSC. And their legal interpretation of this area, is that of an "occupation".

But not an illegal occupation. Israel offered to give up the land it had captured in return for peace, but the Arab nations that had lost the land refused to take it back when they made peace with Israel. The dispute with the Palestinian Arabs is unrelated to the circumstances that led to the occupation. Since the Jordanian occupation of the land was illegal, its status at the time Israel captured it from Jordan was that of an unincorporated remnant of the former UN Protectorate and that remains its status, with the exception of Jerusalem, because the Palestinian Arabs have been unable to agree among themselves on a two state solution in which they would live in peace with the Jewish state of Israel.

Unfortunately for you, there isn't a single country on the planet that agrees with your position. The only legal document that is in force, is the "Mandate for Palestine".

The “Mandate for Palestine,” an historical League of Nations document, laid down the Jewish legal right to settle anywhere in western Palestine, between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea, an entitlement unaltered in international law. The “Mandate for Palestine” was not a naive vision briefly embraced by the international community. Fifty-one member countries – the entire League of Nations – unanimously declared on July 24, 1922:

“Whereas recognition has been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country.”

It is important to point out that political rights to self-determination as a polity for Arabs were guaranteed by the same League of Nations in four other mandates – in Lebanon and Syria (The French Mandate), Iraq, and later Trans-Jordan [The British Mandate].

Whether you like it or not, that's the law!

The “Mandate for Palestine,” an historical League of Nations document, laid down the Jewish legal right to settle anywhere in western Palestine, between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea, an entitlement unaltered in international law.

ART. 7.

The Administration of Palestine shall be responsible for enacting a nationality law. There shall be included in this law provisions framed so as to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine.

The Avalon Project : The Palestine Mandate

Indeed, any Jewish citizen of Palestine can live anywhere in Palestine.

 

[docmauser1]

The Palestinians have the right to defend themselves. It is their country.

Which they didn't have in the first place, of course.

 

[docmauser1]

Indeed, any Jewish citizen of Palestine can live anywhere in Palestine.

And they do, of course!

 

[Billo_Really]

But not an illegal occupation. Israel offered to give up the land it had captured in return for peace, but the Arab nations that had lost the land refused to take it back when they made peace with Israel. The dispute with the Palestinian Arabs is unrelated to the circumstances that led to the occupation. Since the Jordanian occupation of the land was illegal, its status at the time Israel captured it from Jordan was that of an unincorporated remnant of the former UN Protectorate and that remains its status, with the exception of Jerusalem, because the Palestinian Arabs have been unable to agree among themselves on a two state solution in which they would live in peace with the Jewish state of Israel.

Unfortunately for you, there isn't a single country on the planet that agrees with your position. The only legal document that is in force, is the "Mandate for Palestine". Whether you like it or not, that's the law!

The “Mandate for Palestine,” an historical League of Nations document, laid down the Jewish legal right to settle anywhere in western Palestine, between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea, an entitlement unaltered in international law.

ART. 7.

The Administration of Palestine shall be responsible for enacting a nationality law. There shall be included in this law provisions framed so as to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine.

The Avalon Project : The Palestine Mandate

Indeed, any Jewish citizen of Palestine can live anywhere in Palestine.

That's right! They just can't do it with the help of the Israeli government. Only then, does it become illegal.

And it's worth mentioning how appaulling that governments treatment of jewish citizens who belong to human rights groups in Israel. Even if all you express, is that both sides should be treated fairly, that's enough to put a bullseye on your back and make you an enemy of the state.

 

[docmauser1]

Unfortunately, you're not the authority having jurisdiction to draw those conclusions. The AHJ, in this case, is the UNSC. And their legal interpretation of this area, is that of an "occupation".

If it were "legal", the ICJ wouldn't be doing stoopit dancing around the subject, of course:

• The ICJ ruled that, it had jurisdiction over the case, but it involved only a dispute between Israel and the UN, rather than a dispute between Israel and palistanians.
• The ICJ ruled that, provisions of the international law regarding israeli right of self-defense are inapplicable, since there is no state involved other than Israel.
• The ICJ ruled that the West Bank is an occupied territory.
• Thus, the ICJ holds that, there exists an armed conflict, and that territories are occupied territories of another state; and at the same time the ICJ asserts that, Israel has no right to defend itself, because there is no other state involved.

Oh c'mon, do you really expect people to believe in something so ridiculous as to "Israel does not have a right to defend itself".

We don't, but arabs do believe it! As well as they firmly believe that life's a game with a save-reload procedure! Funny shits!

That's kind of a "universal principle", that everyone on the planet, has a right to defend themselves. Which happens to be codified in Article 51 of the UN Charter.

We're most sure arabs hate it, of course.

As much as I am disgusted with the way Israel gives a big FU to international law,

And rightfully so, of course.

even I believe they have a right to fire back at a rocket attack.

But not in that idiotically humane way, of course, wasting hours of flight time, maintenance, ammo, instead of building thousands of cheap dumb rockets and return the favor in the general direction of gazabad. That's proportional, indeed.

 

[Billo_Really]

Indeed, political correctness and pandering to arabs has proliferated so that even courts sound like a palistanian ministry of agitprop.Of course! At the very best it is a disputed territory, like James Baker let that be known to Hoda Tawfik of the Al Ahram.That's what arabs do!Old habits, generously funded by the communist party of the happily dead Soviet Union, evidently die hard.Evidently Israel knows, Nobel prize winners, brains and all that.

Yeah right! Israel has one of the most powerful militaries in the world. Yet it has been battling Palestinian civilians for over 60 years and has not won yet. Now that takes brains.

Indeed, Israel is humane. We may say, even too humane for its own good. Dooh.

What is humane about punishing 1.5 million Gazan's with an economic blockade, because you didn't like who Gazan's elected to represent them in a democratic election?

I'll tell you what is humane, not punishing someone for a crime they didn't commit.

There are human rights groups in Israel, but the Knesset is in the process of outlawing those.

 

[docmauser1]

Not true.

Very much true, of course.

... Arabs owned 85 percent of the land, while Jews owned less than 7 percent, ...

If it were "arabs settled 85 percent of the land", than we'd buy that, more or less. Arabs didn't own the land but rented it from absentee arab landlords. The majority of arabs in palestine were sharecroppers, indebted to their landlords, who were one of a handful of arab clans, which owned land that sultan didn't own.

Like I said, you can't migrate into an area and automatically have more rights than the people indigenous to that area. They have rights too. Let's not forget, over 700,000 of them were driven out through the use of Jewish terrorism at the hands of Irgun.

Let us recall Winnie Churchill, describing that allegedly "indigenous" folks "So far from being persecuted, the Arabs have crowded into the country and multiplied till their population has increased more than even all world Jewry could lift up the Jewish population."
Very much illegal arab immigrants from the hood.

It wasn't muslim's who bombed the Star of David hotel.

Oh, we're most sure muslims are properly grieving they didn't do it.