I will not Bow!

[ForeverYoung436]

And within there are the INTERNATIONAL LAWS dealing with why an occupying power can occupy the land and what the indigenous can do about it. No where does it say that they can use terrorist attacks to force the occupying power out. It also says that any such terrorist attacks can be met with superior force and the culprits shot down. Any civilian of the occupying power that owns land in the occupied zone is afforded protection by the Geneva conventions and any attacks on them are WAR CRIMES and CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY.

You are probably right that a citizen of the Occupying Power does have the right to make a private land transaction with a local of the Occupied territory.

But most settlements are not built on such land. They are built on private land confiscated by the military for military purposes or private land that has been converted into state land by the military and then misused for Israeli settlements.

"But most settlements are not built on such land". A previous post of your asserted that only 33% of settlements are built on private land. So, even according to you, 66%--or most--settlements are NOT built on private land.

 

[P F Tinmore]

And within there are the INTERNATIONAL LAWS dealing with why an occupying power can occupy the land and what the indigenous can do about it. No where does it say that they can use terrorist attacks to force the occupying power out. It also says that any such terrorist attacks can be met with superior force and the culprits shot down. Any civilian of the occupying power that owns land in the occupied zone is afforded protection by the Geneva conventions and any attacks on them are WAR CRIMES and CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY.

You are probably right that a citizen of the Occupying Power does have the right to make a private land transaction with a local of the Occupied territory.

But most settlements are not built on such land. They are built on private land confiscated by the military for military purposes or private land that has been converted into state land by the military and then misused for Israeli settlements.

"But most settlements are not built on such land". A previous post of your asserted that only 33% of settlements are built on private land. So, even according to you, 66%--or most--settlements are NOT built on private land.

True, they are built on Palestinian state land.

 

[Victory67]

"But most settlements are not built on such land". A previous post of your asserted that only 33% of settlements are built on private land. So, even according to you, 66%--or most--settlements are NOT built on private land.

Yes, most settlements are not built on private land.

But most of the main settlements like Ariel and Maale Adumim are built on private land as per the information provided by the Israeli government.

 

[Victory67]

So this gives the Palestinians the right to ignore the International laws and the Geneva conventions because they have not singed them. Making them the ones that have the get out of jail card. And you expect Israel to roll over and die because of this.

According to International law Israel is in full compliance because the Palestinians have refused to sing up. They know that once they sign a peace deal they will be forced into complying with International law and they will be seen as the aggressors. And you wont have a leg to stand on regarding your JEW HATRED.

Israel has signed the 4th Geneva Conventions. Palestine has not.

If Israel doesn't want to be bound by the treaty they should leave it.

Otherwise they are in violation of the treaty and can be brought before the International Criminal Court to face charges of war crimes for theft and misappropriation of private land in Occupied Territories.

 

[ForeverYoung436]

"But most settlements are not built on such land". A previous post of your asserted that only 33% of settlements are built on private land. So, even according to you, 66%--or most--settlements are NOT built on private land.

Yes, most settlements are not built on private land.

But most of the main settlements like Ariel and Maale Adumim are built on private land as per the information provided by the Israeli government.

Those two "settlements" that you just mentioned are full cities now. Although they have no Biblical or specifically Jewish association, in terms of population and development, they are impossible to give up. My brother-in-law's family live in Maale Adumim, as well as the brother of one of my best friends. My own immediate family recently bought 2 apartments there. It's considered a suburb of Jerusalem. In any final peace agreement, Maale Adumim will probably be exchanged for some land in the Negev.

 

[Victory67]

Those two "settlements" that you just mentioned are full cities now. Although they have no Biblical or specifically Jewish association, in terms of population and development, they are impossible to give up. My brother-in-law's family live in Maale Adumim, as well as the brother of one of my best friends. My own immediate family recently bought 2 apartments there. It's considered a suburb of Jerusalem. In any final peace agreement, Maale Adumim will probably be exchanged for some land in the Negev.

If Palestine chooses to let Israel keep these settlements in a final peace accord that is their right. But I also think the land owners deserve financial or land compensation for their lost property.

But if no accord is reached Israel should be taken before the ICC to face war crimes charges.

 

[Phoenall]

And within there are the INTERNATIONAL LAWS dealing with why an occupying power can occupy the land and what the indigenous can do about it. No where does it say that they can use terrorist attacks to force the occupying power out. It also says that any such terrorist attacks can be met with superior force and the culprits shot down. Any civilian of the occupying power that owns land in the occupied zone is afforded protection by the Geneva conventions and any attacks on them are WAR CRIMES and CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY.

You are probably right that a citizen of the Occupying Power does have the right to make a private land transaction with a local of the Occupied territory.

But most settlements are not built on such land. They are built on private land confiscated by the military for military purposes or private land that has been converted into state land by the military and then misused for Israeli settlements.

Can you prove that the land was not owned by Jews prior to 1948 ?

 

[Phoenall]

And they follow them to the letter if you bother to check what they say, they have occupied the land and have clearly stated that at the end of peace talks that have a mutually agreed outcome they will return the lands to their legal owners. UNTIL SUCH A TIME THEY WILL OCCUPY THE LAND AS A DEFENSIVE MEASURE AS LAID DOWN IN THE GENEVA CONVENTIONS.

Civilian housing do not count as military installations.

The Occupying Power only has the right to confiscate private land to install bases and other military infrastructure. Housing got families and children do not count as military bases or military infrastructure.

The only settlements that are legal are those that were built on legally purchased land and those are few and far between.

Land stolen in 1948 is still land owned by Jews, and they have a right of return. Now show that the land was not Jewish prior to the expulsion of the jews by the arabs ?

 

[Indeependent]

And they follow them to the letter if you bother to check what they say, they have occupied the land and have clearly stated that at the end of peace talks that have a mutually agreed outcome they will return the lands to their legal owners. UNTIL SUCH A TIME THEY WILL OCCUPY THE LAND AS A DEFENSIVE MEASURE AS LAID DOWN IN THE GENEVA CONVENTIONS.

Civilian housing do not count as military installations.

The Occupying Power only has the right to confiscate private land to install bases and other military infrastructure. Housing got families and children do not count as military bases or military infrastructure.

The only settlements that are legal are those that were built on legally purchased land and those are few and far between.

Land stolen in 1948 is still land owned by Jews, and they have a right of return. Now show that the land was not Jewish prior to the expulsion of the jews by the arabs ?

Where's Indiana Jones when you need him?

 

[Phoenall]

Being attacked by other nations does not obsolve a nation from having to abide by those international laws and treaties that a nation has committed to abide by.

The whole purpose of the Geneva Conventions is to set rules and laws for how nations are supposed to act during and after times of war, regardless of how the war began and ended.

If Israel no longer feels obligated to follow the Geneva Conventions, they should remove themselves from the treaty.

And become just like your friends the islamonazi's, then you would have no reason to spew out your JEW HATRED and would have to find another outlet for your hate.

Phoenall calm down . Pbel and Tinmore don't hate Jews.

They do which is why they want to see Israel destroyed and the Jews wiped out

 

[Phoenall]

And within there are the INTERNATIONAL LAWS dealing with why an occupying power can occupy the land and what the indigenous can do about it. No where does it say that they can use terrorist attacks to force the occupying power out. It also says that any such terrorist attacks can be met with superior force and the culprits shot down. Any civilian of the occupying power that owns land in the occupied zone is afforded protection by the Geneva conventions and any attacks on them are WAR CRIMES and CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY.

You are probably right that a citizen of the Occupying Power does have the right to make a private land transaction with a local of the Occupied territory.

But most settlements are not built on such land. They are built on private land confiscated by the military for military purposes or private land that has been converted into state land by the military and then misused for Israeli settlements.

"But most settlements are not built on such land". A previous post of your asserted that only 33% of settlements are built on private land. So, even according to you, 66%--or most--settlements are NOT built on private land.

No doubt the other 33% is in question as well, with Palestinians claiming land they stole from the Jews in 1948.

 

[Victory67]

Can you prove that the land was not owned by Jews prior to 1948 ?

Yes, I can.

Filealestine Land ownership by sub-district (1945).jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mandatory Palestine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The vast majority of land owned in the West Bank in 1947 was owned by Arabs and not Jews.

 

[Phoenall]

You are probably right that a citizen of the Occupying Power does have the right to make a private land transaction with a local of the Occupied territory.

But most settlements are not built on such land. They are built on private land confiscated by the military for military purposes or private land that has been converted into state land by the military and then misused for Israeli settlements.

"But most settlements are not built on such land". A previous post of your asserted that only 33% of settlements are built on private land. So, even according to you, 66%--or most--settlements are NOT built on private land.

True, they are built on Palestinian state land.

Stolen from the indigenous Jews in 1948

 

[Indeependent]

Wow! They gave that all up to allow Jordan to roll in tanks.
Many those Arab land owners should have told Jordan to stay off their property.

 

[Victory67]

Stolen from the indigenous Jews in 1948

The vast majority of land in Palestine in 1947 was not owned by Jews.

You can't steal something from someone if it was never owned by them.

 

[Indeependent]

Stolen from the indigenous Jews in 1948

The vast majority of land in Palestine in 1947 was not owned by Jews.

You can't steal something from someone if it was never owned by them.

They left...Remember that part?

 

[Victory67]

They left...Remember that part?

The Arabs of the West Bank never left.

But Israel did kick many of them off their land and made them homeless.

 

[Kondor3]

Stolen from the indigenous Jews in 1948

The vast majority of land in Palestine in 1947 was not owned by Jews.

You can't steal something from someone if it was never owned by them.

They left...Remember that part?

Abandoned land = forfeited land = change of title deed

All kinds of legal tricks to get around that... including seizure for back-taxes, etc...

Courtroom fun for young and old, for years to come...

 

[Victory67]

Abandoned land = forfeited land = change of title deed

All kinds of legal tricks to get around that... including seizure for back-taxes, etc...

Yes, we know that Israel has used all sorts of legal trickery in order to steal land. They have become pretty masterful at this.

 

[Ronin]

And within there are the INTERNATIONAL LAWS dealing with why an occupying power can occupy the land and what the indigenous can do about it. No where does it say that they can use terrorist attacks to force the occupying power out. It also says that any such terrorist attacks can be met with superior force and the culprits shot down. Any civilian of the occupying power that owns land in the occupied zone is afforded protection by the Geneva conventions and any attacks on them are WAR CRIMES and CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY.

You are probably right that a citizen of the Occupying Power does have the right to make a private land transaction with a local of the Occupied territory.

But most settlements are not built on such land. They are built on private land confiscated by the military for military purposes or private land that has been converted into state land by the military and then misused for Israeli settlements.

Can you prove that the land was not owned by Jews prior to 1948 ?

Does it matter if any proof is shown? Any documents or sources of information are going to be subjective historical interpretation for one side or the other. Any "proof" shown is going to be viewed as Arab propaganda.

If a supposedly objective source such as the UN or British Census taken are used they are titled biased or inaccurate.

Overall, if a person or persons believe they are entitled to something by the word of God- is there really any reasoning beyond that point?