International Law: Jerusalem Belongs To Israel

[Victory67]

which international law is the OP referring to?

The one where you give YOUR land back to the indians.

In other words, the OP is a lie.

 

[flacaltenn]

Geneva conventions and UN charter are the two mains ones that the Palestinians are breaking

They are not signatories to those treaties.

Israel is.

That's because they aren't recognized as a legal party to those treaties..
Your whole thesis about Israel going back to 67 borders would depend on the RECOGNIZED owners of those lands to commit to peace. Meaning that the West Bank and E. Jerusalem which were wholly annexed by Jordan and DEVELOPED by Jordan would be represented by Jordan in those discussions.. Except that the Kingdom of Jordan washed its hands of the Pali problem YEARS ago because those folks were a threat to the stability of that country.

Even the Arab League as a WHOLE is incapable of postulating a stable and viable Palestinian Homeland at this point.

 

[Kondor3]

Nice exercise in taking something out-of-context, little Palestinian propaganda shill.

The entire segment (and the point being made therein) reads as follows...


Maybe there is.

Maybe there isn't.

But it doesn't matter.

Israel holds it, and will continue to hold it.

It's theirs now.

The point of the exercise being that Jerusalem is back in the hands of the Jews again for the first time in 1900-some-odd years, and that it's going to stay that way, now.

You're very welcome to believe that I don't have the 'chops' to be in this conversation. I do love it so when arrogant Goebbels-wannabes like yourself make that mistake.

I merely point-out that the existence of International Law supporting or contesting Israel's right to Jerusalem doesn't matter a damn in the Real World that most of us (with a few exceptions, such as yourself) inhabit.

Jerusalem is the Heart and Soul of Eretz Yisrael and you may never have it back again, without destroying Israel and climbing over the dead bodies of its Jews, in order to get it.

Metaphorically speaking, the Jews of the world have been singing 'Next year in Jerusalem' since 70 A.D.

And then they made that a Reality in 1967, after the Jordanians so foolishly attacked them, and got their nasty asses kicked, and lost the West Bank and the Holy City to the Jews.

Both sides may bring elements of International Law to bear upon the question, and both sides may interpret that law and the conditions such law observes and establishes, in order to reinforce their claims, so that it becomes another hopelessly tangled mess.

But Israel has chosen to simply cut the Gordian Knot in this case, rather than condemning itself to a fruitless and pointless exercise in trying to un-tie it.

In the final analysis, possession is 9/10 of the law, and the power to sustain that possession is the other 1/10 - and the Israelis own that poker hand in the Real World, not the Palestinians.

Between that Reality, and having waited 1900 years to get Jerusalem back, anyone who genuinely believes that International Law - one way or another - has any substantive and operative bearing upon the Jews' continued possession of Jerusalem, is as foolish as the Jordanians who gave the Israelis the excuse they needed to take it all back - for keeps.

That, too, was the point being made, for anyone of even average intelligence who has been engaged in related conversations over time, and who truly understood what they were dealing with, in connection with the value placed upon Jerusalem, and the non-negotiable status of the Holy City, in the hearts and minds of most Jews worthy of the name.

The fact that you cherry-picked a fragment of that modest, plain-spoken and inter-dependent text segment, and ignored the meat (substance) of the thing, in connection with so significant a point, just to take a cheap shot at someone, speaks volumes about your intellectual integrity and your own 'street-cred' for participating in such discussions with the grownups.

Back to the Kiddie Table for you, child... try again later, once you've thought things through a little better.

"Damage control..."

Nope.

Simpy calling you out for excerpting a slice of text, to conjure an excuse to take a pot-shot at a colleague.

Which is exactly what you did, for all to see.

This last bit wasn't even a respectable attempt at grade-school -caliber deflection.

You are, among other things, a creature of limited imagination and creativity.

"...If asked you to name 5 international laws that apply to Israel/Palestine, I bet you couldn't do it..."

Quite true.

Off the top of my head.

Given that much of the corpus of relevant international law can be interpreted both in favor of and in opposition to Jerusalem remaining in Israeli hands, and given that Israel will never let go of Jerusalem again, now that they have it, international law be damned, I see little point in committing to memory information bytes that will never become operative in the Real World.

That's why God invented Google.

And, like many folks, I'm every bit as capable of assessing the verbiage in a particular statute or treaty and gleaning the salient points and gauging their applicability, etc.

Next slide, please.

"...You don't know..."

Oh, openly and candidly and freely admitted (above); I have zero qualms about conceding that very point.

"...you're just faking your way through this..."

One can hardly fake one's way through something when one openly admits that he/she is not a Subject Matter Expert with respect to applicable law or its operability in such a context.

One does not need to be a Subject Matter Expert in such things in order to assess what is being discussed and to contribute, in a message-board setting.

If you have a JD in International Law, then you have more Street Cred on the subject then you have manifested to date.

"...and wasting peoples bandwidth."

Pot, meet kettle.

You just get pissy about such things because you come here spoiling for a fight on such matters, and then someone like me comes along, and openly declares that none of that shit matters, in the Real World - thereby treating the substance of your hoped-for fight as unimportant in the larger scheme of things - cutting the Gordian Knot, and depriving you of endless hours of whiny-biotch behaviors in connection with trying to lord-it over your colleagues, and pretending superior Subject Matter Expertise on the subject.

Sux to be you, child. Sux to be on your side of the debate, too, I'm sure.

My condolences...

 

[Kondor3]

Geneva conventions and UN charter are the two mains ones that the Palestinians are breaking

They are not signatories to those treaties.

Israel is.

That's because they aren't recognized as a legal party to those treaties..
Your whole thesis about Israel going back to 67 borders would depend on the RECOGNIZED owners of those lands to commit to peace. Meaning that the West Bank and E. Jerusalem which were wholly annexed by Jordan and DEVELOPED by Jordan would be represented by Jordan in those discussions.. Except that the Kingdom of Jordan washed its hands of the Pali problem YEARS ago because those folks were a threat to the stability of that country.

Even the Arab League as a WHOLE is incapable of postulating a stable and viable Palestinian Homeland at this point.

This was well said, and a succinct and intelligent recap of the vacuum left behind by virtue of the Jordanians abrogating their responsibilities in the matter.

 

[Roudy]

which international law is the OP referring to?

The one where you give YOUR land back to the indians.

Personally, instead of giving land back, I'd like to strike a partnership with some Indians to open a few Casinos on their ancient homeland, like it was in the old days when they roamed on their horses. If you know any Indians like that please PM me. Thanks.

 

[Roudy]

Geneva conventions and UN charter are the two mains ones that the Palestinians are breaking

They are not signatories to those treaties.

Israel is.

That's because they aren't recognized as a legal party to those treaties..
Your whole thesis about Israel going back to 67 borders would depend on the RECOGNIZED owners of those lands to commit to peace. Meaning that the West Bank and E. Jerusalem which were wholly annexed by Jordan and DEVELOPED by Jordan would be represented by Jordan in those discussions.. Except that the Kingdom of Jordan washed its hands of the Pali problem YEARS ago because those folks were a threat to the stability of that country.

Even the Arab League as a WHOLE is incapable of postulating a stable and viable Palestinian Homeland at this point.

Well said.

 

[Infidel]

which international law is the OP referring to?

The one where you give YOUR land back to the indians.

In other words, the OP is a lie.

Actually, I was wrong. It's the same law that allows you to keep your indian land. I think they call it the infected blanket law.

 

[Victory67]

The one where you give YOUR land back to the indians.

In other words, the OP is a lie.

Actually, I was wrong. It's the same law that allows you to keep your indian land. I think they call it the infected blanket law.

so in other words, the OP is a lie.

there is no international law that says Jerusalem belongs to Israel.

 

[Infidel]

In other words, the OP is a lie.

Actually, I was wrong. It's the same law that allows you to keep your indian land. I think they call it the infected blanket law.

so in other words, the OP is a lie.

there is no international law that says Jerusalem belongs to Israel.

You want someone to write one up? Would that make you happy? Would you then return your land to the indians? Or at least stop whining so much?

 

[Victory67]

You want someone to write one up? Would that make you happy? Would you then return your land to the indians? Or at least stop whining so much?

Listen asshole, this thread claims that there is some international law that says Jerusalem belongs to Israel. I simply want to know which international law that is.

You have a problem with that, bub?

 

[Infidel]

You want someone to write one up? Would that make you happy? Would you then return your land to the indians? Or at least stop whining so much?

Listen asshole, this thread claims that there is some international law that says Jerusalem belongs to Israel. I simply want to know which international law that is.

You have a problem with that, bub?

It's the same international law of war you use to keep indian land that says: you lost, too bad.

 

[Victory67]

It's the same international law of war you use to keep indian land that says: you lost, too bad.

so the OP is a lie.

good.

 

[Infidel]

It's the same international law of war you use to keep indian land that says: you lost, too bad.

so the OP is a lie.

good.

It's called google, look it up, I just did.

 

[Victory67]

It's the same international law of war you use to keep indian land that says: you lost, too bad.

so the OP is a lie.

good.

It's called google, look it up, I just did.

you found the law?

what's it called?

 

[Phoenall]

Geneva conventions and UN charter are the two mains ones that the Palestinians are breaking

They are not signatories to those treaties.

Israel is.

Has Palestine been recognised by the UN, have they been accepted as observers. Did they sign the UN charter before being allowed to be observers. They are signatories to the UN charter and the Geneva conventions, which means they are in breach of INTERNATIONAL LAW by refusing to talk about peace.

They blew it when they demanded recognition at the UN and signed to accept it, a bigger fail than any you have made child.

 

[Victory67]

Has Palestine been recognised by the UN, have they been accepted as observers. Did they sign the UN charter before being allowed to be observers. They are signatories to the UN charter and the Geneva conventions, which means they are in breach of INTERNATIONAL LAW by refusing to talk about peace.

They blew it when they demanded recognition at the UN and signed to accept it, a bigger fail than any you have made child.

You lying. Palestine has never signed the Geneva Conventions.

And there is no international law giving Jerusalem to Israel.

 

[Phoenall]

which international law is the OP referring to?

The one where you give YOUR land back to the indians.

In other words, the OP is a lie.

Try the one embedded in the San Remo Conference that gave the land to the Jews as their homeland. Ratified by the league of nations in the Mandate of Palestine that divided the land into 5 sections. This gave the arab muslims 3 nations, the Christians 1 nation and the Jews 1 nation. The recipients were told that they could not expel any of the other religions from their territory and had to accept them as full citizens. The 3 muslim states started to ethnically cleanse the Christians and Jews from their lands with immediate effect.

 

[Victory67]

Try the one embedded in the San Remo Conference that gave the land to the Jews as their homeland. Ratified by the league of nations in the Mandate of Palestine that divided the land into 5 sections. This gave the arab muslims 3 nations, the Christians 1 nation and the Jews 1 nation. The recipients were told that they could not expel any of the other religions from their territory and had to accept them as full citizens. The 3 muslim states started to ethnically cleanse the Christians and Jews from their lands with immediate effect.

San Remo Conference says nothing about Jerusalem belonging exclusively to the Jews.

 

[Phoenall]

In other words, the OP is a lie.

Actually, I was wrong. It's the same law that allows you to keep your indian land. I think they call it the infected blanket law.

so in other words, the OP is a lie.

there is no international law that says Jerusalem belongs to Israel.

Yes there is child it is the mandate of Palestine that went into International Law when it was agreed, that gave the Jews all the land they now hold.

 

[Phoenall]

You want someone to write one up? Would that make you happy? Would you then return your land to the indians? Or at least stop whining so much?

Listen asshole, this thread claims that there is some international law that says Jerusalem belongs to Israel. I simply want to know which international law that is.

You have a problem with that, bub?

The same one that gave Syria, Iraq and Jordan to the muslims, the san remo conference and the mandate of Palestine