Not when one refuses to even think about giving up on their world conquest. The arab's do not want Israel to exist it is Dar al Harb, or land under war.
Israeli Public Opinion and the Peace Process
- Thread starter Coyote
- Start date
Not when one refuses to even think about giving up on their world conquest. The arab's do not want Israel to exist it is Dar al Harb, or land under war.
I put forward those delineated on the LoN mandate that includes Jerusalem as wholly Jewish. And the Palestinians can move to arab palestine
That's the ten million dollar question.
Not when they are already set in stone in an international treaty...........................
Strange that as this was talked about in 2014 and fatah was all set to cast gaza adrift, then all hell broke loose and fatah cosied up to hamas again. I wonder who poked their nose in this time ?
Like this Islamofascist supporter?
So you are using his Jewish race here are you, as he cant be a socialist and a practising Jew.
He also has been found guilty of fraud.
You always get your hands dirty don't you freddy boy
According to Israel's plan, the West Bank will be a series of bantustans completely surrounded by Israel. They would only have one border and that would be Israel. That is called the Gazafication of the West Bank.
No Palestinian can agree to that.
And your evidence for this is what, some islamonazi propaganda outlet ?
Not when the arab contingent start killing themselves, then the Jews will no longer have a problem. And all they need do is walk away from the parts they don't want and erect a Saudi barrier keeping the Palestinians out. See how long it is before Jordan does the same thing ?
- Thread starter
- #48
That's the ten million dollar question.
Not when they are already set in stone in an international treaty...........................
There is no international treaty.
That's the ten million dollar question.
Not when they are already set in stone in an international treaty...........................
There is no international treaty.
What makes you think that ?
From
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...0ydt7FWypnFOkUIp_IZdlg&bvm=bv.117218890,d.cGc
Quote
Further, Egypt never bothered to annex Gaza and no Palestinian Arab state ever existed throughout human history. However, according to the San Remo Resolution of April 25, 1920 and the Mandate for Palestine of July 24, 1922, Judea and Samaria, East Jerusalem, and Gaza were all supposed to be part of a Jewish state. These agreements are still relevant, since Article 80 of the UN Charter states that all mandates of the League of Nations are still valid.
Some people falsely believe that the Palestine Mandate was terminated in 1947, but this is not correct. According to Professor Eugene Rostow, former dean of Yale Law School, “A trust never terminates when a trustee dies, resigns, embezzles the trust property, or is dismissed. The authority responsible for the trust appoints a new trustee, or otherwise arranges for the fulfillment of its purpose.” Thus, while the Palestine Mandate ceased to exist in Israel and Jordan when Israel and the Hashemite Kingdom obtained independence, Professor Rostow claims “its rules apply still to the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, which have not yet been allocated either to Israel or to Jordan or become an independent state.” He claims that legally speaking, the Armistice Lines of 1949 represent nothing more than the positions the contending armies finished at the conclusion of Israel’s War of Independence.
Leading international law expert Julius Stone concurred. He asserted that Article 49 only relates to the invasion of sovereign states, a title the Palestinians never possessed. Stone also argued that the history behind the drafting of Article 49 of the Geneva Convention needs to be taken into account, especially considering how drastically different Israel’s situation in Judea and Samaria is to what existed in Europe under Nazism. He furthermore asserted, “No serious dilution (much less extinction) of native populations exists, rather a dramatic improvement in the economic situation of the local Palestinian inhabitants since 1967 has occurred.”
Since the end of World War II, no territorial dispute in the world has been defined as occupied territories, except in Israel’s case. According to Eli Hertz, in virtually every other disagreement concerning borders and territories, the most common terms applied are territorial disputes and contested borders. This is even the case for the places like the Western Sahara, Northern Cyprus, and Nagorno-Karabakh. Furthermore, given the legal status of Palestine under the British Mandate, as a state to be established for the Jewish people, Israel also has stronger grounds to argue based on international law that these territories are within her national borders than any other state within the region.
By Rachel Avraham
End Quote
- Thread starter
- #50
That's the ten million dollar question.
Not when they are already set in stone in an international treaty...........................
There is no international treaty.
What makes you think that ?
From
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0ahUKEwi87-Lf1c_LAhVD-mMKHRGgB6wQFggkMAE&url=http://unitedwithisrael.org/why-israel-is-not-violating-fourth-geneva-convention/&usg=AFQjCNH_BIb3o-HXcMDAbW2jCurNRpr6cw&sig2=0ydt7FWypnFOkUIp_IZdlg&bvm=bv.117218890,d.cGc
Quote
Further, Egypt never bothered to annex Gaza and no Palestinian Arab state ever existed throughout human history. However, according to the San Remo Resolution of April 25, 1920 and the Mandate for Palestine of July 24, 1922, Judea and Samaria, East Jerusalem, and Gaza were all supposed to be part of a Jewish state. These agreements are still relevant, since Article 80 of the UN Charter states that all mandates of the League of Nations are still valid.
Some people falsely believe that the Palestine Mandate was terminated in 1947, but this is not correct. According to Professor Eugene Rostow, former dean of Yale Law School, “A trust never terminates when a trustee dies, resigns, embezzles the trust property, or is dismissed. The authority responsible for the trust appoints a new trustee, or otherwise arranges for the fulfillment of its purpose.” Thus, while the Palestine Mandate ceased to exist in Israel and Jordan when Israel and the Hashemite Kingdom obtained independence, Professor Rostow claims “its rules apply still to the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, which have not yet been allocated either to Israel or to Jordan or become an independent state.” He claims that legally speaking, the Armistice Lines of 1949 represent nothing more than the positions the contending armies finished at the conclusion of Israel’s War of Independence.
Leading international law expert Julius Stone concurred. He asserted that Article 49 only relates to the invasion of sovereign states, a title the Palestinians never possessed. Stone also argued that the history behind the drafting of Article 49 of the Geneva Convention needs to be taken into account, especially considering how drastically different Israel’s situation in Judea and Samaria is to what existed in Europe under Nazism. He furthermore asserted, “No serious dilution (much less extinction) of native populations exists, rather a dramatic improvement in the economic situation of the local Palestinian inhabitants since 1967 has occurred.”
Since the end of World War II, no territorial dispute in the world has been defined as occupied territories, except in Israel’s case. According to Eli Hertz, in virtually every other disagreement concerning borders and territories, the most common terms applied are territorial disputes and contested borders. This is even the case for the places like the Western Sahara, Northern Cyprus, and Nagorno-Karabakh. Furthermore, given the legal status of Palestine under the British Mandate, as a state to be established for the Jewish people, Israel also has stronger grounds to argue based on international law that these territories are within her national borders than any other state within the region.
By Rachel Avraham
End Quote
The mandate is not an international treaty.
That's the ten million dollar question.
Not when they are already set in stone in an international treaty...........................
There is no international treaty.
Treaty of Sevres and the treaty of Lausanne both delineate the borders of both Jewish Palestine and arab Palestine. So are you saying now that Jordan has never existed ?
Every time you are shown that a treaty of International law supports the Jews you deny its existence, showing that you hate the Jews with a vengance
And what will be the borders?
That's the ten million dollar question.
Not when they are already set in stone in an international treaty...........................
There is no international treaty.
What makes you think that ?
From
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0ahUKEwi87-Lf1c_LAhVD-mMKHRGgB6wQFggkMAE&url=http://unitedwithisrael.org/why-israel-is-not-violating-fourth-geneva-convention/&usg=AFQjCNH_BIb3o-HXcMDAbW2jCurNRpr6cw&sig2=0ydt7FWypnFOkUIp_IZdlg&bvm=bv.117218890,d.cGc
Quote
Further, Egypt never bothered to annex Gaza and no Palestinian Arab state ever existed throughout human history. However, according to the San Remo Resolution of April 25, 1920 and the Mandate for Palestine of July 24, 1922, Judea and Samaria, East Jerusalem, and Gaza were all supposed to be part of a Jewish state. These agreements are still relevant, since Article 80 of the UN Charter states that all mandates of the League of Nations are still valid.
Some people falsely believe that the Palestine Mandate was terminated in 1947, but this is not correct. According to Professor Eugene Rostow, former dean of Yale Law School, “A trust never terminates when a trustee dies, resigns, embezzles the trust property, or is dismissed. The authority responsible for the trust appoints a new trustee, or otherwise arranges for the fulfillment of its purpose.” Thus, while the Palestine Mandate ceased to exist in Israel and Jordan when Israel and the Hashemite Kingdom obtained independence, Professor Rostow claims “its rules apply still to the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, which have not yet been allocated either to Israel or to Jordan or become an independent state.” He claims that legally speaking, the Armistice Lines of 1949 represent nothing more than the positions the contending armies finished at the conclusion of Israel’s War of Independence.
Leading international law expert Julius Stone concurred. He asserted that Article 49 only relates to the invasion of sovereign states, a title the Palestinians never possessed. Stone also argued that the history behind the drafting of Article 49 of the Geneva Convention needs to be taken into account, especially considering how drastically different Israel’s situation in Judea and Samaria is to what existed in Europe under Nazism. He furthermore asserted, “No serious dilution (much less extinction) of native populations exists, rather a dramatic improvement in the economic situation of the local Palestinian inhabitants since 1967 has occurred.”
Since the end of World War II, no territorial dispute in the world has been defined as occupied territories, except in Israel’s case. According to Eli Hertz, in virtually every other disagreement concerning borders and territories, the most common terms applied are territorial disputes and contested borders. This is even the case for the places like the Western Sahara, Northern Cyprus, and Nagorno-Karabakh. Furthermore, given the legal status of Palestine under the British Mandate, as a state to be established for the Jewish people, Israel also has stronger grounds to argue based on international law that these territories are within her national borders than any other state within the region.
By Rachel Avraham
End Quote
The mandate is not an international treaty.
It is if you check. If you can find a valid source saying it isn't please post the details, otherwise admit that you are wrong and should be stopped from posting anti semitic LIES
- Thread starter
- #53
From what I understand - and this is how Rocco explained it - it was an agreement between the allied powers - nothing more. Not a treaty, and not including either the Jews or the Arabs and no promises made to either. My understanding is this lack of legal status and lack of any final resolution for the region directly involving Jews and Arabs is what has led to the conflict it's in now. He's the only member here directly involved in this stuff and he explains it so it's understandable. If I'm wrong, I'll admit it but that is how I understand it.
- Thread starter
- #54
That's the ten million dollar question.
Not when they are already set in stone in an international treaty...........................
There is no international treaty.
Treaty of Sevres and the treaty of Lausanne both delineate the borders of both Jewish Palestine and arab Palestine. So are you saying now that Jordan has never existed ?
Every time you are shown that a treaty of International law supports the Jews you deny its existence, showing that you hate the Jews with a vengance
And everytime you are contradicted you scream "joooo hater". Seriously. Grow up.
I'm not familiar with either treaty you are talking about nor how they relate to legal borders. If they are legally binding documents in relation to borders than why did the borders of Israel when Israel declared it's independence look the way they do? RoccoR
docmauser1
Gold Member
- Oct 8, 2010
- 7,274
- 698
- 190
Palistan and palistanians have no land and no borders, that's all there's to know, of course.
alpine
Gold Member
- Sep 13, 2012
- 3,535
- 809
- 130
Israeli public did state their opinion regarding this issue, when secular people of Israel elected Yitzhak Rabin as their prime minister, to bring peace to their country.
But all this has been undermined by religious fundamentalist fanatic jews.
So, bottom line is; Israeli and Palestinian people want peace, but jewish and muslim fundamentalists wont allow this to happen...
But all this has been undermined by religious fundamentalist fanatic jews.
So, bottom line is; Israeli and Palestinian people want peace, but jewish and muslim fundamentalists wont allow this to happen...
Then he must have done so in a P.M. as I have never seen him post such a thing.
Loathe as I am to use wiki here is what it has to say
League of Nations mandate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A League of Nations mandate was a legal status for certain territories transferred from the control of one country to another following World War I, or the legal instruments that contained the internationally agreed-upon terms for administering the territory on behalf of the League. These were of the nature of both a treaty and a constitution, which contained minority rights clauses that provided for the rights of petition and adjudication by the International Court.[1] The mandate system was established under Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, entered into on 28 June 1919. With the dissolution of the League of Nations after World War II, it was stipulated at the Yalta Conference that the remaining Mandates should be placed under the trusteeship of the United Nations, subject to future discussions and formal agreements. Most of the remaining mandates of the League of Nations (with the exception of South-West Africa) thus eventually became United Nations Trust Territories.
And what will be the borders?
That's the ten million dollar question.
Not when they are already set in stone in an international treaty...........................
There is no international treaty.
Treaty of Sevres and the treaty of Lausanne both delineate the borders of both Jewish Palestine and arab Palestine. So are you saying now that Jordan has never existed ?
Every time you are shown that a treaty of International law supports the Jews you deny its existence, showing that you hate the Jews with a vengance
And everytime you are contradicted you scream "joooo hater". Seriously. Grow up.
I'm not familiar with either treaty you are talking about nor how they relate to legal borders. If they are legally binding documents in relation to borders than why did the borders of Israel when Israel declared it's independence look the way they do? RoccoR
Ever thought that this is because you are acting just like a 1930's German Nazi
The borders for Israel were set in stone by the mandate of Palestine when it delineated the 22% of Palestine for the Jews national home. The UN tried to be clever and allocate a part of that grant to the arab muslims rather than just tell them they had Jordan and that was all they were getting. So when the Jews declared independence the land was in turmoil as the UN had made a massive mistake that we are still paying the price for it 68 years later.
In 1949 the UN realising their mistake altered the UN charter granting Israel the right to be the Jewish nation and the full backing of the UN if they ever took their case to the UNSC in regards to the arab muslims squatting on Jewish land. Another example of the UN speaking with a forked tongue
Similar threads
New Topics
-
-
Is it spreading, and is a vaccine being developed?- Started by schmidlap
- Replies: 0
-
-
