Of course it did, you just refused to read the answer. ;--)
Simply because you don't like an answer doesn't make it incorrect, or nonexistent
Jerusalem Isn't the Capital of the Jews
- Thread starter fanger
- Start date
Of course it did, you just refused to read the answer. ;--)
Simply because you don't like an answer doesn't make it incorrect, or nonexistent
A statement that would appear to support my view that you are not interested in productive dialogue
Humanity
Gold Member
- Jul 17, 2014
- 5,089
- 361
- 130
Whatever "split" you perceive, or I perceive for that matter...
Fact remains that Israel illegally occupies territory that is clearly NOT theirs! If it belonged to Israel then, think about it, words like "Occupied" and "Annexed" would not come into the equation!
aris2chat
Gold Member
- Feb 17, 2012
- 18,678
- 4,689
- 280
50,000 movies, 2000 major features each year and you pick three movies between '94 and '05?
That is a lot of christians, and others, paying good money to watch them.
Two about Nazi germany and one about muslim terrorism of the '72 olympics and the aftermath.
Like most good stories, white hats vs black hats
Why is an opinion interesting? It is an opinion, no better or worse than any other opinion. However factual history tells us that the Jews were in Jerusalem long before any other religious sect so I would say their claim is pretty strong. Can you tell us another city that has as long a Jewish history?
Humanity
Gold Member
- Jul 17, 2014
- 5,089
- 361
- 130
I have watched your 'progress' here on this forum, and, mistakenly, had thought that there may be a balanced, intelligent zionist posting here, for a change. Over the past few weeks it has become very clear that we simply have another zionut in our midsts...
So, let me ask you a couple of questiona...
Do you consider that Jerusalem is the unified capital of Israel? Yes/No?
Do you consider that Israel has tried to annex East Jerusalem against customary international law? Yes/No
All terms introduced by the palestinian faction in addition to them claiming its "their land" or "palestinian land" Its not. It was unclaimed territory after the expiration of the mandate. Its last legal standing was under that mandate. It went up for grabs when the mandate expired. Now if the palestinians had DECLARED a state in that area at that time then you might have a viable *****. But since they didn't and Jordan grabbed it in direct violation of their treaty with the British then it was an occupation. When Israel landed it after fending off the Jordanian advance, then it because a security zone.
I'm sure Israel will annex it eventually, but not before it squashes violent palestinian activities. Once the palestinians earn the trust of the Israeli's then I'm sure they will be welcome back into polite society
Humanity
Gold Member
- Jul 17, 2014
- 5,089
- 361
- 130
Wow, you need to take yourself off and learn some history before you can have any sensible conversation here...
Let me just throw this one into the mix....
What "legal standing" does the sky wizard hold who chose Jews as THE people to invade the 'holy land'?
The Jews were there before it was even called the "holy land". When suggesting people study history I suggest you place yourself on that list.
While I'm awaiting a phone call lets just have some fun with this nonsense about an occupation.
Lets look at 242
Quote
United Nations Security Council Resolution 242(S/RES/242) was adopted unanimously by the UN Security Council on November 22, 1967, in the aftermath of the Six-Day War. It was adopted under Chapter VI of the UN Charter.[1] The resolution was sponsored by Britishambassador Lord Caradon and was one of five drafts under consideration.[2]
End Quote
So the resolution was adopted under chapter VI, so lets look at chapter VI
Quote
Chapter VI of the United Nations Charter deals with peaceful settlement of disputes. It requires countries with disputes that could lead to war to first of all try to seek solutions through peaceful methods such as "negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice." If these methods of alternative dispute resolution fail, then they must refer it to the UN Security Council. Under Article 35, any country is allowed to bring a dispute to the attention of the UN Security Council or the General Assembly. This chapter authorizes the Security Council to issue recommendations but does not give it power to make binding resolutions; those provisions are contained Chapter VII.[1][2][3]
End Quote
So now that we've established that the Israeli's are legally in the mandated area its also clear that the dispute under article VI is to be settled diplomatically between parties. Although an argument can be made to say that the palestinians don't represent a legal party in that they are not a state but instead an invention of negotiating table somewhere in the early 20th century in an effort to whittle away at zionist intentions to buy a national homeland if one could not be secured through diplomatic means.
As for the question of occupation. Now that we understand why israel is in legal governance of the disputed territories, lets look at that occupation thing again
If Israel is occupying the mandated area, who's land are they occupying ?
See
There is No "Occupation" - Take A Pen
Danny Ayalon: Israel's Right in the 'Disputed' Territories - WSJ
Articles: Israeli Settlements Are Not Illegal - American Thinker
Lets look at 242
Quote
United Nations Security Council Resolution 242(S/RES/242) was adopted unanimously by the UN Security Council on November 22, 1967, in the aftermath of the Six-Day War. It was adopted under Chapter VI of the UN Charter.[1] The resolution was sponsored by Britishambassador Lord Caradon and was one of five drafts under consideration.[2]
End Quote
So the resolution was adopted under chapter VI, so lets look at chapter VI
Quote
Chapter VI of the United Nations Charter deals with peaceful settlement of disputes. It requires countries with disputes that could lead to war to first of all try to seek solutions through peaceful methods such as "negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice." If these methods of alternative dispute resolution fail, then they must refer it to the UN Security Council. Under Article 35, any country is allowed to bring a dispute to the attention of the UN Security Council or the General Assembly. This chapter authorizes the Security Council to issue recommendations but does not give it power to make binding resolutions; those provisions are contained Chapter VII.[1][2][3]
End Quote
So now that we've established that the Israeli's are legally in the mandated area its also clear that the dispute under article VI is to be settled diplomatically between parties. Although an argument can be made to say that the palestinians don't represent a legal party in that they are not a state but instead an invention of negotiating table somewhere in the early 20th century in an effort to whittle away at zionist intentions to buy a national homeland if one could not be secured through diplomatic means.
As for the question of occupation. Now that we understand why israel is in legal governance of the disputed territories, lets look at that occupation thing again
If Israel is occupying the mandated area, who's land are they occupying ?
See
There is No "Occupation" - Take A Pen
Danny Ayalon: Israel's Right in the 'Disputed' Territories - WSJ
Articles: Israeli Settlements Are Not Illegal - American Thinker
Last edited:
Humanity
Gold Member
- Jul 17, 2014
- 5,089
- 361
- 130
Wow, want to post some links proving your belief of the timeline?
Thats an interesting statement because it leaves off so much. We know from a look at basic demographics that only about 35% of the population of Israel are returnees from Europe. The Zionists were peacefully buying land from Arab sellers who were tripping over themselves to sell at exorbitant prices. So much so that nearly 10% of the mandated area after the 80% cut to Jordan was taken out was purchased in just a few short years. The situation alarmed Arab bigots so much that they made laws forbidding the sale of land to a Jew. So the Zionists simply hired a non Jew to make the Purchase and then gave the land to the Zionists or conducted their transactions with absentee land owners residing outside of the mandated area.
From what I can see your statement is disingenuous at best. The palestinians pressured the British into limiting Imigration significantly yet their own people flocked to the area legal or no swelling the numbers of Arabs in the remaining mandated area by roughly 100% in just 20 years.
If the Judaic people are guilty of illegal imigration then surely the Arabs who colonized this area in such a short period of time were also illegal immigrants.
Try reading a Bible someday. It's among the earliest written historical accounts of that geographic region and they don't mention Muslims at all. In fact no Muslim inhabits the entire area until two thousand years after the earliest known Jewish settlement. That is what is known as history. It's found in books and scholarly articles written in "JOURNALS". You can find those in "LIBRARIES". They are big buildings that are FILLED with books.
I suggest you find one and start reading...
Humanity
Gold Member
- Jul 17, 2014
- 5,089
- 361
- 130
While I'm awaiting a phone call lets just have some fun with this nonsense about an occupation.
Lets look at 242
Quote
United Nations Security Council Resolution 242(S/RES/242) was adopted unanimously by the UN Security Council on November 22, 1967, in the aftermath of the Six-Day War. It was adopted under Chapter VI of the UN Charter.[1] The resolution was sponsored by Britishambassador Lord Caradon and was one of five drafts under consideration.[2]
End Quote
So the resolution was adopted under chapter VI, so lets look at chapter VI
Quote
Chapter VI of the United Nations Charter deals with peaceful settlement of disputes. It requires countries with disputes that could lead to war to first of all try to seek solutions through peaceful methods such as "negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice." If these methods of alternative dispute resolution fail, then they must refer it to the UN Security Council. Under Article 35, any country is allowed to bring a dispute to the attention of the UN Security Council or the General Assembly. This chapter authorizes the Security Council to issue recommendations but does not give it power to make binding resolutions; those provisions are contained Chapter VII.[1][2][3]
End Quote
So now that we've established that the Israeli's are legally in the mandated area its also clear that the dispute under article VI is to be settled diplomatically between parties. Although an argument can be made to say that the palestinians don't represent a legal party in that they are not a state but instead an invention of negotiating table somewhere in the early 20th century in an effort to whittle away at zionist intentions to buy a national homeland if one could not be secured through diplomatic means.
As for the question of occupation. Now that we understand why israel is in legal governance of the disputed territories, lets look at that occupation thing again
If Israel is occupying the mandated area, who's land are they occupying ?
See
There is No "Occupation" - Take A Pen
Danny Ayalon: Israel's Right in the 'Disputed' Territories - WSJ
Articles: Israeli Settlements Are Not Illegal - American Thinker
Provide a link so that everyone can "understand" why YOU believe that Israel in legal governance of disputed territories...
The ONLY country who believes that this is "legal governance" is Israel...
That is why EVERY country, that is not a zionist country, why EVERY organisation, that is not a zionist organisation quite clearly states that territories are "illegally occupied"...
Did you bother to check out what the Supreme Court of Israel says about it? I quote.... "Belligerent occupation"
aris2chat
Gold Member
- Feb 17, 2012
- 18,678
- 4,689
- 280
I'm glad I have a fan, thank you.
Yes I do think that Jerusalem is the capitol of Israel. Its not up to another nation to decide what area within ones own country one decides is fit to be used as the capitol city. if the Israelites want to call it Jerusalem, and make it the capitol AGAIN that is their prerogative
As for your second question I'd say its been a long long time since I've studied that particular aspect of this issue and I'd need a few to go review the legal proceedings used in the process. But from what I remember Israel was very careful to follow convention when they annexed the area.
Law is all about the language used and there can be no occupation if there is no legal clamant. Ergo Israel is not occupying anyones territory as it wasn't anyones territory. The palestinians never claimed a state let alone a capitol other than Jordan and Amman
Last edited:
Similar threads
New Topics
-
-
-
Adult Illegal Alien Caught Posing as Virginia High School Student, Charged with Molesting Nine Children- Started by tyroneweaver
- Replies: 1
-
-
In his 1938 work The Great Heresies, Hilaire Belloc devoted a chapter to Islam:- Started by excalibur
- Replies: 1
