Palestinian resistance fighters survive three targeted bombings

[SAYIT]

It is your fault you've maintained an illegal occupation of land that isn't yours for the last 45 years.

that is an Arab lie. Jews have always been in the land; Arabs have not. The Arabs came over and now whine we occupy them.

Jews are the natives in the land of Israel. Arabs are native in the land of their 22 other countries.

Lipush,

The International Court of Justice has held Israel occupies East Jerusalem, the West Bank, and Gaza.

Sherri

Considering that Hamas admits that Gaza IS NOT occupied, one can only conclude that the UN's and ICJ's agenda is something other than truth and justice:

Hamas admits Gaza not occupied: UN Disagrees
Hamas says Gaza not Occupied

By HILLEL C. NEUERLAST UPDATED: 01/04/2012 23:16
Latest UN declaration of Israel’s "occupation" is part of a wider push to maintain Palestinian helplessness.

By Reuters GENEVA – The UN continues to label the Gaza Strip “occupied” by Israel, despite a Hamas leader stating this week that that’s no longer a tenable position.

Hamas co-founder Mahmoud Zahar confirmed Tuesday there is no Israeli occupation of Gaza, according to a report published by Ma’an, a Bethlehem- based Palestinian news agency.

Zahar was casting doubt on whether Hamas would organize anti-Israel marches in Gaza in conjunction with similar protests that the Fatah-controlled Palestinian Authority would organize in the West Bank.

“Against whom could we demonstrate in the Gaza Strip? When Gaza was occupied, that model was applicable,” Zahar said.

 

[RoccoR]

lionboy, lipush, et al,

Certainly, is is ONE of the keystone issues.

If you ask any Jew or Israeli, 99% will tell you the same. It is not our fault that the Muslims and Arabs don't accept it.

It is your fault you've maintained an illegal occupation of land that isn't yours for the last 45 years.

(COMMENT)

Clearly, the plaintiffs (selected Palestinians) have a complaint in this regard; but not the entire Arab World.

The occupation came as a result of the Six Day War (1967); pursuant to Chapter VII, Article 51 (Self-Defense). It was further aggravated in what is known as the Yom Kippur War (1973).

The Occupied Territories (capture of the Gaza Strip, Sinai, the West Bank and the Golan Heights) were acquired after the combined forces of Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Algeria were defeated by Israel in 1967; and the seizure was re-affirmed in a trial by combat in 1973. At the conclusion of the 1973 War (Yom Kipper), Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Algeria lost all claim.

The question was later reopened when, in 1993, the Oslo Accords concluded that these territories were to become a part of the Palestinian state. The key questions today are:

• Who abrogated the Oslo Accords?
• And, are the these captured territories sovereign to the Arab Nations that lost the wars?
• Are these territories now under lawful sovereign control of Israel; --- won in trial by combat a half-century ago?

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Billo_Really]

lionboy, lipush, et al,

Certainly, is is ONE of the keystone issues.

If you ask any Jew or Israeli, 99% will tell you the same. It is not our fault that the Muslims and Arabs don't accept it.

It is your fault you've maintained an illegal occupation of land that isn't yours for the last 45 years.

(COMMENT)

Clearly, the plaintiffs (selected Palestinians) have a complaint in this regard; but not the entire Arab World.

The occupation came as a result of the Six Day War (1967); pursuant to Chapter VII, Article 51 (Self-Defense). It was further aggravated in what is known as the Yom Kippur War (1973).

The Occupied Territories (capture of the Gaza Strip, Sinai, the West Bank and the Golan Heights) were acquired after the combined forces of Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Algeria were defeated by Israel in 1967; and the seizure was re-affirmed in a trial by combat in 1973. At the conclusion of the 1973 War (Yom Kipper), Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Algeria lost all claim.

The question was later reopened when, in 1993, the Oslo Accords concluded that these territories were to become a part of the Palestinian state. The key questions today are:

• Who abrogated the Oslo Accords?
• And, are the these captured territories sovereign to the Arab Nations that lost the wars?
• Are these territories now under lawful sovereign control of Israel; --- won in trial by combat a half-century ago?

Most Respectfully,
R

The answers are as follows:

Israel didn't live up to their part of the Oslo Accords, which made the "Accords" un-enforceable.

The question regarding arab rights to that land is still being decided; However, Israeli rights to that land, has been decided and it came down as a big fat NO. Israel has no right to that land.

You cannot hold onto land seized in a war.​

 

[P F Tinmore]

lionboy, lipush, et al,

Certainly, is is ONE of the keystone issues.

If you ask any Jew or Israeli, 99% will tell you the same. It is not our fault that the Muslims and Arabs don't accept it.

It is your fault you've maintained an illegal occupation of land that isn't yours for the last 45 years.

(COMMENT)

Clearly, the plaintiffs (selected Palestinians) have a complaint in this regard; but not the entire Arab World.

The occupation came as a result of the Six Day War (1967); pursuant to Chapter VII, Article 51 (Self-Defense). It was further aggravated in what is known as the Yom Kippur War (1973).

The Occupied Territories (capture of the Gaza Strip, Sinai, the West Bank and the Golan Heights) were acquired after the combined forces of Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Algeria were defeated by Israel in 1967; and the seizure was re-affirmed in a trial by combat in 1973. At the conclusion of the 1973 War (Yom Kipper), Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Algeria lost all claim.

The question was later reopened when, in 1993, the Oslo Accords concluded that these territories were to become a part of the Palestinian state. The key questions today are:

• Who abrogated the Oslo Accords?
• And, are the these captured territories sovereign to the Arab Nations that lost the wars?
• Are these territories now under lawful sovereign control of Israel; --- won in trial by combat a half-century ago?

Most Respectfully,
R

Since 1949, the West Bank was Jordanian occupied Palestinian land and the Gaza Strip was Egyptian occupied Palestinian land. Israel could not win Palestinian land from Jordan and Egypt. It was not their land to lose.

Take one step back. Israel claims that it won Palestinian land from Lebanon, Syria, Jordan/Iraq, and Egypt. in the 1948 war. There again, it was not their land to lose. There are other problems with this premise. It is illegal to acquire land in war. The "Arab countries" did not lose that war. The 1948 war ended when the UN Security Council called for an armistice.

Oslo was merely an agreement on the management of the occupation and is irrelevant to land ownership.

 

[Roudy]

lionboy, lipush, et al,

Certainly, is is ONE of the keystone issues.

It is your fault you've maintained an illegal occupation of land that isn't yours for the last 45 years.

(COMMENT)

Clearly, the plaintiffs (selected Palestinians) have a complaint in this regard; but not the entire Arab World.

The occupation came as a result of the Six Day War (1967); pursuant to Chapter VII, Article 51 (Self-Defense). It was further aggravated in what is known as the Yom Kippur War (1973).

The Occupied Territories (capture of the Gaza Strip, Sinai, the West Bank and the Golan Heights) were acquired after the combined forces of Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Algeria were defeated by Israel in 1967; and the seizure was re-affirmed in a trial by combat in 1973. At the conclusion of the 1973 War (Yom Kipper), Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Algeria lost all claim.

The question was later reopened when, in 1993, the Oslo Accords concluded that these territories were to become a part of the Palestinian state. The key questions today are:

• Who abrogated the Oslo Accords?
• And, are the these captured territories sovereign to the Arab Nations that lost the wars?
• Are these territories now under lawful sovereign control of Israel; --- won in trial by combat a half-century ago?

Most Respectfully,
R

Since 1949, the West Bank was Jordanian occupied Palestinian land and the Gaza Strip was Egyptian occupied Palestinian land. Israel could not win Palestinian land from Jordan and Egypt. It was not their land to lose.

Take one step back. Israel claims that it won Palestinian land from Lebanon, Syria, Jordan/Iraq, and Egypt. in the 1948 war. There again, it was not their land to lose. There are other problems with this premise. It is illegal to acquire land in war. The "Arab countries" did not lose that war. The 1948 war ended when the UN Security Council called for an armistice.

Oslo was merely an agreement on the management of the occupation and is irrelevant to land ownership.

Based on lies, that there actually is such a thing as Palestinian Land or a Palestinian people.

 

[Billo_Really]

Based on lies, that there actually is such a thing as Palestinian Land or a Palestinian people.

This is who your grade school arguments remind me of...

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, I believe this is all about control.

Since 1949, the West Bank was Jordanian occupied Palestinian land and the Gaza Strip was Egyptian occupied Palestinian land. Israel could not win Palestinian land from Jordan and Egypt. It was not their land to lose.

Take one step back. Israel claims that it won Palestinian land from Lebanon, Syria, Jordan/Iraq, and Egypt. in the 1948 war. There again, it was not their land to lose. There are other problems with this premise. It is illegal to acquire land in war. The "Arab countries" did not lose that war. The 1948 war ended when the UN Security Council called for an armistice.

Oslo was merely an agreement on the management of the occupation and is irrelevant to land ownership.

(COMMENT)

I actually do not dispute this. I acknowledge as much in Post #105, where I stipulated that the territories were under the control of various Arab nations. I do not disagree that the 1949 Armistice Agreement was in force at the time the 1967 War began. What I do question is that since the re-initiation of hostilities in 1967, the 1949 Armistice Agreements became null and void.

In 1967, after the Six Day War, the following areas came under Israeli Military Control:

• Jerusalem
• The West Bank, (formally under Jordanian control since 1950)
• The Gaza Strip, (Egyptian control)
• Sinai (Egyptian control)
• The Golan Heights (Syrian control)

In "lionboy's" most recent post, he postulates an interesting theory.

The answers are as follows:

Israel didn't live up to their part of the Oslo Accords, which made the "Accords" un-enforceable.

The question regarding arab rights to that land is still being decided; However, Israeli rights to that land, has been decided and it came down as a big fat NO. Israel has no right to that land.

You cannot hold onto land seized in a war.​

There is little question that the Arab World attempted --- not once, but several times --- to use these lands as a gateway to corrupt the sovereign integrity of Israel (hostile intent). It really makes little difference which Arab nation or subgroup controlled, or held title to, what territory prior to the outbreak of hostilities. It is historically clear that the entire region conspired to overthrow the sovereignty of Israel (as recognized by the UN Membership in May 1949).

There is no question that, whichever entity had sovereign control over the lands collectively known as the "Occupied Territories" (so designated by the UNSC and the ICJ under international law) the stewardship was less than honorable. The UNSC and the ICJ both recognize that by designating the land as "Occupied" that in fact inclusively they acknowledged as it being seized as a result of "war." This essentially nullified the 1949 Armistice Agreement.

There is a theory in play (supporting "P F Tinmore's" position) that no Arab state, nation or entity had internationally recognized sovereignty over the West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem, prior to the outbreak of hostilities. Thus, no Arab state, nation or entity can truly claim territorial injury or violation of sovereignty relative to the West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem.

The question becomes, where do we go from here; as the situation exists today?

I'm not even sure that the subject can be discussed rationally. It seems that both sides are dug-in deeply, unable to compromise, and locked in on an emotionally charged counterproductive path. Each side is caught in an endless loop of recriminations and unable to reach a consensus. Reduced to childlike verbal assaults that escalate into deadly confrontations.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[jillian]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, I believe this is all about control.

Since 1949, the West Bank was Jordanian occupied Palestinian land and the Gaza Strip was Egyptian occupied Palestinian land. Israel could not win Palestinian land from Jordan and Egypt. It was not their land to lose.

Take one step back. Israel claims that it won Palestinian land from Lebanon, Syria, Jordan/Iraq, and Egypt. in the 1948 war. There again, it was not their land to lose. There are other problems with this premise. It is illegal to acquire land in war. The "Arab countries" did not lose that war. The 1948 war ended when the UN Security Council called for an armistice.

Oslo was merely an agreement on the management of the occupation and is irrelevant to land ownership.

(COMMENT)

I actually do not dispute this. I acknowledge as much in Post #105, where I stipulated that the territories were under the control of various Arab nations. I do not disagree that the 1949 Armistice Agreement was in force at the time the 1967 War began. What I do question is that since the re-initiation of hostilities in 1967, the 1949 Armistice Agreements became null and void.

In 1967, after the Six Day War, the following areas came under Israeli Military Control:

• Jerusalem
• The West Bank, (formally under Jordanian control since 1950)
• The Gaza Strip, (Egyptian control)
• Sinai (Egyptian control)
• The Golan Heights (Syrian control)

In "lionboy's" most recent post, he postulates an interesting theory.

The answers are as follows:

Israel didn't live up to their part of the Oslo Accords, which made the "Accords" un-enforceable.

The question regarding arab rights to that land is still being decided; However, Israeli rights to that land, has been decided and it came down as a big fat NO. Israel has no right to that land.

You cannot hold onto land seized in a war.​

There is little question that the Arab World attempted --- not once, but several times --- to use these lands as a gateway to corrupt the sovereign integrity of Israel (hostile intent). It really makes little difference which Arab nation or subgroup controlled, or held title to, what territory prior to the outbreak of hostilities. It is historically clear that the entire region conspired to overthrow the sovereignty of Israel (as recognized by the UN Membership in May 1949).

There is no question that, whichever entity had sovereign control over the lands collectively known as the "Occupied Territories" (so designated by the UNSC and the ICJ under international law) the stewardship was less than honorable. The UNSC and the ICJ both recognize that by designating the land as "Occupied" that in fact inclusively they acknowledged as it being seized as a result of "war." This essentially nullified the 1949 Armistice Agreement.

There is a theory in play (supporting that "P F Tinmore's" position) that but no . had internationally recognized sovereignty over the West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem, prior to the outbreak of hostilities. Thus, no Arab state, nation or entity can truly claim territorial injury or violation of sovereignty relative to the West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem.

The question becomes, where do we go from here; as the situation exists today?

I'm not even sure that the subject can be discussed rationally. It seems that both sides are dug-in deeply, unable to compromise, and locked in on an emotionally charged counterproductive path. Each side is caught in an endless loop of recriminations and unable to reach a consensus. Reduced to childlike verbal assaults that escalate into deadly confrontations.

Most Respectfully,
R

i agree with you up until your last paragraph... but the reality is that israel has made peace with everyone is a willing partner and would have done so with the pals, too.

it's their choice... they think that peace means they destroy israel or make it yet another arab country. that simply isn't going to happen.

 

[Hossfly]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, I believe this is all about control.

Since 1949, the West Bank was Jordanian occupied Palestinian land and the Gaza Strip was Egyptian occupied Palestinian land. Israel could not win Palestinian land from Jordan and Egypt. It was not their land to lose.

Take one step back. Israel claims that it won Palestinian land from Lebanon, Syria, Jordan/Iraq, and Egypt. in the 1948 war. There again, it was not their land to lose. There are other problems with this premise. It is illegal to acquire land in war. The "Arab countries" did not lose that war. The 1948 war ended when the UN Security Council called for an armistice.

Oslo was merely an agreement on the management of the occupation and is irrelevant to land ownership.

(COMMENT)

I actually do not dispute this. I acknowledge as much in Post #105, where I stipulated that the territories were under the control of various Arab nations. I do not disagree that the 1949 Armistice Agreement was in force at the time the 1967 War began. What I do question is that since the re-initiation of hostilities in 1967, the 1949 Armistice Agreements became null and void.



In "lionboy's" most recent post, he postulates an interesting theory.

The answers are as follows:

Israel didn't live up to their part of the Oslo Accords, which made the "Accords" un-enforceable.

The question regarding arab rights to that land is still being decided; However, Israeli rights to that land, has been decided and it came down as a big fat NO. Israel has no right to that land.

You cannot hold onto land seized in a war.​

There is little question that the Arab World attempted --- not once, but several times --- to use these lands as a gateway to corrupt the sovereign integrity of Israel (hostile intent). It really makes little difference which Arab nation or subgroup controlled, or held title to, what territory prior to the outbreak of hostilities. It is historically clear that the entire region conspired to overthrow the sovereignty of Israel (as recognized by the UN Membership in May 1949).

There is no question that, whichever entity had sovereign control over the lands collectively known as the "Occupied Territories" (so designated by the UNSC and the ICJ under international law) the stewardship was less than honorable. The UNSC and the ICJ both recognize that by designating the land as "Occupied" that in fact inclusively they acknowledged as it being seized as a result of "war." This essentially nullified the 1949 Armistice Agreement.

There is a theory in play (supporting that "P F Tinmore's" position) that but no . had internationally recognized sovereignty over the West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem, prior to the outbreak of hostilities. Thus, no Arab state, nation or entity can truly claim territorial injury or violation of sovereignty relative to the West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem.

The question becomes, where do we go from here; as the situation exists today?

I'm not even sure that the subject can be discussed rationally. It seems that both sides are dug-in deeply, unable to compromise, and locked in on an emotionally charged counterproductive path. Each side is caught in an endless loop of recriminations and unable to reach a consensus. Reduced to childlike verbal assaults that escalate into deadly confrontations.

Most Respectfully,
R

i agree with you up until your last paragraph... but the reality is that israel has made peace with everyone is a willing partner and would have done so with the pals, too.

it's their choice... they think that peace means they destroy israel or make it yet another arab country. that simply isn't going to happen.

If Hamas and the PLO were to amend their charters by eliminating the Israel clauses, there could be a vast improvement on peace talks. But...............

 

[Moonglow]

Palistians, free your mind and end the abuse of you by your fellow Muslims, come join the winning team. We'll let you meet Pamela Anderson.

 

[Billo_Really]

Palistians, free your mind and end the abuse of you by your fellow Muslims, come join the winning team. We'll let you meet Pamela Anderson.

I think you'd have more luck with Hayden Panetierre.

 

[Billo_Really]

There is little question that the Arab World attempted --- not once, but several times --- to use these lands as a gateway to corrupt the sovereign integrity of Israel (hostile intent). It really makes little difference which Arab nation or subgroup controlled, or held title to, what territory prior to the outbreak of hostilities. It is historically clear that the entire region conspired to overthrow the sovereignty of Israel (as recognized by the UN Membership in May 1949).

Unfortunately, before zionists stood up and declared sovereignty with no legal justification to do so, it can also be argued, that zionists migrating into the area, did so with the intent of corrupting the sovereignty of the indigenous people who were already living in that area for generations. You can't move into an area and automatically have more rights than the people already living there.

And you can't claim "hostile intent" for one side and not acknowledge the "hostile intent" of the other side. Jewish terrorism drove out over 700,000 Palestinian's. And the former PM of Israel who recently died, is a good example of that.

The Zionist terror campaign of Plan Dalet, put into effect in early 1948 and described by Israeli historian Ilan Pappe, consisted of “large-scale intimidation; laying siege to and bombarding population centres; setting fires to homes, properties, and goods; expulsion; demolition; and finally, planting mines among the rubble to prevent any of the expelled inhabitants from returning.”

Shamir seemed to relish the opportunity to terrorize, murder and ethnically cleanse Palestine of its indigenous population into order to make room for the nascent state of Israel. The massacre of Deir Yassin in April 1948, during which over 100 unarmed villagers were murdered, was carried out by Zionist commandos of Shamir’s Lehi and Menachem Begin’s Irgun (of which Shamir was a former member).

So arabs had good reason to be hostile to zionists.

There is no question that, whichever entity had sovereign control over the lands collectively known as the "Occupied Territories" (so designated by the UNSC and the ICJ under international law) the stewardship was less than honorable. The UNSC and the ICJ both recognize that by designating the land as "Occupied" that in fact inclusively they acknowledged as it being seized as a result of "war." This essentially nullified the 1949 Armistice Agreement.

The '67 borders have international recognition as Israel's borders. And there is only one way to solve the problem of "occupation" and that is to end it. There are no other legal options available. An occupying force is merely a temporary caretaker and administrator, not an owner.

Art. 6. The present Convention shall apply from the outset of any conflict or occupation mentioned in Article 2.

In the territory of Parties to the conflict, the application of the present Convention shall cease on the general close of military operations.

In the case of occupied territory, the application of the present Convention shall cease one year after the general close of military operations; however, the Occupying Power shall be bound, for the duration of the occupation, to the extent that such Power exercises the functions of government in such territory, by the provisions of the following Articles of the present Convention: 1 to 12, 27, 29 to 34, 47, 49, 51, 52, 53, 59, 61 to 77, 143.

 

[Intense]

General Reminder

Attacks on family members will not be tolerated and will be subject to action by an Admin/Mod. Action taken could range from a warning to banning and will be at Admin/Mod discretion. THERE ARE NO EXCEPTIONS TO THIS RULE, PERIOD.

Please note that direct or implied threats of violence towards another member and/or threats of any action meant to disrupt a member's normal life will be dealt with severely (minimum 10 day ban).

 

[P F Tinmore]

What you call "Palestine" IS Israel borders. Since "Palestine" is not a state, it is PALESTINE which does not have actual borders.

The 1949 armistice agreements were after the end of the Mandate, after resolution 181, after Israel declared itself to be a state, and after the 1948 war.

Article I

With a view to promoting the return of permanent peace in Palestine solid in recognition of the importance in this regard of mutual assurances concerning the future military operations of the Parties, the following principles, which shall be fully observed by both Parties during the armistice, are hereby affirmed:

Article V

1. The Armistice Demarcation Line shall follow the international boundary between the Lebanon and Palestine.

The Avalon Project : Lebanese-Israeli General Armistice Agreement, March 23, 1949

Israel claims the border between Lebanon and Palestine as theirs. I can find no documentation to back up that claim.

You couldn't find your hind end with both hands, Twinkie.

Cool, then you can find documentation to where Israel established borders with Lebanon.

 

[SherriMunnerlyn]

The 1949 armistice agreements were after the end of the Mandate, after resolution 181, after Israel declared itself to be a state, and after the 1948 war.



Israel claims the border between Lebanon and Palestine as theirs. I can find no documentation to back up that claim.

You couldn't find your hind end with both hands, Twinkie.

Cool, then you can find documentation to where Israel established borders with Lebanon.

Israel still unlawfully occupies Sheeba Farms, that belongs to Lebanon.

 

[SherriMunnerlyn]

lionboy, lipush, et al,

Certainly, is is ONE of the keystone issues.

It is your fault you've maintained an illegal occupation of land that isn't yours for the last 45 years.

(COMMENT)

Clearly, the plaintiffs (selected Palestinians) have a complaint in this regard; but not the entire Arab World.

The occupation came as a result of the Six Day War (1967); pursuant to Chapter VII, Article 51 (Self-Defense). It was further aggravated in what is known as the Yom Kippur War (1973).

The Occupied Territories (capture of the Gaza Strip, Sinai, the West Bank and the Golan Heights) were acquired after the combined forces of Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Algeria were defeated by Israel in 1967; and the seizure was re-affirmed in a trial by combat in 1973. At the conclusion of the 1973 War (Yom Kipper), Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Algeria lost all claim.

The question was later reopened when, in 1993, the Oslo Accords concluded that these territories were to become a part of the Palestinian state. The key questions today are:

• Who abrogated the Oslo Accords?
• And, are the these captured territories sovereign to the Arab Nations that lost the wars?
• Are these territories now under lawful sovereign control of Israel; --- won in trial by combat a half-century ago?

Most Respectfully,
R

The answers are as follows:

Israel didn't live up to their part of the Oslo Accords, which made the "Accords" un-enforceable.

The question regarding arab rights to that land is still being decided; However, Israeli rights to that land, has been decided and it came down as a big fat NO. Israel has no right to that land.

You cannot hold onto land seized in a war.​

loinboy,

I agree, except with respect to the second question, I think sovereignty clearly lies with the indigenous Palestinian Arab peoples, not the Arab nations of Jordan and Egypt. This land is what is left of the land set aside as an Arab State by the UN Partition Plan.

The problem is 500,000+ Israeli illegal settlers now live in this land, completely unlawful under the Fourth Geneva Convention, their daily presence constituting war crimes. If they do not leave, there cannot be an Arab State there. And there is noone and no mechanism to make them leave, this is the problem today with the two state solution, and why practically speaking it is probably dead. The US could play a positive role here in saving the two state solution, if we would choose to do so, but there is no indication we will. The US chooses instead to just keep funding and supporting the continuing Occupation, instead of funding and supporting peace.

Sherri

 

[P F Tinmore]

lionboy, lipush, et al,

Certainly, is is ONE of the keystone issues.


(COMMENT)

Clearly, the plaintiffs (selected Palestinians) have a complaint in this regard; but not the entire Arab World.

The occupation came as a result of the Six Day War (1967); pursuant to Chapter VII, Article 51 (Self-Defense). It was further aggravated in what is known as the Yom Kippur War (1973).

The Occupied Territories (capture of the Gaza Strip, Sinai, the West Bank and the Golan Heights) were acquired after the combined forces of Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Algeria were defeated by Israel in 1967; and the seizure was re-affirmed in a trial by combat in 1973. At the conclusion of the 1973 War (Yom Kipper), Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Algeria lost all claim.

The question was later reopened when, in 1993, the Oslo Accords concluded that these territories were to become a part of the Palestinian state. The key questions today are:

• Who abrogated the Oslo Accords?
• And, are the these captured territories sovereign to the Arab Nations that lost the wars?
• Are these territories now under lawful sovereign control of Israel; --- won in trial by combat a half-century ago?

Most Respectfully,
R

The answers are as follows:

Israel didn't live up to their part of the Oslo Accords, which made the "Accords" un-enforceable.

The question regarding arab rights to that land is still being decided; However, Israeli rights to that land, has been decided and it came down as a big fat NO. Israel has no right to that land.

You cannot hold onto land seized in a war.​

loinboy,

I agree, except with respect to the second question, I think sovereignty clearly lies with the indigenous Palestinian Arab peoples, not the Arab nations of Jordan and Egypt. This land is what is left of the land set aside as an Arab State by the UN Partition Plan.

The problem is 500,000+ Israeli illegal settlers now live in this land, completely unlawful under the Fourth Geneva Convention, their daily presence constituting war crimes. If they do not leave, there cannot be an Arab State there. And there is noone and no mechanism to make them leave, this is the problem today with the two state solution, and why practically speaking it is probably dead. The US could play a positive role here in saving the two state solution, if we would choose to do so, but there is no indication we will. The US chooses instead to just keep funding and supporting the continuing Occupation, instead of funding and supporting peace.

Sherri

I agree with your post except for one thing.

This land is what is left of the land set aside as an Arab State by the UN Partition Plan.

The partition plan was sent to the Security Council for implementation. The Security Council rejected the plan.

Resolution 181 didn't happen. I means nothing.

 

[Billo_Really]

loinboy,

I agree, except with respect to the second question, I think sovereignty clearly lies with the indigenous Palestinian Arab peoples, not the Arab nations of Jordan and Egypt. This land is what is left of the land set aside as an Arab State by the UN Partition Plan.

The problem is 500,000+ Israeli illegal settlers now live in this land, completely unlawful under the Fourth Geneva Convention, their daily presence constituting war crimes. If they do not leave, there cannot be an Arab State there. And there is noone and no mechanism to make them leave, this is the problem today with the two state solution, and why practically speaking it is probably dead. The US could play a positive role here in saving the two state solution, if we would choose to do so, but there is no indication we will. The US chooses instead to just keep funding and supporting the continuing Occupation, instead of funding and supporting peace.

Sherri

It's okay we can disagree. No big deal there. I don't even mind admitting I'm wrong and changing my opinion when the situation calls for it. Unlike some people around here, I don't consider being wrong tantamount to death; for me, it's just a coarse correction.

BTW, those settlers are fuckin' psycho's! Even the Israeli government is afraid of pissing them off! They assassinated their own PM because they thought he was a little too appeasing to the Pals. They're Israel's equivalent to the "skin-heads".

 

[Billo_Really]

The partition plan was sent to the Security Council for implementation. The Security Council rejected the plan.

Resolution 181 didn't happen. I means nothing.

Why is it we can disagree without WWIII starting?

Is this the abberation, or the norm?