Saudi prince: Maybe the Palestinians should’ve taken the deals they were offered

[Billo_Really]

On what planet is that the case?

Has Russia not taken Crimea?

You need to do your homework before you open your mouth and look like an idiot.

The Fourth Geneva Convention
The applicability of the fourth Geneva Convention to "all the territories occupied by Israel in 1967" is held with "a remarkable degree of unanimity" among international actors.

In a 2004 advisory opinion to the UN General Assembly, the International Court of Justice stated that Article 2 of the Convention applied to the case of Israel's presence in the territories captured during the 1967 war.

It stated that Article 2 applies if there exists an armed conflict between two contracting parties, regardless of the territories' status in international law prior to the armed attack.

It also argued that "no territorial acquisition resulting from the threat or use of force shall be recognized as legal" according to customary international law and defined by "Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations" (General Assembly Resolution 2625).
​

It is also worth noting...

At present, based on the result of numerous UN resolutions that cite Article 49 of the Geneva Convention, the consensus view of the international community is that Israeli settlements are illegal and constitute a violation of international law. According to the BBC, every government in the world, except Israel, considers the settlements to be illegal.​

 

[Shusha]

I agree. Palestinians do not occupy Israeli land. But for the same reasons Israel does not occupy Palestinian land. Why? Because it is yet to be determined what IS Israeli land and what IS Palestinian land. The negotiation and peace treaty has not yet occurred. The territory is disputed.

We also agree that by convention, if not by formal treaty, there is a definitive, undisputed (international) boundary between Israel and Gaza, yes? So what gives Gazan, especially hostile Gazans, the right to cross an international boundary into territory which is NOT THEIRS? And what removes Israel's right to defend her sovereignty at that boundary?

It is not a disputed territory. It is clear, Israel has no sovereign title to that land. It wasn't given to Zionists in the Mandate, so they took it in the '67 war. You cannot hold onto land seized in a war.

It wasn't given to Israel in the Mandate? Again, I have to ask, have you read the Mandate? Which Article in the Mandate (1922) creates an international border along the Green Line which didn't exist until 1949?

Astonishing. How did they do that? Did they time travel? Of did they have the gift of prophecy?

 

[P F Tinmore]

Too bad Arafat did not have the brains NOT TO start the intifadas and that way putting an end for the people in Gaza having good jobs in Israel, and education, etc.

They are on their own now, except for the health care which Israel will still allow.

That is what happens to those who chose war.

According to the Red Cross and Physicians without borders, there is a humanitarian crisis in Gaza.

Brought on by their elected terrorist government, Hamas. Thank you again!

Ooooo, terrorists. Is name calling all you got?

 

[Shusha]

Aren't you one of those who insist that Gazans and Palestinians have access to lethal weapons in order to 'defend themselves'? I'm smelling the rank and nasty odor of double standards here.

Objectively, do people have the right to use lethal force to defend themselves or their territory? Yes or no?

If YOUR standard is that lethal force can only be used when life is immanently threatened then you SHOULD be championing an end to rockets, mortars, suicide bombings, rock-throwing, stabbings, car-rammings, fire-bombings, wire-cutting, fence-crossing etc, etc, etc.

So why aren't you?

There is a big difference between self defense and murder.

Sure. We agree. But the difference for you seems to be Jooooos.

You agree that using force, including lethal force, is permissible in order to defend yourself, your citizens and your territory, yes?

 

[Billo_Really]

It wasn't given to Israel in the Mandate? Again, I have to ask, have you read the Mandate? Which Article in the Mandate (1922) creates an international border along the Green Line which didn't exist until 1949?

Astonishing. How did they do that? Did they time travel? Of did they have the gift of prophecy?

Susha, my dear, how are you finding yourself this evening? Are you able to afford the cost of Milky?

Yes, I've read the Mandate.

 

[Shusha]

It wasn't given to Israel in the Mandate? Again, I have to ask, have you read the Mandate? Which Article in the Mandate (1922) creates an international border along the Green Line which didn't exist until 1949?

Astonishing. How did they do that? Did they time travel? Of did they have the gift of prophecy?

Susha, my dear, how are you finding yourself this evening? Are you able to afford the cost of Milky?

Yes, I've read the Mandate.

Then you should have no trouble answering my question.

Where in the 1922 Mandate is the territory divided into two territories along the 1949 Green Line?

 

[Billo_Really]

Sure. We agree. But the difference for you seems to be Jooooos.

You agree that using force, including lethal force, is permissible in order to defend yourself, your citizens and your territory, yes?

First off, I asked you before, "why would I hate Jews?", and you have not given me an answer. If you are going to continue to make such a baseless accusation, I think I am owed an answer.

Secondly, I agree with your last statement. Except, an occupational force cannot claim self defense. That would be the equivalent of an assassin telling the cops, he had no choice but to shoot his target to death, after breaking into the house, and finding the home owner put up more resistance than anticipated and that he [the assassin], was in fear for his life.

 

[Billo_Really]

Then you should have no trouble answering my question.

Where in the 1922 Mandate is the territory divided into two territories along the 1949 Green Line?

Why do you deliberately try to gin up the question in order to make sure you get an answer more to your liking?

The Mandate called for two states. One Jewish. One Arab. However, the Jewish state came with a caveat. Zionists may create the State of Israel, provided it did not prejudice in any way, the religious rights of the non-Jewish population in the area.

 

[Shusha]

Sure. We agree. But the difference for you seems to be Jooooos.

You agree that using force, including lethal force, is permissible in order to defend yourself, your citizens and your territory, yes?

First off, I asked you before, "why would I hate Jews?", and you have not given me an answer. If you are going to continue to make such a baseless accusation, I think I am owed an answer.

Secondly, I agree with your last statement. Except, an occupational force cannot claim self defense. That would be the equivalent of an assassin telling the cops, he had no choice but to shoot his target to death, after breaking into the house, and finding the home owner put up more resistance than anticipated and that he [the assassin], was in fear for his life.

An occupational force is not permitted to defend itself and its citizens even on its own territory?

You are arguing then, by international law, Israel is prohibited from responding to any attacks against it or its citizens?

So Gazans are permitted by law to march to Jerusalem tearing the hearts out of Jews and Israel is prohibited from responding or defending her citizens?

Ridiculous.

 

[USAF 2023]

On what planet is that the case?

Has Russia not taken Crimea?

You need to do your homework before you open your mouth and look like an idiot.

The Fourth Geneva Convention
The applicability of the fourth Geneva Convention to "all the territories occupied by Israel in 1967" is held with "a remarkable degree of unanimity" among international actors.

In a 2004 advisory opinion to the UN General Assembly, the International Court of Justice stated that Article 2 of the Convention applied to the case of Israel's presence in the territories captured during the 1967 war.

It stated that Article 2 applies if there exists an armed conflict between two contracting parties, regardless of the territories' status in international law prior to the armed attack.

It also argued that "no territorial acquisition resulting from the threat or use of force shall be recognized as legal" according to customary international law and defined by "Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations" (General Assembly Resolution 2625).
​

It is also worth noting...

At present, based on the result of numerous UN resolutions that cite Article 49 of the Geneva Convention, the consensus view of the international community is that Israeli settlements are illegal and constitute a violation of international law. According to the BBC, every government in the world, except Israel, considers the settlements to be illegal.​

Yawn...,. Who gives a Shit? If Israel had lost the ‘67 War you would not be quoting the Geneva Convention. **** YOU !!!’

 

[Billo_Really]

An occupational force is not permitted to defend itself and its citizens even on its own territory?

You are arguing then, by international law, Israel is prohibited from responding to any attacks against it or its citizens?

So Gazans are permitted by law to march to Jerusalem tearing the hearts out of Jews and Israel is prohibited from responding or defending her citizens?

Ridiculous.

On its own territory, yes. On territory it has no sovereign title to, no.

 

[Billo_Really]

Yawn...,. Who gives a Shit? If Israel had lost the ‘67 War you would not be quoting the Geneva Convention. **** YOU !!!’

Yes I would. Nice to see you and Hitler think the same way. Might makes right!

This will be my last post in this thread.

 

[Sixties Fan]

Then you should have no trouble answering my question.

Where in the 1922 Mandate is the territory divided into two territories along the 1949 Green Line?

Why do you deliberately try to gin up the question in order to make sure you get an answer more to your liking?

The Mandate called for two states. One Jewish. One Arab. However, the Jewish state came with a caveat. Zionists may create the State of Israel, provided it did not prejudice in any way, the religious rights of the non-Jewish population in the area.

The Palestine Mandate

The Council of the League of Nations:

Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have agreed, for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, to entrust to a Mandatory selected by the said Powers the administration of the territory of Palestine, which formerly belonged to the Turkish Empire, within such boundaries as may be fixed by them; and

Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country; and

Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country


----------
1922 did not mention the Arabs as getting their own State in the Mandate

That only happened in 1937, the first time the British offered to Partition the rest of the Mandate (minus the 78% already given to the Arab Hashemites) into a Jewish and an Arab State.

Why?

Because since 1920, the Arabs did nothing but attack the Jews and have them expelled from their homes in Gaza, Hebron and other places. (Including TransJordan in 1925)

Right, only the religious rights of the Jewish people were to
have nothing but prejudice against them, as shown by the Arabs again and again.

Guess who got kicked out of their oldest city in Hebron?

Guess who got kicked out of their most religious place in 1948 and not allowed to see or pray there until 1967?


Sprinkle us with some more of your knowledge about the issue.

 

[Shusha]

Then you should have no trouble answering my question.

Where in the 1922 Mandate is the territory divided into two territories along the 1949 Green Line?

Why do you deliberately try to gin up the question in order to make sure you get an answer more to your liking?

The Mandate called for two states. One Jewish. One Arab. However, the Jewish state came with a caveat. Zionists may create the State of Israel, provided it did not prejudice in any way, the religious rights of the non-Jewish population in the area.

1. It didn't.

2. The caveat also applied to the treatment of Jews, who were actually denied their rights.

3. Your claim was that the Mandate for the Jewish State did not give all the territory to the Jewish State. Your claim is that there was an international boundary written into the Mandate. It's a patently ridiculous claim. And you know it.

 

[Sixties Fan]

Yawn...,. Who gives a Shit? If Israel had lost the ‘67 War you would not be quoting the Geneva Convention. **** YOU !!!’

Yes I would. Nice to see you and Hitler think the same way. Might makes right!

This will be my last post in this thread.

The Catholic Irish who keeps borrowing from Martin Luther and Hitler, acts insulted that Jews dare to defend themselves.

That is a good one

 

[Shusha]

An occupational force is not permitted to defend itself and its citizens even on its own territory?

You are arguing then, by international law, Israel is prohibited from responding to any attacks against it or its citizens?

So Gazans are permitted by law to march to Jerusalem tearing the hearts out of Jews and Israel is prohibited from responding or defending her citizens?

Ridiculous.

On its own territory, yes. On territory it has no sovereign title to, no.

Thank you! Israel has every right to use force, including lethal force, against those attempting to cross the border into Israel.

 

[Shusha]

Then you should have no trouble answering my question.

Where in the 1922 Mandate is the territory divided into two territories along the 1949 Green Line?

Why do you deliberately try to gin up the question in order to make sure you get an answer more to your liking?

The Mandate called for two states. One Jewish. One Arab. However, the Jewish state came with a caveat. Zionists may create the State of Israel, provided it did not prejudice in any way, the religious rights of the non-Jewish population in the area.

The Palestine Mandate

The Council of the League of Nations:

Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have agreed, for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, to entrust to a Mandatory selected by the said Powers the administration of the territory of Palestine, which formerly belonged to the Turkish Empire, within such boundaries as may be fixed by them; and

Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country; and

Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country


----------
1922 did not mention the Arabs as getting their own State in the Mandate

That only happened in 1937, the first time the British offered to Partition the rest of the Mandate (minus the 78% already given to the Arab Hashemites) into a Jewish and an Arab State.

Why?

Because since 1920, the Arabs did nothing but attack the Jews and have them expelled from their homes in Gaza, Hebron and other places. (Including TransJordan in 1925)

Right, only the religious rights of the Jewish people were to be
have nothing but prejudice against them, as shown by the Arabs again and again.

Guess who got kicked out of their oldest city in Hebron?

Guess who got kicked out of their most religious place in 1948 and not allowed to see or pray there until 1967?


Sprinkle us with some more of your knowledge about the issue.

Still not allowed to pray there.

 

[Sixties Fan]

Then you should have no trouble answering my question.

Where in the 1922 Mandate is the territory divided into two territories along the 1949 Green Line?

Why do you deliberately try to gin up the question in order to make sure you get an answer more to your liking?

The Mandate called for two states. One Jewish. One Arab. However, the Jewish state came with a caveat. Zionists may create the State of Israel, provided it did not prejudice in any way, the religious rights of the non-Jewish population in the area.

The Palestine Mandate

The Council of the League of Nations:

Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have agreed, for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, to entrust to a Mandatory selected by the said Powers the administration of the territory of Palestine, which formerly belonged to the Turkish Empire, within such boundaries as may be fixed by them; and

Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country; and

Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country


----------
1922 did not mention the Arabs as getting their own State in the Mandate

That only happened in 1937, the first time the British offered to Partition the rest of the Mandate (minus the 78% already given to the Arab Hashemites) into a Jewish and an Arab State.

Why?

Because since 1920, the Arabs did nothing but attack the Jews and have them expelled from their homes in Gaza, Hebron and other places. (Including TransJordan in 1925)

Right, only the religious rights of the Jewish people were to be
have nothing but prejudice against them, as shown by the Arabs again and again.

Guess who got kicked out of their oldest city in Hebron?

Guess who got kicked out of their most religious place in 1948 and not allowed to see or pray there until 1967?


Sprinkle us with some more of your knowledge about the issue.

Still not allowed to pray there.

Yes, I know. But gratefully, there have been some exceptions.

 

[P F Tinmore]

That only happened in 1937, the first time the British offered to Partition the rest of the Mandate

They couldn't partition the "Mandate" because the Mandate was an administration not a place.

 

[P F Tinmore]

3. Your claim was that the Mandate for the Jewish State did not give all the territory to the Jewish State.

The Mandate had no territory to give.