Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
"Why shouldn't the Old City and the Temple Mount belong to Israel?"
Because East Jerusalem in occupied territory, occupied by the Israelis who should go home, as directed to do so by the United Nations Security Council.
No; I repeat what the United Nations declares in accordance with international law."Why shouldn't the Old City and the Temple Mount belong to Israel?"
Because East Jerusalem in occupied territory, occupied by the Israelis who should go home, as directed to do so by the United Nations Security Council.
So, the only reason you think the Old City and the Temple Mount should not be under Israel's sovereignty is because you believe, incorrectly, that part of the territory belongs to Israel and part to "Palestine". See? You keep falling back to that one (demonstrably false) "claim". You are locked into such a narrow view of the conflict that you can't see the bigger picture.
No; I repeat what the United Nations declares in accordance with international law."Why shouldn't the Old City and the Temple Mount belong to Israel?"
Because East Jerusalem in occupied territory, occupied by the Israelis who should go home, as directed to do so by the United Nations Security Council.
So, the only reason you think the Old City and the Temple Mount should not be under Israel's sovereignty is because you believe, incorrectly, that part of the territory belongs to Israel and part to "Palestine". See? You keep falling back to that one (demonstrably false) "claim". You are locked into such a narrow view of the conflict that you can't see the bigger picture.
Forgive me but I am wasting my time responding to you.
But there is no dispute about the status and fact of the Occupied Territories. Naturally, the Israeli Zionists would like everyone to think this. If I'm not mistaken, what you are writing what is the Israeli position.No; I repeat what the United Nations declares in accordance with international law."Why shouldn't the Old City and the Temple Mount belong to Israel?"
Because East Jerusalem in occupied territory, occupied by the Israelis who should go home, as directed to do so by the United Nations Security Council.
So, the only reason you think the Old City and the Temple Mount should not be under Israel's sovereignty is because you believe, incorrectly, that part of the territory belongs to Israel and part to "Palestine". See? You keep falling back to that one (demonstrably false) "claim". You are locked into such a narrow view of the conflict that you can't see the bigger picture.
Forgive me but I am wasting my time responding to you.
International law has created no boundary between Israel and Palestine. The 1949 Armistice Agreements specifically prohibit the Green Line from being a border. UNSC 242 does not create a new State. All claims by other States (ie Jordan) have been addressed in other treaties.
Just consider for a moment, that the territory is still in dispute and the final boundaries between Israel and "Palestine" have yet to be determined (a good idea since this is legally correct) -- why should the Old City and the Temple Mount NOT be under Israeli sovereignty?
But there is no dispute about the status and fact of the Occupied Territories. Naturally, the Israeli Zionists would like everyone to think this. If I'm not mistaken, what you are writing what is the Israeli position.
But there is no dispute about the status and fact of the Occupied Territories. Naturally, the Israeli Zionists would like everyone to think this. If I'm not mistaken, what you are writing what is the Israeli position.
Even the Oslo Accords only say that the territories are disputed and the subject of final status negotiations. Your "belief" is unsupportable in law.
But there is no dispute about the status and fact of the Occupied Territories. Naturally, the Israeli Zionists would like everyone to think this. If I'm not mistaken, what you are writing what is the Israeli position.
Even the Oslo Accords only say that the territories are disputed and the subject of final status negotiations. Your "belief" is unsupportable in law.
Not only supportable, it is the law, since UNSC resolutions are international law.
"Resolution 478
The Security Council,
Recalling its resolution 476 (1980),
Reaffirming again that the acquisition of territory by force is inadmissible,
Deeply concerned over the enactment of a "basic law" in the Israeli Knesset proclaiming a change in the character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem, with its implications for peace and security,
Noting that Israel has not complied with resolution 476 (1980),
Reaffirming its determination to examine practical ways and means, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Charter of the United Nations, to secure the full implementation of its resolution 476 (1980), in the event of non-compliance by Israel,
1. Censures in the strongest terms the enactment by Israel of the "basic law" on Jerusalem and the refusal to comply with relevant Security Council resolutions;
2. Affirms that the enactment of the "basic law" by Israel constitutes a violation of international law and does not affect the continued application of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, in the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since June 1967, including Jerusalem;
3. Determines that all legislative and administrative measures and actions taken by Israel, the occupying Power, which have altered or purport to alter the character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem, and in particular the recent "basic law" on Jerusalem, are null and void and must be rescinded forthwith;"
S/RES/478 (1980) of 20 August 1980
UN Resolutions have become nothing more than the Muslim and Christian majority in the organization, Way to bash Israel and try to destroy it.
NONE of these resolutions are LEGALLY biding.
But there is no dispute about the status and fact of the Occupied Territories. Naturally, the Israeli Zionists would like everyone to think this. If I'm not mistaken, what you are writing what is the Israeli position.
Even the Oslo Accords only say that the territories are disputed and the subject of final status negotiations. Your "belief" is unsupportable in law.
Not only supportable, it is the law, since UNSC resolutions are international law.
"Resolution 478
The Security Council,
Recalling its resolution 476 (1980),
Reaffirming again that the acquisition of territory by force is inadmissible,
Deeply concerned over the enactment of a "basic law" in the Israeli Knesset proclaiming a change in the character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem, with its implications for peace and security,
Noting that Israel has not complied with resolution 476 (1980),
Reaffirming its determination to examine practical ways and means, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Charter of the United Nations, to secure the full implementation of its resolution 476 (1980), in the event of non-compliance by Israel,
1. Censures in the strongest terms the enactment by Israel of the "basic law" on Jerusalem and the refusal to comply with relevant Security Council resolutions;
2. Affirms that the enactment of the "basic law" by Israel constitutes a violation of international law and does not affect the continued application of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, in the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since June 1967, including Jerusalem;
3. Determines that all legislative and administrative measures and actions taken by Israel, the occupying Power, which have altered or purport to alter the character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem, and in particular the recent "basic law" on Jerusalem, are null and void and must be rescinded forthwith;"
S/RES/478 (1980) of 20 August 1980
I tend to agree that the acceptance of Israel as a state by the United Nations has been a disaster.But there is no dispute about the status and fact of the Occupied Territories. Naturally, the Israeli Zionists would like everyone to think this. If I'm not mistaken, what you are writing what is the Israeli position.
Even the Oslo Accords only say that the territories are disputed and the subject of final status negotiations. Your "belief" is unsupportable in law.
Not only supportable, it is the law, since UNSC resolutions are international law.
"Resolution 478
The Security Council,
Recalling its resolution 476 (1980),
Reaffirming again that the acquisition of territory by force is inadmissible,
Deeply concerned over the enactment of a "basic law" in the Israeli Knesset proclaiming a change in the character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem, with its implications for peace and security,
Noting that Israel has not complied with resolution 476 (1980),
Reaffirming its determination to examine practical ways and means, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Charter of the United Nations, to secure the full implementation of its resolution 476 (1980), in the event of non-compliance by Israel,
1. Censures in the strongest terms the enactment by Israel of the "basic law" on Jerusalem and the refusal to comply with relevant Security Council resolutions;
2. Affirms that the enactment of the "basic law" by Israel constitutes a violation of international law and does not affect the continued application of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, in the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since June 1967, including Jerusalem;
3. Determines that all legislative and administrative measures and actions taken by Israel, the occupying Power, which have altered or purport to alter the character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem, and in particular the recent "basic law" on Jerusalem, are null and void and must be rescinded forthwith;"
S/RES/478 (1980) of 20 August 1980
UNSC resolutions do not create States nor do they or can they assign territory to States. The only States in existence in the territory with respect to Jerusalem were (are) Israel and Jordan. Israel and Jordan made a peace treaty which clearly delineates whose land is whose. Jerusalem is within the territory of Israel.
Further, Article 31.5 of the Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement states:
Permanent status negotiations will commence as soon as possible ... between the Parties. It is understood that these negotiations shall cover remaining issues including Jerusalem, refugees, settlements, security arrangements, borders, relations and cooperation with other neighbors, and other issues of common interest. (emphasis mine)
These issues are all subject to permanent status negotiation and a peace treaty. Always have been.
I tend to agree that the acceptance of Israel as a state by the United Nations has been a disaster.
I agree. If only the UN had strongly stood up for the rights of Israel, things would have turned out much better.
Who oppresses whom?
The UN did that in 1947, the Arabs (now known as Palestinians) rejected it in favor of attempting to wipe the Jews out of the land completely.I agree. If only the UN had strongly stood up for the rights of Israel, things would have turned out much better.
If the UN had strongly stood up for the rights of the Palestinians, things would have turned out much better. Who oppresses whom?
I am curious as to where 'home' is in your opinion that the Israeli's should go to? This should be interesting.<snip>occupied by the Israelis who should go home, as directed to do so by the United Nations Security Council.
