'We need 1,000 SodaStreams around here'

[Sweet_Caroline]

You have a problem with the word 'Mandate' don't you.
The Mandate for Palestine did end, but the San Remo Conference's Mandate hasn't ended, and the Jewish people's rights to Israel including the area known as the West Bank is protected in Law in Article 80 of the San Remo Mandate....

what evidence do you have that the San Remo Conference didn't end?

...Didn't it? Show me where it never said all of Palestine would be a Jewish state....

No where in the San Remo Conference does it state that all of Palestine shall be used as a Jewish homeland. Such a claim is mere fantasy.

...Israeli Arabs/Christians/Catholics/Mormons/Treehuggers etc are given full respect and their religious and civil rights are protected. It is those in Palestinian Authority controlled areas and of course Gaza that are at risk of their civil and religious rights being violated.

Israel has been confiscating Arab private land in the West Bank to be used for Israeli settlements from 1967 to 1979. This is illegal and violates the 4th GC. According to the 4th GC, private land can only be confiscated to be used for military purposes. The Israeli Supreme Court in 1979 decided that it is illegal for Israel to confiscate private land for military purposes and then turn it into civilian settlements.

Since then Israel has been confiscating Arab private land and converting it into State land, but according to the 4th GC state land in Occupied Territory can only be used by the Occupier for the good of all peoples in the territory, and Israel has been using this land just for Israeli settlements, roads for the settlements, and other settlement infrastructure.

All of these policies that discriminate against Arabs in favor of the Israelis, clearly violate the San Remo Conference's condition that non-Jewish civil rights in Palestine must be protected.

The Conference ended but the San Remo Mandate didn't, (I am sure English is a second language of yours).

The San Remo Mandate specified in its final resolution " it should continue to administer the territories under the Mandate for the wellbeing and development of the peoples concerned in accordance with the obligations contained in the respective mandates." For Palestine that meant the Jewish People.

The Jewish people's rights were preserved in Article 80 of the San Remo Mandate. (Please stop your confusion with the words conference and Palestinian Mandate as we are specifically talking about the San Remo Mandate here.

Land is used for settlements but of course it is done legally unless it is deemed by Courts to be illegal.

When the hostile arab population become peaceful then perhaps there can be give and take on both sides. However I don't see that happening.

This is the Palestinian Authority spokesman, a member of the Fatah Central Committee.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_PwbkXLJ-eQ]"Goal is end of Israel," but "you can't say that to the world," Fatah Central Committee member Zaki - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1Qmr3_IrVE#t=22]State on '67 borders is first stage - Senior PA official Abbas Zaki - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Victory67]

The Conference ended but the San Remo Mandate didn't, (I am sure English is a second language of yours).

The San Remo Mandate specified in its final resolution " it should continue to administer the territories under the Mandate for the wellbeing and development of the peoples concerned in accordance with the obligations contained in the respective mandates." For Palestine that meant the Jewish People.

The Jewish people's rights were preserved in Article 80 of the San Remo Mandate. (Please stop your confusion with the words conference and Palestinian Mandate as we are specifically talking about the San Remo Mandate here.

Land is used for settlements but of course it is done legally unless it is deemed by Courts to be illegal.

There is no such thing as the San Remo "mandate".

The San Remo Conference recognizes and demands the protection of non-Jewish rights in Palestine. The fact that you keep ignoring this is very telling. You criticise people for supposedly ignoring Jewish rights and then you turn around and ignore non-Jewish rights. This is very sad.

The San Remo Conference doesn't have an "Article 80". You clearly have never read it.

 

[Sweet_Caroline]

The Conference ended but the San Remo Mandate didn't, (I am sure English is a second language of yours).

The San Remo Mandate specified in its final resolution " it should continue to administer the territories under the Mandate for the wellbeing and development of the peoples concerned in accordance with the obligations contained in the respective mandates." For Palestine that meant the Jewish People.

The Jewish people's rights were preserved in Article 80 of the San Remo Mandate. (Please stop your confusion with the words conference and Palestinian Mandate as we are specifically talking about the San Remo Mandate here.

Land is used for settlements but of course it is done legally unless it is deemed by Courts to be illegal.

There is no such thing as the San Remo "mandate".

The San Remo Conference recognizes and demands the protection of non-Jewish rights in Palestine. The fact that you keep ignoring this is very telling. You criticise people for supposedly ignoring Jewish rights and then you turn around and ignore non-Jewish rights. This is very sad.

The San Remo Conference doesn't have an "Article 80". You clearly have never read it.

Article 80 of the UN Charter, once known unofficially as the Jewish People’s clause, which preserves intact all the rights granted to Jews under the Mandate for Palestine, even after the Mandate’s expiry on May 14-15, 1948. Under this provision of international law (the Charter is an international treaty), Jewish rights to Palestine and the Land of Israel were not to be altered in any way unless there had been an intervening trusteeship agreement between the states or parties concerned, which would have converted the Mandate into a trusteeship or trust territory.

The Partition Plan of 1947 only demarcated the cease fire lines. It had no binding legal force.

It was not approved by the Arabs. In order for the Green Line to have had any sort of legal significance that approval would have been necessary at the very least;
The General Assembly has no power to change borders. Therefore its decision or advice was insignificant from a legal perspective.

The UN has no power to vary an existing valid international treaty which the League of Nations - its predecessor - had approved. (Res Judicata). The UN inherited from the League of Nations the granting to Israel of the lands between the Mediterranean and the Jordan River.

The UN has no power to draw new agreements which run contrary to existing valid International Agreements or treaties which it had inherited from its predecessor, the League of Nations.

No borders decided by the San Remo Conference and approved by the League of Nations, save those of Israel, were ever challenged or changed;

 

[Victory67]

Article 80 of the UN Charter, once known unofficially as the Jewish People’s clause, which preserves intact all the rights granted to Jews under the Mandate for Palestine, even after the Mandate’s expiry on May 14-15, 1948. Under this provision of international law (the Charter is an international treaty), Jewish rights to Palestine and the Land of Israel were not to be altered in any way unless there had been an intervening trusteeship agreement between the states or parties concerned, which would have converted the Mandate into a trusteeship or trust territory.

The Partition Plan of 1947 only demarcated the cease fire lines. It had no binding legal force.

It was not approved by the Arabs. In order for the Green Line to have had any sort of legal significance that approval would have been necessary at the very least;
The General Assembly has no power to change borders. Therefore its decision or advice was insignificant from a legal perspective.

The UN has no power to vary an existing valid international treaty which the League of Nations - its predecessor - had approved. (Res Judicata). The UN inherited from the League of Nations the granting to Israel of the lands between the Mediterranean and the Jordan River.

The UN has no power to draw new agreements which run contrary to existing valid International Agreements or treaties which it had inherited from its predecessor, the League of Nations.

No borders decided by the San Remo Conference and approved by the League of Nations, save those of Israel, were ever challenged or changed;

The San Remo Conference and the Mandate for Palestine all demand protection and respect for all non-Jewish civil rights in Palestine.

The settlement system clearly violates this as they discriminate against the rights of non-Jews in favor of Jewish Israelis.

Why you ignore this is very confusing.

 

[Sweet_Caroline]

Article 80 of the UN Charter, once known unofficially as the Jewish People’s clause, which preserves intact all the rights granted to Jews under the Mandate for Palestine, even after the Mandate’s expiry on May 14-15, 1948. Under this provision of international law (the Charter is an international treaty), Jewish rights to Palestine and the Land of Israel were not to be altered in any way unless there had been an intervening trusteeship agreement between the states or parties concerned, which would have converted the Mandate into a trusteeship or trust territory.

The Partition Plan of 1947 only demarcated the cease fire lines. It had no binding legal force.

It was not approved by the Arabs. In order for the Green Line to have had any sort of legal significance that approval would have been necessary at the very least;
The General Assembly has no power to change borders. Therefore its decision or advice was insignificant from a legal perspective.

The UN has no power to vary an existing valid international treaty which the League of Nations - its predecessor - had approved. (Res Judicata). The UN inherited from the League of Nations the granting to Israel of the lands between the Mediterranean and the Jordan River.

The UN has no power to draw new agreements which run contrary to existing valid International Agreements or treaties which it had inherited from its predecessor, the League of Nations.

No borders decided by the San Remo Conference and approved by the League of Nations, save those of Israel, were ever challenged or changed;

The San Remo Conference and the Mandate for Palestine all demand protection and respect for all non-Jewish civil rights in Palestine.

The settlement system clearly violates this as they discriminate against the rights of non-Jews in favor of Jewish Israelis.

Why you ignore this is very confusing.

You are simply a confused person. Perhaps it is the weather?

 

[Victory67]

You are simply a confused person. Perhaps it is the weather?

I ask you again: why should the world respect Jewish rights to settle in all of Palestine, as mentioned in the San Remo Conference, when you ignore the rights of non-Jews protected in the San Remo Conference?

If you can ignore non-Jewish rights in San Remo, the world can ignore Jewish rights in San Remo.

Either all rights are to be respected or none.

 

[Sweet_Caroline]

You are simply a confused person. Perhaps it is the weather?

I ask you again: why should the world respect Jewish rights to settle in all of Palestine, as mentioned in the San Remo Conference, when you ignore the rights of non-Jews protected in the San Remo Conference?

If you can ignore non-Jewish rights in San Remo, the world can ignore Jewish rights in San Remo.

Either all rights are to be respected or none.

Who has ignored rights of non-Jews. As I have mentioned Jews and non-Jews have equal rights.

 

[Victory67]

Who has ignored rights of non-Jews. As I have mentioned Jews and non-Jews have equal rights.

Will you first of all acknowledge that the San Remo Conference makes Jewish settlement in Palestine and the creation of a Jewish homeland in Palestine conditional upon the full respect and protection of non-Jewish civil rights in Palestine?

Secondly, do you acknowledge that the settlement system in the West Bank violates the rights of Arabs?

 

[Sweet_Caroline]

Who has ignored rights of non-Jews. As I have mentioned Jews and non-Jews have equal rights.

Will you first of all acknowledge that the San Remo Conference makes Jewish settlement in Palestine and the creation of a Jewish homeland in Palestine conditional upon the full respect and protection of non-Jewish civil rights in Palestine?

Secondly, do you acknowledge that the settlement system in the West Bank violates the rights of Arabs?

Yes to point number 1 and no to point number 2.

 

[Victory67]

Yes to point number 1 and no to point number 2.

Israel has confiscated tens of thousands of dumans of Arab private land in the West Bank and used the land to build Israeli settlements, roads for those settlements, and other settlement infrastructure.

Israel has confiscated more Arba private land, converted it into State land, and again used it only to build and expand Israeli settlements.

How many Arab settlements has Israel built in the West Bank?

How many roads for Arabs have the Israelis built?

 

[Sweet_Caroline]

Yes to point number 1 and no to point number 2.

Israel has confiscated tens of thousands of dumans of Arab private land in the West Bank and used the land to build Israeli settlements, roads for those settlements, and other settlement infrastructure.

Israel has confiscated more Arba private land, converted it into State land, and again used it only to build and expand Israeli settlements.

How many Arab settlements has Israel built in the West Bank?

How many roads for Arabs have the Israelis built?

Could you explain and give proof of the above please.

 

[Victory67]

Could you explain and give proof of the above please.

You want me to prove that Israel has confiscates tens of thousands of dumans of private land in the West Bank and used it for Israeli settlements?

You want me to prove that Israel has built lots of roads that interconnect the settlements but are off-limits to Palestinians?

Interesting.

 

[Phoenall]

Who has ignored rights of non-Jews. As I have mentioned Jews and non-Jews have equal rights.

Will you first of all acknowledge that the San Remo Conference makes Jewish settlement in Palestine and the creation of a Jewish homeland in Palestine conditional upon the full respect and protection of non-Jewish civil rights in Palestine?

Secondly, do you acknowledge that the settlement system in the West Bank violates the rights of Arabs?

How can it when it is arab Jews that are settling on land stolen from them in 1948.

 

[Phoenall]

Yes to point number 1 and no to point number 2.

Israel has confiscated tens of thousands of dumans of Arab private land in the West Bank and used the land to build Israeli settlements, roads for those settlements, and other settlement infrastructure.

Israel has confiscated more Arba private land, converted it into State land, and again used it only to build and expand Israeli settlements.

How many Arab settlements has Israel built in the West Bank?

How many roads for Arabs have the Israelis built?

Prove that the land was not Jewish owned prior to their expulsion in 1948/1949, and it is not Israel building the settlements but Jews. Learn to differentiate between the two.

The land is not owned by Israel but by Jews expelled from it in 1948/1949. And it is Jews that are expanding Jewish settlements.

NONE as it is not Israel that is building the settlements but arab Jews.

Plenty if you bother to look, as before 1967 Palestine was a cess pit of squalor and filth. No running water or electricity, no sewage disposal and no medical help.

 

[Phoenall]

Could you explain and give proof of the above please.

You want me to prove that Israel has confiscates tens of thousands of dumans of private land in the West Bank and used it for Israeli settlements?

You want me to prove that Israel has built lots of roads that interconnect the settlements but are off-limits to Palestinians?

Interesting.

Yes and in doing so you will see that you are a racist

 

[Victory67]

Yes and in doing so you will see that you are a racist

You believe that anyone who criticizes Israel for any reason whatsoever is a racist.

Meanwhile you ignore racist calls by Israelis for ethnic cleansing in the West Bank.

Your hypocrisy on this issue renders your accusations against me, null & void.

Now, do you agree that people have the right to boycott settlement products?

 

[Victory67]

How can it when it is arab Jews that are settling on land stolen from them in 1948.

You have no evidence that the settlements are built on former Jewish private property.

 

[docmauser1]

You want me to prove that Israel has confiscates tens of thousands of dumans of private land in the West Bank and used it for Israeli settlements? You want me to prove that Israel has built lots of roads that interconnect the settlements but are off-limits to Palestinians? Interesting.

Why not? Entertain us.

 

[Shaarona]

Could you explain and give proof of the above please.

You want me to prove that Israel has confiscates tens of thousands of dumans of private land in the West Bank and used it for Israeli settlements?

You want me to prove that Israel has built lots of roads that interconnect the settlements but are off-limits to Palestinians?

Interesting.

Yes and in doing so you will see that you are a racist

Just look at a map, fool.

 

[docmauser1]

You want me to prove that Israel has confiscates tens of thousands of dumans of private land in the West Bank and used it for Israeli settlements? You want me to prove that Israel has built lots of roads that interconnect the settlements but are off-limits to Palestinians? Interesting.

Yes and in doing so you will see that you are a racist

Just look at a map, fool.

What map?