" World Council of Churches" condemn expulsion of Christians

[Marc39]

There is no international law which allow mandatory state to sell or give lands to foreign settlers.

Your knowledge deficit of "international law" is less than zero.

International law in the form of the Palestine Mandate has assigned ALL of the territory for the Jewish homeland.

Doin't make shit up, schizo.

 

[rdean]

American Christians didn't seem to mind what happened to the Iraqi Christians. Why are these more "important"?

 

[Freeman]

There is no international law which allow mandatory state to sell or give lands to foreign settlers.

Your knowledge deficit of "international law" is less than zero.

International law in the form of the Palestine Mandate has assigned ALL of the territory for the Jewish homeland.

Doin't make shit up, schizo.

ok mongol;
give me that international law which allow to sell lands.

 

[Marc39]

There is no international law which allow mandatory state to sell or give lands to foreign settlers.

Your knowledge deficit of "international law" is less than zero.

International law in the form of the Palestine Mandate has assigned ALL of the territory for the Jewish homeland.

Doin't make shit up, schizo.

ok mongol;
give me that international law which allow to sell lands.

I have done so, repeatedly. Don't make me repeat myself, again.

Palestine Mandate...

The Administration of Palestine shall be responsible for enacting a nationality law. There shall be included in this law provisions framed so as to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine.

The Mandatory shall be responsible for seeing that no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way placed under the control of the Government of any foreign Power.

An appropriate Jewish agency shall be recognised as a public body for the purpose of advising and co-operating with the Administration of Palestine in such economic, social and other matters as may affect the establishment of the Jewish national home and the interests of the Jewish population in Palestine, and, subject always to the control of the Administration to assist and take part in the development of the country.

The Zionist organization, so long as its organization and constitution are in the opinion of the Mandatory appropriate, shall be recognised as such agency. It shall take steps in consultation with His Britannic Majesty's Government to secure the co-operation of all Jews who are willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish national home.

 

[Freeman]

Thanks moron for the quote:

The Mandatory shall be responsible for seeing that no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way placed under the control of the Government of any foreign Power.

although you havn't brought any international law, it's just balfour promise- I would quote the a declaration long before 1917:

In 1915 Britain promised Hussein, the Sharif of Mecca, that they would support an independent Arab kingdom under his rule in return for his mounting an Arab revolt against the Ottoman Empire, Germany’s ally in the war. The promise was contained in a letter dated October 24, 1915 from Sir Henry McMahon, the British High Commissioner in Egypt, to the Sharif of Mecca in what later became known as the McMahon-Hussein correspondence. The Sharif of Mecca assumed that the promise included Palestine. In 1916 Britain reached a secret agreement with France to divide the Middle East into spheres of influence in the event of an allied victory.

 

[editec]

There is no international law which allow mandatory state to sell or give lands to foreign settlers.

Your knowledge deficit of "international law" is less than zero.

International law in the form of the Palestine Mandate has assigned ALL of the territory for the Jewish homeland.

Doin't make shit up, schizo.

\

No really.

That League of Nations mandate gave Britian control over Palestine.

There was a UN agreement to divide the lands, of course.

Since that time, however, war and conquest has changed the borders to give Isreal more land than originally planned.

The occupied territories, ya know?

They're called THAT for a reason.

 

[Marc39]

That League of Nations mandate gave Britian control over Palestine.

Administrative control, not ownership of the territory.

There was a UN agreement to divide the lands, of course.

Rejected by the Arabs, of course.

Since that time, however, war and conquest has changed the borders to give Isreal more land than originally planned.

Wars initiated by the Arabs. Arabs should have recognized they are camel herders, not warriors.

The occupied territories, ya know?

Occupied...by Arabs.

 

[toomuchtime_]

There is no international law which allow mandatory state to sell or give lands to foreign settlers.

Your knowledge deficit of "international law" is less than zero.

International law in the form of the Palestine Mandate has assigned ALL of the territory for the Jewish homeland.

Doin't make shit up, schizo.

\

No really.

That League of Nations mandate gave Britian control over Palestine.

There was a UN agreement to divide the lands, of course.

Since that time, however, war and conquest has changed the borders to give Isreal more land than originally planned.

The occupied territories, ya know?

They're called THAT for a reason.

Occupied territories is a meaningless propaganda term. Judea and Samaria are disputed territories.

After all, by what right did the League of Nations control the land? Because the European colonial powers who controlled the League of Nations had captured it from the Ottoman Turks? In that case, Israel's control of the land is as legitimate as the League of Nations' was, or for that matter, as the UN's was. And what right did the Turks have to the land? Or any of the other rulers right back to when the Arabs swept out of Arabia and conquered it a few years after Muhammad's death?

Judea and Samaria are disputed territories - as all of Israel is in the eyes of many of its critics - and can be as properly regarded as legitimate Israeli protectorates as they were once regarded as part of a legitimate protectorate of the European colonial powers who operated the League of Nations. Without a doubt the Israelis will do a better job of deciding the final disposition of these territories than the Europeans did.

 

[Marc39]

After all, by what right did the League of Nations control the land? Because the European colonial powers who controlled the League of Nations had captured it from the Ottoman Turks?

That, plus, the fact that the Ottoman Turks legally surrendered sovereignty over the land in signing the Treaty of Sevres.

 

[Freeman]

Your knowledge deficit of "international law" is less than zero.

International law in the form of the Palestine Mandate has assigned ALL of the territory for the Jewish homeland.

Doin't make shit up, schizo.

\

No really.

That League of Nations mandate gave Britian control over Palestine.

There was a UN agreement to divide the lands, of course.

Since that time, however, war and conquest has changed the borders to give Isreal more land than originally planned.

The occupied territories, ya know?

They're called THAT for a reason.

Occupied territories is a meaningless propaganda term. Judea and Samaria are disputed territories.

After all, by what right did the League of Nations control the land? Because the European colonial powers who controlled the League of Nations had captured it from the Ottoman Turks? In that case, Israel's control of the land is as legitimate as the League of Nations' was, or for that matter, as the UN's was. And what right did the Turks have to the land? Or any of the other rulers right back to when the Arabs swept out of Arabia and conquered it a few years after Muhammad's death?

Judea and Samaria are disputed territories - as all of Israel is in the eyes of many of its critics - and can be as properly regarded as legitimate Israeli protectorates as they were once regarded as part of a legitimate protectorate of the European colonial powers who operated the League of Nations. Without a doubt the Israelis will do a better job of deciding the final disposition of these territories than the Europeans did.

Judea and Samaria are disputed territories?
disputed by whom?

US, UN and EU consider it occupied territories and even some izraelis consider it occupied.

 

[toomuchtime_]

\

No really.

That League of Nations mandate gave Britian control over Palestine.

There was a UN agreement to divide the lands, of course.

Since that time, however, war and conquest has changed the borders to give Isreal more land than originally planned.

The occupied territories, ya know?

They're called THAT for a reason.

Occupied territories is a meaningless propaganda term. Judea and Samaria are disputed territories.

After all, by what right did the League of Nations control the land? Because the European colonial powers who controlled the League of Nations had captured it from the Ottoman Turks? In that case, Israel's control of the land is as legitimate as the League of Nations' was, or for that matter, as the UN's was. And what right did the Turks have to the land? Or any of the other rulers right back to when the Arabs swept out of Arabia and conquered it a few years after Muhammad's death?

Judea and Samaria are disputed territories - as all of Israel is in the eyes of many of its critics - and can be as properly regarded as legitimate Israeli protectorates as they were once regarded as part of a legitimate protectorate of the European colonial powers who operated the League of Nations. Without a doubt the Israelis will do a better job of deciding the final disposition of these territories than the Europeans did.

Judea and Samaria are disputed territories?
disputed by whom?

US, UN and EU consider it occupied territories and even some izraelis consider it occupied.

Every place where people live is occupied by the people who live there and the government that governs there, and every government defends itself against internal and external challenges to its authority and legitimacy. Judea and Samaria are no more occupied territories now than they were under the League of Nations or the UN or under the Turks or under the Arabs when they conquered the territories after the death of Muhammad, and the US and European nations that presume to question the legitimacy of Israel's protectorate over these disputed territories would sneer at similar challenges to the legitimacy of their authority over their territories; witness the British and the Falklands or the US and Puerto Rico.

According to Fatah, Gaza is being illegally occupied by Hamas, and Hamas claims that in a sense, parts of the West Bank are being illegally occupied by Fatah, and if Israel were to surrender all of Judea and Samaria, one of the various factions would win control and be considered an illegitimate occupier by the other factions. There is hardly a country in North Africa, the ME or central Asia in which various factions or ethnic groups do not consider the government in power to be an illegal occupier of their legitimate homelands.

Israel is left with the burden of trying to find some sustainable resolution of the problems centuries of inept governance by the Ottoman Turk and European empires left behind, much as the US has been burdened with trying to clean up the mess the European empires left behind in much of the rest of the world. While Israel's burden is smaller in scope than the US' has been, it is more difficult in the sense that in trying to find sustainable resolutions to problems between the state of Israel or Israeli citizens and the Arabs in the territories, Israel is, in a sense, both judge and litigant, but if you follow events closely, you have seen that while the state pursues its claims to parts of the land the Israeli courts have tried diligently to balance the claims of the state or of Israeli citizens against those of the Arabs in the territories.

 

[Freeman]

Occupied territories is a meaningless propaganda term. Judea and Samaria are disputed territories.

After all, by what right did the League of Nations control the land? Because the European colonial powers who controlled the League of Nations had captured it from the Ottoman Turks? In that case, Israel's control of the land is as legitimate as the League of Nations' was, or for that matter, as the UN's was. And what right did the Turks have to the land? Or any of the other rulers right back to when the Arabs swept out of Arabia and conquered it a few years after Muhammad's death?

Judea and Samaria are disputed territories - as all of Israel is in the eyes of many of its critics - and can be as properly regarded as legitimate Israeli protectorates as they were once regarded as part of a legitimate protectorate of the European colonial powers who operated the League of Nations. Without a doubt the Israelis will do a better job of deciding the final disposition of these territories than the Europeans did.

Judea and Samaria are disputed territories?
disputed by whom?

US, UN and EU consider it occupied territories and even some izraelis consider it occupied.

Every place where people live is occupied by the people who live there and the government that governs there, and every government defends itself against internal and external challenges to its authority and legitimacy. Judea and Samaria are no more occupied territories now than they were under the League of Nations or the UN or under the Turks or under the Arabs when they conquered the territories after the death of Muhammad, and the US and European nations that presume to question the legitimacy of Israel's protectorate over these disputed territories would sneer at similar challenges to the legitimacy of their authority over their territories; witness the British and the Falklands or the US and Puerto Rico.

According to Fatah, Gaza is being illegally occupied by Hamas, and Hamas claims that in a sense, parts of the West Bank are being illegally occupied by Fatah, and if Israel were to surrender all of Judea and Samaria, one of the various factions would win control and be considered an illegitimate occupier by the other factions. There is hardly a country in North Africa, the ME or central Asia in which various factions or ethnic groups do not consider the government in power to be an illegal occupier of their legitimate homelands.

Israel is left with the burden of trying to find some sustainable resolution of the problems centuries of inept governance by the Ottoman Turk and European empires left behind, much as the US has been burdened with trying to clean up the mess the European empires left behind in much of the rest of the world. While Israel's burden is smaller in scope than the US' has been, it is more difficult in the sense that in trying to find sustainable resolutions to problems between the state of Israel or Israeli citizens and the Arabs in the territories, Israel is, in a sense, both judge and litigant, but if you follow events closely, you have seen that while the state pursues its claims to parts of the land the Israeli courts have tried diligently to balance the claims of the state or of Israeli citizens against those of the Arabs in the territories.

senseless!
occupation in West Bank means build settlements and expel native citizens.
UN, Turks , UNIfel...etc didn't build settlements and expel citizens.

This act is criminal action condemned by international law.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Judea and Samaria are disputed territories?
disputed by whom?

US, UN and EU consider it occupied territories and even some izraelis consider it occupied.

Every place where people live is occupied by the people who live there and the government that governs there, and every government defends itself against internal and external challenges to its authority and legitimacy. Judea and Samaria are no more occupied territories now than they were under the League of Nations or the UN or under the Turks or under the Arabs when they conquered the territories after the death of Muhammad, and the US and European nations that presume to question the legitimacy of Israel's protectorate over these disputed territories would sneer at similar challenges to the legitimacy of their authority over their territories; witness the British and the Falklands or the US and Puerto Rico.

According to Fatah, Gaza is being illegally occupied by Hamas, and Hamas claims that in a sense, parts of the West Bank are being illegally occupied by Fatah, and if Israel were to surrender all of Judea and Samaria, one of the various factions would win control and be considered an illegitimate occupier by the other factions. There is hardly a country in North Africa, the ME or central Asia in which various factions or ethnic groups do not consider the government in power to be an illegal occupier of their legitimate homelands.

Israel is left with the burden of trying to find some sustainable resolution of the problems centuries of inept governance by the Ottoman Turk and European empires left behind, much as the US has been burdened with trying to clean up the mess the European empires left behind in much of the rest of the world. While Israel's burden is smaller in scope than the US' has been, it is more difficult in the sense that in trying to find sustainable resolutions to problems between the state of Israel or Israeli citizens and the Arabs in the territories, Israel is, in a sense, both judge and litigant, but if you follow events closely, you have seen that while the state pursues its claims to parts of the land the Israeli courts have tried diligently to balance the claims of the state or of Israeli citizens against those of the Arabs in the territories.

senseless!
occupation in West Bank means build settlements and expel native citizens.
UN, Turks , UNIfel...etc didn't build settlements and expel citizens.

This act is criminal action condemned by international law.

Good, simple comeback for a big load of crap.

 

[Marc39]

Judea and Samaria are disputed territories?
disputed by whom?

US, UN and EU consider it occupied territories and even some izraelis consider it occupied.

Every place where people live is occupied by the people who live there and the government that governs there, and every government defends itself against internal and external challenges to its authority and legitimacy. Judea and Samaria are no more occupied territories now than they were under the League of Nations or the UN or under the Turks or under the Arabs when they conquered the territories after the death of Muhammad, and the US and European nations that presume to question the legitimacy of Israel's protectorate over these disputed territories would sneer at similar challenges to the legitimacy of their authority over their territories; witness the British and the Falklands or the US and Puerto Rico.

According to Fatah, Gaza is being illegally occupied by Hamas, and Hamas claims that in a sense, parts of the West Bank are being illegally occupied by Fatah, and if Israel were to surrender all of Judea and Samaria, one of the various factions would win control and be considered an illegitimate occupier by the other factions. There is hardly a country in North Africa, the ME or central Asia in which various factions or ethnic groups do not consider the government in power to be an illegal occupier of their legitimate homelands.

Israel is left with the burden of trying to find some sustainable resolution of the problems centuries of inept governance by the Ottoman Turk and European empires left behind, much as the US has been burdened with trying to clean up the mess the European empires left behind in much of the rest of the world. While Israel's burden is smaller in scope than the US' has been, it is more difficult in the sense that in trying to find sustainable resolutions to problems between the state of Israel or Israeli citizens and the Arabs in the territories, Israel is, in a sense, both judge and litigant, but if you follow events closely, you have seen that while the state pursues its claims to parts of the land the Israeli courts have tried diligently to balance the claims of the state or of Israeli citizens against those of the Arabs in the territories.

senseless!
occupation in West Bank means build settlements and expel native citizens.
UN, Turks , UNIfel...etc didn't build settlements and expel citizens.

This act is criminal action condemned by international law.

Except, the West Bank was known as Judea and Samaria by Jews for thousands of years, from the Old Testament, until 1950, when Jordan OCCUPIED the territory in 1948. There is no mention of "The West Bank" in the Quran.

Jews are the native citizens of Palestine. Arabs are illegal occupiers.

Thus, you are PWNED, again, dumbass.

The United States Congressional Record
1922 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
National Home for
THE JEWISH PEOPLE JUNE 30, 1922
HOUSE RESOLUTION 360 - UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTED

Palestine of today, the land we now know as Palestine, was peopled by the Jews from the dawn of history until the Roman era. It is the ancestral homeland of the Jewish people. They were driven from it by force by the relentless Roman military machine and for centuries prevented from returning. At different periods various alien people succeeded them but the Jewish race had left an indelible impress upon the land.

Today it is a Jewish country. Every name, every landmark, every monument and every trace of whatever civilization remaining there is still Jewish. And it has ever since remained a hope, a longing, as expressed in their prayers for these nearly 2,000 years. No other people has ever claimed Palestine as their national home. No other people has ever shown an aptitude or indicated a genuine desire to make it their homeland. The land has been ruled by foreigners. Only since the beginning of the modern Zionist effort may it be said that a creative, cultural, and economic force has entered Palestine. The Jewish Nation was forced from its natural home. It did not go because it wanted to.

A perusal of Jewish history, a reading of Josephus, will convince the most skeptical that the grandest fight that was ever put up against an enemy was put up by the Jew. He never thought of leaving Palestine. But he was driven out. But did he, when driven out, give up his hope of getting back? Jewish history and Jewish literature give the answer to the question. The Jew even has a fast day devoted to the day of destruction of the Jewish homeland.

Never throughout history did they give up hope of returning there. I am told that 90 per cent of the Jews today are praying for the return of the Jewish people to its own home. The best minds among them believe in the necessity of reestablishing their Jewish land. To my mind there is something prophetic in the fact that during the ages no other nation has taken over Palestine and held it in the sense of a homeland; and there is something providential in the fact that for 1,800 years it has remained in desolation as if waiting for the return of the people.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Judea and Samaria are disputed territories?
disputed by whom?

US, UN and EU consider it occupied territories and even some izraelis consider it occupied.

Every place where people live is occupied by the people who live there and the government that governs there, and every government defends itself against internal and external challenges to its authority and legitimacy. Judea and Samaria are no more occupied territories now than they were under the League of Nations or the UN or under the Turks or under the Arabs when they conquered the territories after the death of Muhammad, and the US and European nations that presume to question the legitimacy of Israel's protectorate over these disputed territories would sneer at similar challenges to the legitimacy of their authority over their territories; witness the British and the Falklands or the US and Puerto Rico.

According to Fatah, Gaza is being illegally occupied by Hamas, and Hamas claims that in a sense, parts of the West Bank are being illegally occupied by Fatah, and if Israel were to surrender all of Judea and Samaria, one of the various factions would win control and be considered an illegitimate occupier by the other factions. There is hardly a country in North Africa, the ME or central Asia in which various factions or ethnic groups do not consider the government in power to be an illegal occupier of their legitimate homelands.

Israel is left with the burden of trying to find some sustainable resolution of the problems centuries of inept governance by the Ottoman Turk and European empires left behind, much as the US has been burdened with trying to clean up the mess the European empires left behind in much of the rest of the world. While Israel's burden is smaller in scope than the US' has been, it is more difficult in the sense that in trying to find sustainable resolutions to problems between the state of Israel or Israeli citizens and the Arabs in the territories, Israel is, in a sense, both judge and litigant, but if you follow events closely, you have seen that while the state pursues its claims to parts of the land the Israeli courts have tried diligently to balance the claims of the state or of Israeli citizens against those of the Arabs in the territories.

senseless!
occupation in West Bank means build settlements and expel native citizens.
UN, Turks , UNIfel...etc didn't build settlements and expel citizens.

This act is criminal action condemned by international law.

More meaningless propaganda. Every group that governed there, from the Arabs who conquered the land shortly after Muhammad's death, the Mamelukes, Mongols, crusaders, Turks, British representing the League of Nations and the UN and the Jordanians, built extensively there and significant numbers of their populations moved there and built homes to run the government and business enterprises they built there.

Every government seizes land at times for public works or to put it to more productive use, and those who benefit from these projects are often not those who lived there previously. Israeli towns and cities and farms and businesses and schools and hospitals and parks and highways in Judea and Samaria are no more illegal than US highway projects that run through residential areas in the US or US urban renewal projects that level older neighborhoods to make way for newer ones.

And it is nonsense to argue that the so called settlements only benefit Israelis. Some thirty thousand Arabs from Judea and Samaria work in the settlements, many in construction, and these are higher paying jobs than they could get from the Arab economy, and many more jobs are created there when Arab businesses sell their produce and manufactures to Israelis living in Judea and Samaria. Some few Arabs may have been forced to sell their land to make way for the settlements, but thousands of Arabs have benefited from the economic activity they brought to the area.

Indeed, wherever economic progress is taking place, some people are being displaced from land to make way for public works or to put the land to more productive use and this is as true everywhere else in the ME as it is in Judea and Samaria, and everywhere this takes place, those displaced complain about the unfairness of the process, but if Israel were run by Muslim Arabs instead of by Jews, not one of it actions would be subjected to international scrutiny or criticism or even to a raised eyebrow on the Arab street.

 

[Freeman]

Every place where people live is occupied by the people who live there and the government that governs there, and every government defends itself against internal and external challenges to its authority and legitimacy. Judea and Samaria are no more occupied territories now than they were under the League of Nations or the UN or under the Turks or under the Arabs when they conquered the territories after the death of Muhammad, and the US and European nations that presume to question the legitimacy of Israel's protectorate over these disputed territories would sneer at similar challenges to the legitimacy of their authority over their territories; witness the British and the Falklands or the US and Puerto Rico.

According to Fatah, Gaza is being illegally occupied by Hamas, and Hamas claims that in a sense, parts of the West Bank are being illegally occupied by Fatah, and if Israel were to surrender all of Judea and Samaria, one of the various factions would win control and be considered an illegitimate occupier by the other factions. There is hardly a country in North Africa, the ME or central Asia in which various factions or ethnic groups do not consider the government in power to be an illegal occupier of their legitimate homelands.

Israel is left with the burden of trying to find some sustainable resolution of the problems centuries of inept governance by the Ottoman Turk and European empires left behind, much as the US has been burdened with trying to clean up the mess the European empires left behind in much of the rest of the world. While Israel's burden is smaller in scope than the US' has been, it is more difficult in the sense that in trying to find sustainable resolutions to problems between the state of Israel or Israeli citizens and the Arabs in the territories, Israel is, in a sense, both judge and litigant, but if you follow events closely, you have seen that while the state pursues its claims to parts of the land the Israeli courts have tried diligently to balance the claims of the state or of Israeli citizens against those of the Arabs in the territories.

senseless!
occupation in West Bank means build settlements and expel native citizens.
UN, Turks , UNIfel...etc didn't build settlements and expel citizens.

This act is criminal action condemned by international law.

More meaningless propaganda. Every group that governed there, from the Arabs who conquered the land shortly after Muhammad's death, the Mamelukes, Mongols, crusaders, Turks, British representing the League of Nations and the UN and the Jordanians, built extensively there and significant numbers of their populations moved there and built homes to run the government and business enterprises they built there.

Every government seizes land at times for public works or to put it to more productive use, and those who benefit from these projects are often not those who lived there previously. Israeli towns and cities and farms and businesses and schools and hospitals and parks and highways in Judea and Samaria are no more illegal than US highway projects that run through residential areas in the US or US urban renewal projects that level older neighborhoods to make way for newer ones.

And it is nonsense to argue that the so called settlements only benefit Israelis. Some thirty thousand Arabs from Judea and Samaria work in the settlements, many in construction, and these are higher paying jobs than they could get from the Arab economy, and many more jobs are created there when Arab businesses sell their produce and manufactures to Israelis living in Judea and Samaria. Some few Arabs may have been forced to sell their land to make way for the settlements, but thousands of Arabs have benefited from the economic activity they brought to the area.

Indeed, wherever economic progress is taking place, some people are being displaced from land to make way for public works or to put the land to more productive use and this is as true everywhere else in the ME as it is in Judea and Samaria, and everywhere this takes place, those displaced complain about the unfairness of the process, but if Israel were run by Muslim Arabs instead of by Jews, not one of it actions would be subjected to international scrutiny or criticism or even to a raised eyebrow on the Arab street.

goofy!
so if joos decide to build an ethnic homeland in Florida or 52th state, they would have the right to expel florida citizens and build their crappy kibboutz? right?

you are a genius.

we are governed by International Law while you preferred live under Jugle law.

 

[Marc39]

senseless!
occupation in West Bank means build settlements and expel native citizens.
UN, Turks , UNIfel...etc didn't build settlements and expel citizens.

This act is criminal action condemned by international law.

More meaningless propaganda. Every group that governed there, from the Arabs who conquered the land shortly after Muhammad's death, the Mamelukes, Mongols, crusaders, Turks, British representing the League of Nations and the UN and the Jordanians, built extensively there and significant numbers of their populations moved there and built homes to run the government and business enterprises they built there.

Every government seizes land at times for public works or to put it to more productive use, and those who benefit from these projects are often not those who lived there previously. Israeli towns and cities and farms and businesses and schools and hospitals and parks and highways in Judea and Samaria are no more illegal than US highway projects that run through residential areas in the US or US urban renewal projects that level older neighborhoods to make way for newer ones.

And it is nonsense to argue that the so called settlements only benefit Israelis. Some thirty thousand Arabs from Judea and Samaria work in the settlements, many in construction, and these are higher paying jobs than they could get from the Arab economy, and many more jobs are created there when Arab businesses sell their produce and manufactures to Israelis living in Judea and Samaria. Some few Arabs may have been forced to sell their land to make way for the settlements, but thousands of Arabs have benefited from the economic activity they brought to the area.

Indeed, wherever economic progress is taking place, some people are being displaced from land to make way for public works or to put the land to more productive use and this is as true everywhere else in the ME as it is in Judea and Samaria, and everywhere this takes place, those displaced complain about the unfairness of the process, but if Israel were run by Muslim Arabs instead of by Jews, not one of it actions would be subjected to international scrutiny or criticism or even to a raised eyebrow on the Arab street.

goofy!
so if joos decide to build an ethnic homeland in Florida or 52th state, they would have the right to expel florida citizens and build their crappy kibboutz? right?

you are a genius.

we are governed by International Law while you preferred live under Jugle law.

You didn't take your schizophrenia medication.
Palestine is the ancestral homeland of the Jews and the League of Nations established Palestine as the legal homeland of the Jews.

You are intellectually ill-equipped to even attempt to debate the matter.

 

[Freeman]

More meaningless propaganda. Every group that governed there, from the Arabs who conquered the land shortly after Muhammad's death, the Mamelukes, Mongols, crusaders, Turks, British representing the League of Nations and the UN and the Jordanians, built extensively there and significant numbers of their populations moved there and built homes to run the government and business enterprises they built there.

Every government seizes land at times for public works or to put it to more productive use, and those who benefit from these projects are often not those who lived there previously. Israeli towns and cities and farms and businesses and schools and hospitals and parks and highways in Judea and Samaria are no more illegal than US highway projects that run through residential areas in the US or US urban renewal projects that level older neighborhoods to make way for newer ones.

And it is nonsense to argue that the so called settlements only benefit Israelis. Some thirty thousand Arabs from Judea and Samaria work in the settlements, many in construction, and these are higher paying jobs than they could get from the Arab economy, and many more jobs are created there when Arab businesses sell their produce and manufactures to Israelis living in Judea and Samaria. Some few Arabs may have been forced to sell their land to make way for the settlements, but thousands of Arabs have benefited from the economic activity they brought to the area.

Indeed, wherever economic progress is taking place, some people are being displaced from land to make way for public works or to put the land to more productive use and this is as true everywhere else in the ME as it is in Judea and Samaria, and everywhere this takes place, those displaced complain about the unfairness of the process, but if Israel were run by Muslim Arabs instead of by Jews, not one of it actions would be subjected to international scrutiny or criticism or even to a raised eyebrow on the Arab street.

goofy!
so if joos decide to build an ethnic homeland in Florida or 52th state, they would have the right to expel florida citizens and build their crappy kibboutz? right?

you are a genius.

we are governed by International Law while you preferred live under Jugle law.

You didn't take your schizophrenia medication.
Palestine is the ancestral homeland of the Jews and the League of Nations established Palestine as the legal homeland of the Jews.

You are intellectually ill-equipped to even attempt to debate the matter.

mongol;
issraelites lived in Egypt more long time than in palestine, should they invade Egypt too?

Indians lived in America more long time than your ancestral grandfathers farting there, should Indians expel americans?

you need help moron!

 

[Marc39]

goofy!
so if joos decide to build an ethnic homeland in Florida or 52th state, they would have the right to expel florida citizens and build their crappy kibboutz? right?

you are a genius.

we are governed by International Law while you preferred live under Jugle law.

You didn't take your schizophrenia medication.
Palestine is the ancestral homeland of the Jews and the League of Nations established Palestine as the legal homeland of the Jews.

You are intellectually ill-equipped to even attempt to debate the matter.

mongol;
issraelites lived in Egypt more long time than in palestine, should they invade Egypt too?

Indians lived in America more long time than your ancestral grandfathers farting there, should Indians expel americans?

you need help moron!

"More long time"? Your ability to form a coherent thought is as weak as your knowledge of Middle East affairs.

 

[toomuchtime_]

senseless!
occupation in West Bank means build settlements and expel native citizens.
UN, Turks , UNIfel...etc didn't build settlements and expel citizens.

This act is criminal action condemned by international law.

More meaningless propaganda. Every group that governed there, from the Arabs who conquered the land shortly after Muhammad's death, the Mamelukes, Mongols, crusaders, Turks, British representing the League of Nations and the UN and the Jordanians, built extensively there and significant numbers of their populations moved there and built homes to run the government and business enterprises they built there.

Every government seizes land at times for public works or to put it to more productive use, and those who benefit from these projects are often not those who lived there previously. Israeli towns and cities and farms and businesses and schools and hospitals and parks and highways in Judea and Samaria are no more illegal than US highway projects that run through residential areas in the US or US urban renewal projects that level older neighborhoods to make way for newer ones.

And it is nonsense to argue that the so called settlements only benefit Israelis. Some thirty thousand Arabs from Judea and Samaria work in the settlements, many in construction, and these are higher paying jobs than they could get from the Arab economy, and many more jobs are created there when Arab businesses sell their produce and manufactures to Israelis living in Judea and Samaria. Some few Arabs may have been forced to sell their land to make way for the settlements, but thousands of Arabs have benefited from the economic activity they brought to the area.

Indeed, wherever economic progress is taking place, some people are being displaced from land to make way for public works or to put the land to more productive use and this is as true everywhere else in the ME as it is in Judea and Samaria, and everywhere this takes place, those displaced complain about the unfairness of the process, but if Israel were run by Muslim Arabs instead of by Jews, not one of it actions would be subjected to international scrutiny or criticism or even to a raised eyebrow on the Arab street.

goofy!
so if joos decide to build an ethnic homeland in Florida or 52th state, they would have the right to expel florida citizens and build their crappy kibboutz? right?

you are a genius.

we are governed by International Law while you preferred live under Jugle law.

There are no relevant international laws regarding either the establishment of the state of Israel or its efforts to find sustainable resolutions to the problems the Europeans and the Arabs have created in Judea and Samaria and there are certainly no jungles in the ME. Perhaps in your fantasies whenever you have a strong emotion laws are instantly created to validate them, but that doesn't happen in the world where the rest of us live.

In the partition resolution the UN dissolved its protectorate over what was left of the Mandate, land west of the Jordan River, meaning that land was now unincorporated in any existing political entity. Both the Jews and the Arabs who lived there wanted to create states of own on that land, but in the struggle that ensued, while the Jews managed to capture and hold the land that is now Israel, Egypt and Jordan captured the rest and refused to allow the Arabs who lived there to establish a state of their own. Hence the state of Israel exists and the state of Palestine does not because the Arab nations prevented its establishment.

Following the Six Day War in 1967, responsibility for the presently disputed territories, Judea and Samaria, fell to Israel and this transfer of responsibility was formalized in the peace treaties Israel signed with Jordan and Egypt and has been recognized by the UN. While some may dislike some of Israel's actions in the territories, as a matter of policy, no international laws are being violated; indeed, no relevant international laws exist.

If Jews or any other group tried to establish a new nation in Florida, the US would use whatever force was necessary to stop them, just as the state of Israel has been using whatever force has been necessary to prevent the Arabs from establishing a new state in place of the Jewish state of Israel.