Arab illegal building on lands that Jews bought

your question is an absurd, leading strawman.

unfit for mature & intelligent debate.

if YOU believe the UN and the UN Charter are irrelevent, that's fine.

but don't project your personal beliefs onto others.

 

How has anything you said contradict what you quoted. You claimed that in the 7th century the Arabs conquered Israel. They conquered large parts of the Byzantime empire. Any remnants of the ancient Israelite state were gone after second Jewish rebellion 135-132 BC against the Romans. That area was then renamed as a province of Rome called Palestine(technically it was called Syria Palastina after revolt failed). Over 732 years later was the Arab invasion when area was part of Byzantime/former Eastern Roman empire. So it' s false to say the Arabs conquered Israel since that ceased to exist 732 years before due to the Romans. When they captured Jerusalem from the Byzantime they also let Jews return to Jerusalem since they were previously banned from living there by the Romans.

"Israel is being chiseled away bit by bit. The Israeli taxpayer is supporting this municipality run schools, to which half of Jerusalem's Arabs send their children. In essence, Israel is financing these schools, but they belong to the PA. This is a contradiction in terms and is absolutely ludicrous. Using a map, in which Israel does not appear, is an anti-Israel act of hostility. A map of this sort also contravenes the agreement on the transfer of authority."

How is it being chiseled away? You are a regional superpower with biggest tech economy outside California. Jerusalem falls under Israeli control with Israel annexing it after 1967(which no country recognizes). PA can't operate in Jerusalem. This has caused problems with several villages outside the fence cut from basic services like trash and water since PA can't operate in those villages since Jerusalem is under both civil and military Israeli control and Israel refusing to offer them basic services since they are outside the fence. On the map issue a 2013 study on Israeli and Palestinian textbooks found that 76 percent(58 percent of post 1967 maps show Palestine as between area between Mediterranean and Jordan) of Israeli textbooks showing maps post 1967 as Israel between river and the sea with no mention of Palestinian authority or green line marking the territories. The study found that Palestinian textbooks don't vilify Jews. Although the study said that in both textbooks there is often not any self criticism and portrayed other side as enemy while viewing themselves in positive terms. Secular Israeli textbooks were found to have the most self criticism compared to ultra orthodox textbooks and Palestinian textbooks.
http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/ori...-palestinian-areas-municipality-services.html
http://forward.com/news/israel/170451/palestinian-textbooks-dont-vilify-jews-new-study-r/
Religion does influence both sides however control of land and borders are main issues. Egypt and Jordan have peace treaties with Israel. 57 Islamic countries support the Arab peace initiative. In 2008 Olmert and Abbas were months away from a deal with Abbas accepted Israel annexing all of settlement blocs except Ariel(which sits on fertile land reserves) and Israel keeping all Israeli neighborhoods in East Jerusalem except Har Homa which begin in the 1990's. The West Bank has been mostly quiet since end of second intifada with most attacks lone gunmen attacks and PA maintaining security coordination with Israel.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/13/magazine/13Israel-t.html?_r=0

 

It is a question regarding what he wrote. If you dont like the question, dont refer to it (after all this question did not been referred to you).

Dont worry Ronstar, xavierphoenix can speack for himself. I dont think he pointed you as his Counsel.

When and where did I ever say that the UN Charter is irrelevent? Until now you only presented me a question that I aksed, hence It is not my statement which means that you cant rely on it to define what my personal views are.
As you said:

 

you have asked me, him, and others countless times "do you think the UN Charter is irrelevent?"

its a highly ridiculous strawman leading question.

maybe you should try other ways of debating.

 

And yet you refered to the question I asked xavierphoenix, which means that I didnt ask you that question in this thread, hence, let xavierphoenix speak for himself.

I have many ways to debate, dont worry about me.

 

there is nothing he has said that would suggest he thinks the UN Charter or the UN are irrelevent.

you simply asked him an absurd strawman question.

 

So he would let me know. He can speak for himself, dont worry Ronstar.

 

im not worried, I just don't like these never-ending strawman arguments and questions.

 

All law is only as relevant as the force behind it. The character of the law is not a deciding factor, only the power that enforces it. The UN Charter is created by the most powerful countries in the world to serve their ambitions and/or ideals. Those countries will obey and disobey these laws as they please, but will hold other countries to account for those very same laws when they please- usually weaker countries. Those who do not conform to these terms are "illegal" and those who do may or may not be victimized as easily as those who did. Following the terms of a greater power is no assurance against further abuses from that power. It's just an appeasement.

 

The UN concluded the Mandate for Palestine

 

I never said West Bank wasn't part of Palestine. I said that the mandate promised a Jewish home in Palestine. That has been fulfilled since 1948. Israel is located in an area that was called Palestine that is not a debatable point. Israel is a Jewish home that's not a debatable point, thus the mandate has been fulfilled meaning it has no legal significance.

Btw if the mandate promised all of Palestine to the Jews then this line makes no sense and wouldn't be in the mandate doc "within such boundaries as may be fixed by them(this means mandatory determines borders of mandate);"

I have never said the UN charter wasn't relevant. Article 80 doesn't apply to West Bank since it applies to international trustees(international trustees are in conjunction with UNSC which has passed several resolutions stating it's occupation and that settlements violate 4th Geneva Convention unless you don't believe international trustees need blessing of UNSC or don't care what UNSC says at all?) as established numerous times it's not under international trustees.

Edmund Levy was only judge out of eleven Israeli judges to rule against disengagement.Rostow is one author of one UNSC resolution when there has been several that has called them occupied territories and that settlements violate 4th Geneva Convention. As already stated numerous times there is nothing in ICJ that supports your view with ICJ citing UNSC saying territories are occupied and that settlements violate 4th Geneva Convention along with the fence being illegal(don't necessarily agree with that) .

The Israeli Supreme Court, UNSC, ICJ, International Red Cross, international law experts including Israelis like Theodore Meron, Yoram Dinstein, Eyal Benvenisti, Yuval Shany, and David Kretzmer all hold that Israel is holding West Bank as an occupying power.
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Op-Ed-Contributors/Why-the-law-prohibits-settlement-activities-354425

 

So he would let me know. He can speak for himself, dont worry Ronstar.

The British Mandate ended, while the Mandate for "Palestine" has yet to end (to be fulfilled).

 

If a man does not obey a law, he cannot force someone else to obey- this is hipocracy!
First fo all th countries that created the UN Charter must obey those laws, and then point fingers to othes countries.

 

So if the West Bank is part of "Palestine" and is not mean that a control over it will be "whole of Palestine", hence, Israel can control over the West Bank according to the Mandate.
If your problem is that "because the Mandate never talked about whole of Palestine", so Israel cant control over it on behalf of the Mandate", then this problem is not existing, because even with Judea and Samaria, it will not be "whole of Palestine".

Because the Mandate never talked about clear borders that this Jewish national home will be reconstitue, and only referred the Land of Israel (aka "Palestine") as the alce where it will be reconstitute, then Israel have legal right over the West Bank as a place that been granted to the Jews as part of a territory to the future Jewish national home.

It cant be "fixed by them" if clear borders were never determined by the League of Nations.

UNSC resolutions and other resolutions that referred the West Bank as "occupied territory", is in contradition to what Article 80 said and protected. numerous of letters were transfered to Ban-Ki Moon by judges and international law experts regarding this subject.

As I said and which you didnt contradict:
According to legal expert as the former Israeli Supreme Judge Admund Levy (in Levy Report the judges relied on the ICRC), International law expert and one of the drafter of resolution 242, Prof. Rostow, ICJ (that reaffirmed Article 80 three times, that the last one was in 2004), Prof. Gauthier are reinforcing me. And let's us not forget as well the letter that been sent to Ban-Ko Moon that over 130 international law experts and jodges are signed on the document etc.

For more information go back to my comment number #68.

 

The Mandate concluded in 1948.

 

Right, but the "Mandate for Palestine" the document is still valid.

 

that's very ironic, since the UN Charter says all UN members must obey all UNSC resolutions, but Israel ignores many UNSC resolutions. And you think its ok.

so you think its ok to ignore the UN when you want to, but must obey the UN when you want to. That's very interesting.

- - - Updated - - -

The Mandate for Palestine concluded in 1948.

 

I'm obeying the UN Charter that protects the rights that were given to the Jews over "Palestine".

Right, but the "Mandate for Palestine" the document is still valid.

 

the Mandate for Palestine is no longer valid, because the UN concluded it in 1948.

funny how you think UNSC resolutions can be ignored by Israel, even though this violates the UN Charter...and you ignore the part of the Mandate for Palestine that guaruntees religious & civil rights for non-Jews in Palestine.

 

The British Mandate was indeed ended in 1948, while the "Mandate for Palestine" is still valid. For more informaton watch he lecture I provided in comment #68.

All resolutions that refer the West Bank as "occupied territory" is been contradicted by the UN Charter tat protects the rights that were granted to the Jews over "Palestine".

 

It is hypocritical, isn't it...

That's the way it's supposed to work. How it actually works is less than ideal.

 

Sorry, but pure by history:

Jerusalem was until the final destruction of the temple by the Romans the capital of the Jews. After this ... and until 1948 with a time span of 1,900 years not! Sure, there lived further Jews in Jerusalem, as well in rest of area what is today Israel, but there was no Jewish state anymore until 1948.

So now a good question if Jerusalem is Jewish when being reasoned with history. Out of this anyone in the world can always claim to get back what is one time had in history. Sweden can claim to get half Russia, because even the Russia is coming from what? Viking word "Russ"! The number of examples I can deliver is endless .... but I will not with this deny the right of Israel to exist, only show that it is tricky to base things on history!

 

that is 100% false. The Mandate concluded in 1948.

The UN Charter never mentions the Mandate nor the Jews.

But it does say the rights of Mandates expire when a Mandate is concluded, and the Mandate for Palestine concluded in 1948.

 

Right, but the "Mandate for Palestine" the document is still valid.

As I already wrote:
Article 80 say that the rights that were granted to people or countries by previous Mandates (which means they relate to Mandates that were created and existed prior to 1946), would not be harmed in anyway, hence the rights that were granted to the Jews in 1920, which is prior to 1946, in San Ramo Confference in the "Mandate for Palestine" will be stil valid and still need to be respected.

 

If that's how it's supposed to work, then the countries that created the UN charter and also new countries that joined the UN after 1946, need to obey it's laws, hence obey and respect Article 80 that protects te rights tat were granted to the Jews over "Palestine".