Israel announces plan to create 2,500 settlements in Palestinian-controlled territory

I dont care, because:
1) Hamas is a terrorist organisation, and so is not a credible source.
2)They also are not from the 7th century, and you claimed something from that era.

Please find a correct source.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_history_of_Palestine_(region)
By 1948, the population had risen to 1,900,000, of whom 68% were Arabs, and 32% were Jews (UNSCOP report, including Bedouin).

So what. it aint anything remotely close to a holocaust. You're pretending nonsense.

How could they retrieve their property when the Jew homeland only gave the Jew the right to return?

 

I see you do not deny the truth of what I said.
Good to know.

 

Then why are you whining about them not taking (*)(*)(*)(*) now?

 

I'm not seeing any express right of return in the Land Acquisition Law 1953. Is this the enabling act to which you are referring?

 

They indeed claim something from that era. They claim that because the Islamic conquest of the 7th century, then the territory of where Israel is exist on, is a waqf territory, as I showed you.

There is no source in Wiki for that. Please re-read my previous comment.

I never compared it to the Holocaust.

Israel offered Arabs to return to their properties inside Israel- they refused.

 

No. The Land Acuisition Law of 1953 gave the Arabs an oppurtunity to retrieve the properties they lost or left behind during the 1948 war. None of the Arabs made something to retrieve the properties.

I'm reffering to Lausanne Conference in 1949, when Ben Gurion offered Arabs to return back to Israel.

 

I read the legislation and I'm not seeing that. It just sets out the conditions for mandatory acquisition of land by the government of Israel

I'll have to look at that later....

 

"alternative" reality = truth to you?
Good to know.

 

In Article 3 from the Land Acquisition (Validation of Acts and Compensation) Law from 1953, that the owners of an acquired lands (which means lands that Israel took) are entitled to compensation that will be fixed between the owner of the land and the Development Authority:

Morevoer Article 3 stated that when the acquired lands were used for agriculture and was the main source of livelihood of its owner, and he has no other land sufficient for his livelihood, such owner is obligated to demand from the Development Authority other property, either for ownership or for lease, which will be partly or full compensation:

Source: https://jewishvoiceforpeace.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Israeli-Land-Acquisition-Law-1953.pdf

 

If the argument is "What comes around goes around. Boo-hoo."... as a way that 100.000's of civilians got ethnic cleansed and their property stolen as a "valid" punishment,... than the holocaust becomes an equally valid punishment indeed.

 

Such a plan is criminal under international law. Netanyahu- and his henchmen- should be prosecuted at The Hague.

 

Sure. Comparing an argument over settlers and immigrants and those already living there to gaining/losing land TO THE HOLOCAUST is certainly an equally valid comparison. Well done.

Certainly you had teachers that taught you that this is a ridiculous argument... right?

 

Eighteen million people died in the Holocaust- of whom six million were Jews. Do you know who the other twelve million were ?

 

You are not responding to my arguments.
Please read my previous post and reply.

The source is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergio_DellaPergola
in the graph upper right corner
/facepalm

You are complaining "how bad it was" for the Jews, while the Jews fled to those lands for safety.
Hence it could not be as bad as you claim it to be.

You have yet to respond to how Palestinians can return to their properties, when only the Jew got the right to return.

 

Pretty much, although the estimate is generally 12 million plus change... we teach this after all.

How is who died in the Holocaust relevant to Israeli's being attacked by terrorists in Israel though?

 

Eighteen million according to modern research.

http://www.businessinsider.com/shoc...is-killed-up-to-20-million-people-2013-3?IR=T

My point is to emphasise that the Holocaust was not simply an anti-Jewish phenomenon and that sympathy for ethnic minorities should be extended to others- including ethnic minorities who are brutalised by Israelis, both inside Israel and inside the Occupied Territories.

 

It is not comparing and it's not about settlers. The idea that 100.000's of civilians got ethnic cleansed, is put up as if that is justice. That is so far over the line, you might as well call the holocaust justice as well. Because why stop there?

 

OK... thank you for sharing your point.

- - - Updated - - -

Why don't we just stop with the Red Herring's and talk about terrorists attacking Israel.

 

The topic is the Jew homeland illegally expanding their country across their border defying numerous the UN, and the UNSC. And that illegal expanding is done by the barrel of the gun. So its obvious this topic is about Israel, the terrorist nation.

 

In defense of actual terrorists and thug nations hell bent on invading them, yes, Israel has been forced to defend themselves. At time this has taken the form of expanding their borders. It is justified and tactically intelligent. Their retaliatory attacks against Hamas are justified as well. That people hate the Jews and go out of their way to attempt to find fault with them and to make them out to be terrorists is really just another ugly part of history that one day will be looked back upon with the universal disgust that we do the atrocities of WWII.

 

Sanctions break down relations. If you have trade you have leverage. Additionally, Israel is not going to budge because you take away some if their trade surplus. They view it as their survival up for grabs.

Same reason sanctions haven't done (*)(*)(*)(*) to NK except kill millions of innocents.

Personally I think you should just get it over with, drop any pretence of national sovereignty, declare a unitary world government and invade on a regular basis any nation which disputes your authority.

 

Moving civilians across the border by ethnic cleansing civilians by the barrel of your guns is "defense"

Good lord. When does these alternative facts end?
The ENTIRE world is against this. You aware of that?
Not one single nation supports it. Not one.
That does say everything about how far Israel crossed the line.

 

Only if the ownership is already recognized in Israeli law. In both stanzas you have quoted "owner"s rights.

This is particularly significant because of the structure of Ottoman land titles.

 

Leverage by means of threatening that trade. If they are confident you wouldn't do that, you have no leverage.

 

1. It seems even the UN Commission thought that offer was so inadequate that it didn't even make a formal representation of it to the Arabs
2. Nonetheless, the Arabs countered with a proposal that the refugees taken back related to the land actually acquired by Israel. Seems perfectly reasonable, no? But Israel didn't accept this. Why not?


"the two main bones of contention were refugees and territory. Israel's position on the former was clear and emphatic: the Arab states were responsible for the refugee problem, so responsibility for solving it rested with them. Israel was willing to make a modest financial contribution toward the resolution of this problem but only as part of an overall settlement of the conflict and only if the refugees were to be resettled in Arab countries.."

"
9. Following the reply by the Arab delegations, the delegation of Israel submitted its proposals to the Commission in a meeting on 3 August. After a few general remarks, the Israeli representative stated that his Government was prepared to make its contribution to the solution of the refugee problem. This contribution would be limited by considerations affecting the security and the economy of the State. Thus, the refugees would be settled in areas where they would not come in contact with possible enemies of Israel; moreover, the Government of Israel reserved the right to resettle the repatriated refugees in specific locations, in order to ensure that their reinstallation would fit into the general plan of Israel's economic development. Subject to these conditions, the Government of Israel would be prepared to accept the return to Israel in its present limits of 100,000 refugees, in addition to the total Arab population existing at the end of hostilities (including those who have already returned since then), thus increasing the total number of that population to a maximum of 250,000. This repatriation would form part of a general plan for resettlement of refugees which would be established by a special organ to be created for the purpose by the United Nations.

10. The Commission, considering the Israeli delegation's proposal as unsatisfactory, limited itself to communicating that proposal unofficially to the Arab delegations for their information. On 15 August, the Arab delegations transmitted to the Commission, also unofficially, a memorandum containing their observations on the proposals submitted to the Commission by the Israeli delegation on 3 August. In the opinion of the Arab delegations, the Israeli proposal was contrary to the resolution of 11 December 1948, as well as to the Protocol of 12 May 1949. They considered that under the terms of the Protocol the Israeli proposal could bear only upon the territories allotted to Israel according to the map attached to that document. The Arab delegations protested the contention of the Israeli delegation that the settlement of Arabs in Israeli territory must be subordinated to economic and strategic considerations. They recalled, moreover, the memorandum addressed by them to the Commission on 23 May, requesting the repatriation of all refugees originating in territory allotted to the Arabs or to be internationalized, according to the map attached to the Protocol of 12 May. If the Israeli proposal was to be interpreted as applying exclusively to refugees originating in areas allocated to Israel on the above-mentioned map, the Arab delegations would not object to its adoption as a basis for discussion of the disposition of those particular refugees. Finally, the Arab delegations favoured compensation in kind for the refugees who might not return to their homes; this indemnification might take the form of territorial compensation within the terms of the Protocol of 12 May.*"
https://unispal.un.org/DPA/DPR/unis...60fd15ff5b22ca0d85256101007a9d2e?OpenDocument