Everything in this paragraph is disputed even though you've taken a liking to claiming your beliefs are beyond dispute and 'historical fact'.
Gaza's "Gush katif" was a justified and an organ part of Israel. Sharon expelled thousand of his best civilians from their homes and fields, God gave him in return a stroke. Gaza city with it's 1 million arabs are a part of Egypt. It is now, and it was a Terrorist ENCLAVE. Maybe that's why the Egyptians hate them and don't want to take them under their responsibility...
I liked Shiva TD when he was a MOD, we never meshed on practically any subject though, he tried to be evenhanded and... I was banned for six months when I called Klip disingenuous... Now everyone can call another Bigot, Pig and GFY with impunity... or shall I deduct from that these pejorative are acceptable only when it offends Jews? I try to explain historical facts to someone that has his mind set... Someone that falls under the category... Do not bother me with your facts because my mind is set differently! So be it and have a wonderful day...
I am sorry to disagree all the above is unsubstantiated and describes your most inner sentiments ONLY!!! Besides that... Let us tackle Geneva IV : THE ACT OF Belligerent Occupation. It is always asserted that the legal character of the State of Israel in Judea, Samaria is that of a belligerent occupation in the sense of the 1907 Hague Convention IV and 1949 Geneva Convention IV ISRAEL HAS ALWAYS DENIED THIS CHARACTERIZATION. The situation envisaged by The Hague and Geneva Conventions, was one in which a state temporarily occupied the sovereign territory of an enemy state. It was assumed that the war would be decided one way or the other and that the area in question would either be annexed or returned to the original owner state. However, the classic model of belligerent occupation envisaged by The Hague and Geneva Conventions does not fit in the fact pattern of its stipulations. (1) Judea and Samaria were never and are not at this stage sovereign territory of any one country on this earth. (2) Judea and Samaria are an integral part of the Palestine Mandate within which a Jewish National home was/is to be RECONSTITUTED. One of the foremost < legal scholars > former Under-Secretary of State Eugene Rostow, describes these lands as the <unallocated parts of the British Mandate>, not under the Nationality of Israel or anyone else, but still governed by the original provisions contained in the Mandated sanctioned by the League of Nations. One of these provisions ARTICLE VI, allowed close settlement of all western Palestine by the Jewish People. This reasoning as enunciated by Rostow, let U.S. Pres. Ronald Reagan to declare that Israels settlements in Judea, Samaria and Gaza NOT Illegal. The settlements in these areas are the physical link of the people of Israel with the Land of Israel, a link that stretches back to the Bible and was accorded International recognition in the PREAMBLE of the Mandate for Palestine in 1922. The traditional customary law and the conventional law of Geneva and The Hague looked upon belligerent occupation as temporary, pending the prompt conclusion of war and negotiation of peace. (The occupiers of this area Jordan, have already signed a peace treaty with Israel.) The characterization precarious was often used to underline the fact that a military occupation during war was subject to the fortunes of war. Many of the provisions prohibiting changes to the institutions and social arrangements of the areas in question were designed to protect the population from frequent radical changes in their life. Meanwhile, Israel, while denying the strict applicability of the 1907 and 1949 Geneva Convention, applies their basic principles as guidelines to what has been an extremely positive and humane government. ART 49 of the 1949 Geneva Convention provides that, The power in charge shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population in the area under its control. To clarify the latest statement, the inhabitants of the settlements are not deported or transferred. Their choice of emigration is private and free, often based on religious grounds, and as often done against Israeli Government resistance. Moreover, this neighborly emigration does not constitute and unnatural intrusion of people with no roots in the area. Generally speaking, all of Judea and Samaria were/are considered homeland by Jews ! There are good reasons for them to settle there. Many areas, around Hebron were inhabited by significant Jewish settlements [Kyriat Arbaa and Gush Etzion] long before 1948 because of the profound religious significance to Jews. The fact that the children and grandchildren of people wiped out or displaced by the Arabs in the massacres of Jews and the destruction of their earlier settlements 1929 and 1936 have returned to restore the homes of their forefathers is significant...! If these Jews are willing to live in peace and cooperation with their Arab neighbors, there is no bar in international law or justice to deny them their action.
Israel is a treaty member of the Geneva Conventions which means that it accepted ALL of the provisions of the Geneva Conventions voluntarily. Israel is also a treaty member of the United Nations and has voluntarily accepted ALL of the provisions of the UN Charter which includes the mandatory requirement that it comply with ALL UN Security Council Resolutions. If Israel doesn't want to comply with the Geneva Conventions and with the UN Charter then it should WITHDRAW from those treaty agreements. As long as Israel is a treaty member of both of these treaties then ISRAEL MUST COMPLY WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE TREATIES THAT ISRAEL AGREED TO COMPLY WITH BY BECOMING A PART OF THE TREATY AGREEMENTS!!!!
I think if they continue they could prove that Egypt is not belongs to Egyptians but it belongs to Frenches, Iran belongs to Germans, Turkey belongs to the Britons ....
Shiva , as you well know , withdrawal is out of the question. True to their nature , they see nothing wrong with first signing a treaty/charter or a commercial contract , and then afterwards choose to re-negotiate/alter/modify the terms when they feel no need to be bound to issues which are no longer to their advantage. And by hook or crook/ fair means or foul - they more often as not , get what they want. ....
It is only disputed by those that have failed to do the historical research. Britian, under the League of Nations Covenant, was mandated with the responsibility of tutoring the People in Transjordan and Palestine so that they could become sovereign nations under Article 22 of the Convenant: Great Britian assumed the role of "Mandatory" at the end of WW I over part of the territories of the former Turkish Empire in the Middle East that included Transjordan and Palestine. It had a "sacred trust" to develop the People living in both Transjordan and Palestine so that they could become a modern nation. The League of Nations Covenant is quite clear on this matter and there is no dispute I'm aware of related to it. http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/leagcov.asp The British Mandate of Palestine, approved in 1922 and submitted to the League of Nations, did establish in it's Preamble that the purpose was to establish a homeland for the Jews but it did not establish Palestine as Jewish State. Instead, it invited Jews to become a part of Palestine which was already the homeland of a majority non-Jewish population. The actual text is more clear than my summary: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/Palestine_Mandate.html The establishment of a "Jewish State" would clearly violate the civil and religious Rights of the non-Jewish population that were already living in Palestine and which represented a significant majority in Palestine even at the time of the Israeli Declaration of Independence. Additionally the division of Palestine also violated the League of Nations Covenant Article 22 as ALL of PALESTINE was designated to become a single country in under the Covenant as well as the British Mandate of Palestine. It was the expressed intent of the Zionist Jews starting in 1922 to violate the civil and religious Rights of the non-Jewish population in Palestine with the establishment of a Jewish state (i.e. a nation established based upon Jewish religious/ethnic criteria) that lead to the conflict between the non-Jewish population that were fighting to protect their civil and religious Rights that were under attack from European Jews immigrating to Palestine and that were intent upon violating the conditions of the British Mandate of Palestine. As we know historically the Zionist Jews did commit gross violations of the Rights of the Palestinians in 1948 where non-Jewish citizens within the "Israeli territory" that fled as refugees of war based upon acts of terrorism and coercion by Zionist Jews as well as the fear of being caught on the battlefield in a war between the Arabs and Zionist Jews were never allowed to return once hostilities ended. These were not individuals that participated in the actual hostilities but instead were simple people that were citizens of the towns and communities in the Israeli Territory and they were denied a Right of Return to their homes and businesses. Those individuals and they decendants have never been allowed to return to their Homeland. Additionally Israel confiscate the legally owned property of non-Jewish people without any compensation violating their Right of Property and has never allowed these individuals access to an unbiased court of law where civil lawsuit based upon the unlawful confiscation of property without compensation could be address. Ironically the European Jews have had access to the Courts to be compensated for their losses during WW II but Israel denies the same access to the Courts for the non-Jewish landowners that had their lands confiscated by Israel. All of this is documented historical fact. It is not an intepretation of the facts but just the bare facts without any subjective interpretation.
Not in my mind it is not. The UN Security Council has a responsibility to enforce it's own Resolutions when a nation refuses to comply with those Resolutions. The United States has blocked effective actions which would force Israel, as well as the Palestinians and other nations affected, to comply with UNSC Resolution 242. The most effective means of enforcement are economic sanctions and if Israel, as well as the Palestinians (and other nations as necessary) were subjected to severe economic sanctions until they agreed to comply with all of the provisions in UNSC Resolution 242 then the conflict would come to an end. Israel and the Palestinians have both stood in the way of implementing UNSC 242 but Israel, as a nation, has the higher responsibility. Additionally Israel is also in violation of International Law in allowing the migration of Israeli Jews into the territory under it's military occupation. Severe economic sanctions must be imposed and the UN Security Council has an obligation to impose those sanctions as necessary to force compliance with UNSC Resolution 242. Israel would soon agree to comply with the removal of it's military from the territories occupied during the 1967 War as well as any territories occupied after that if it were completely cut off from all international trade. Israel cannot exist without international trade. It is time for the UN Security Council to do the job it was created to perform. Enforcement of UNSC 242 is mandatory for peace in the region. There is no other solution that is fair to all sides of the conflict at this time.
Brutal situation as I see it , Washington have so far demonstrated its reluctance to support any motion or further actions which'll not favour Israel . The status quo seem to suit both Washington + Israel's expansion policies - establishing "facts of the ground" Those elected representatives in Washington are more concerned safeguarding their own interests - scheming deals - with AIPAC etc., , than being "fair " to other parties. "Peace" or any final settlement would prevent the Zionist from completing their plans - they never intended to share Palestine with non-Jews , They want the whole Pizza not just a big slice of it. ... ---- ....
Sorry to say again that the solution you mentioned is in no way the step that Israel would take... Israel should absorb the West Bank since Judea and Samaria are the heart of Israel and thus take the wind out of the Sails of overzealous people with easy suggestions. - - - Updated - - - Sorry to say again that the solution you mentioned is in no way the step that Israel take... Israel should absorb the West Bank since Judea and Samaria are the heart of Israel and thus take the wind out of the Sails of overzealous people with easy suggestions.
I'm fine with Israel keeping the West Bank and Gaza Strip. A one state solution would actually be preferable. If it does though, then it needs to extend equal citizenship rights to those living in the region though (the Palestinians); which Israel of course would never do as it would compromise the country's Jewish Majority. That unwillingness to lose the Jewish identity among conservatives, is exactly why a one state solution would never work; hence the need for a two state solution based on 1967 borders.
The two state solution is the correct answer, but not based on 1967 borders. By the way, Abu adolf Mazen said that the future palestine state will not include israelis.. i wonder why should Israel keep the arabs ?
The Palestinian Authority recognizes Jewish persons who were living on the land prior to the creation of Israel as Palestinians as well and fully entitled to land rights as well as citizenship rights. If you don't want 1967 borders, then legally speaking Israel is going to have to lose its Jewish majority. Your call I suppose. I am fine with it either way.
I'm impressed; nothing in your rambling delirium is what I said was rubbish in the post of yours I quoted: I'll list what you claim isn't 'disputed': 1) The people responsible for riots are the rioters. Jews were the victims of violence by Arabs so therefore the Arabs and the Grand Mufti who egged them on were responsible. At best your attempt at blaming the victim is personal opinion and certainly not 'historical fact beyond dispute'. 2) Of course, the Arabs declared war against the Jews and Jews were completely ethnically cleansed in Arab demarcated territory and a far greater ratio of Jewish civilians died in the war than Arab. But don't let facts get in the things you imagine are 'beyond dispute'. 3) This is either an abuse of the word 'literally', hyperbole or both. Count the number of civilian deaths leading up and during the war and one can easily determine who were the terrorists. Of course, I won't refer to all Palestinian Arabs as terrorists even though they killed more Jews than Jews killed Arabs; only a nut-job extremist would brand an entire population terrorists. Don't worry, I'm sure you'll post more delirium and claim your warped views are historical fact and beyond dispute. At least you haven't told me 'The Truth', yet.
The opposite. When Jordan becomes the palestinian state, many arabs will leave the west bank with a smile to build their new nation acroos the river. So the jewish majority will improve. Simmilar to the 850000 jews that left the arab countries with a smile to build the new born Israel last century. View attachment 18181
Well done!! HB is now infamous for twisting the truth to suit the Zionist agenda. # He fiddled the Palestinian population figures to inflate the growth rate and make it look like there had to be immigration. And he failed because his Myth was exposed # He misquoted the Mandate authorities for the same reason. And he failed because his myth was exposed. The was no large-scale immigration # He misconstrued genetic data from Israeli universities to try to obscure the Jew-Palestinian blood-link (his "maidens" fantasy) # And now he switched words and you caught him out. His Myths have been trashed, but that won't stop him from repeating them in his attempt to turn the victims into the guilty.
Good readers, that bit is correct; not fiddled with. [Applause] Geography Lesson: So let us look at the area that the British factually documented as being EXCLUDED from the territory that they promised to the Arabs for being their allies in World War I. It is the area WEST of Damascus, Homs, Hama and Aleppo. That seems to be pretty clear and unambiguous. Let us check where that is by referring to the map below: 1) Can you spot those 4 towns on the map, HBendor? I helped you identify them by editing a red box around them. 2) Do you know which direction is West? It is directly to the left towards the Mediterranean sea - trhe blue bit 3) Now can you see where Israel is? Look south from Damascus; south of the Lebanon border. SOUTH Yet, HBendor, you claim that the British excluded Israel by virtue of being WEST of Aleppo etc. Can you now spot your mistake, HBendor? Now in defence of your glaring geographical nonsensity, you provided the following: Your honour, yes, I wrote that I would marry her; that I would obey her until death do us part. I put those words into a promisory document. Then I signed it. And it was published for all the world to see. But I did not INTEND to marry her. Absolute drivel, that apology for a defence, isn't it, HBendor. EXACTLY!! The British were duplicitous and reneged on their promise to the Arabs of 1915. That is crystal clear to anyone who can read a map. MYTH BUSTED!!! ..... YET AGAIN But fear not. At some stage in the future HB will present the same trashed story as if nothing had happened, like he did with his cherry-picking and half-quotes from the Palestine Mandate Commission. That should not be directed at Klipkap but rather at ..... fill in the dots HB
I am only the messenger... I intend to post the following with the hope that this will end all controversies. How Trans-Jordan was severed from the territory of the Jewish ... ~Isaiah Friedman Author biographies Isaiah Friedman is an Emeritus Professor of History at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev. His numerous publications include Germany, Turkey and Zionism, 1897–1918 (1977; reissued 199; The Rise of Israel: A Documentary Record from the Nineteenth Century to 1948 (editor of the first 12 vols., 1987); The Question of Palestine, 1914–1918: British-Jewish-Arab Relations (2nd expanded edition, 1992); and Palestine: A Twice Promised Land? Volume 1, The British, the Arabs and Zionism, 1915–1920 (2000). He is currently completing the second volume, entitled Miscalculations by the British and the Rise of Moslem Nationalism, and is planning a third volume to this series. The decision to sever Trans-Jordan from the territory of the Jewish National Home was taken during the period when Winston Churchill, an avowed friend of the Zionists but not au fait with Middle Eastern problems, served as Colonial Secretary. It was T.E. Lawrence who persuaded him that Britain was indebted to Emir Faisal for his contribution to the Allied victory over the Turkish army and that therefore the territory of Trans-Jordan should be allotted to Sharifian control. Churchill disregarded the consensus among British ministers that the boundary between Palestine and the Arab state should run about ten miles east of the River Jordan, and thus caused a heavy disappointment to Chaim Weizmann and his colleagues. It was H. St. John Philby, Lawrence's successor in Trans-Jordan, who more than anyone else was responsible for the final demarcation of the boundary along the River Jordan, bisecting the Dead Sea, in contradiction to what had been understood as the borders of the Jewish National Home at the time of the Balfour Declaration. To be continued.
This pretty much sums it up. Israel will not comply with it's treaty obligations or international law. It has never respected the inalienable Rights of non-Jewish individuals and has no intention of doing so today. It is a tyrannical nation based upon religious/ethnic criteria with an "apartheid" type agenda that can be easily equated to "white rule" in S Africa and Nazi Germany in the past. It is very sad that the Jews that were oppressed and murdered by Hitler have embraced the same type of oppression in Israel based upon Zionism. If any people should oppose the oppression of others based upon religious, ethnic or racial criteria it should be the Jews (and many do) but the Zionists have embraced the oppression and even the murder of thousands of innocent Arab Muslims and denied them equality since the very founding of Israel. As I mentioned in a previous post there are some Zionists that would actually embrace death camps for the Palestinians if they thought they could get away with it. That is extremely sad to even contemplate but it can't be denied.
Where there is smoke, usually there is fire... The arab spring ( winter ) will touch Jordan and do it's changes. The flag sure looks good !! don't u think ? View attachment 18203
I beg to disagree with your point of view... Watch and listen to a Prof, of International Law... The Legal Case for Israel Video by Professor Eugene Kontorovich according to International Law http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ub2x5UvjUs4&feature=player_embedded#!
Feel free to troll with your flag all you'd like, but Jordan has long been more stable than other Arab states. It seems unlikely that the Arab Spring will lead to regime change there unless violence spills over from Syria. Either way there won't be a Palestinians state there, nor would a new Jordan even be likely to absorb the entire Palestinian population (there are Arab League laws against it). Jordan has done a better job in the past of co-opting its Islamist groups than other Arab states have which makes it a little more resilient; but if the monarchy does fall then it will do so to the Islamists, and Palestinians secular nationalism will have little room in that ideological play book. Sorry. - - - Updated - - - False argument, Israel doesn't have a case under international law.
