Resolution 181 never got to be valid, since for this resolution to be valid it needed the acceptnce of the two sides. While the Jews accepted it, the Arabs rejected it, thus, resolution has no legal status and never had been.
This opinion does not change the fact that the WB was officially annexed by Jordan, the people there were Jordanian citizens with representation in the Jordanian government, that when Israel crossed into the WB in 1967 it invaded Jordan, and that Jordan ceded its claim on the West Bank to Israel in 1988. International law ceased to apply once there was no conflict between nations; there was no conflict in 1950 and the conflict that began in 1967 ended in 1988.
Psst... The "people" under discussion here are Jordanian citizens living in the West Bank at the time of the Israeli invasion of Jordan.
There were no claims to Jordan over the West Bank. Jordan controlled the West Bank illegaly and it's control there was never recognized. And still there is international law, and there is the UN charter that is part of the internaional law, and its articles must be respected by the mambers in the UN.
No those are the victims, I am talking about the supremacist, largely eastern europeans who decided they wished to steal the land from the people who had lived there for centuries. Do catch up!
the 1967 war was planned all thru the 1950s.. It was a calculated, provoked theft of land and water assets.
What you wrote here has nothing to do with th fact that there was no "High Conractig Party" that controlled the West Bank until 1967. BTW- Moshe Dayan said after the war that Israel would not gonna enter the West Bank if Jordan would not attack them from it.
Jordan annexed the WB in 1950. The peopel that lived there in 1967 were Jordanian citizens with representation in the Jordanina government. The land was part of Jordan, and so Jordan was the only state to have any standing to counter Isreal's occupation 1967-1988. In 1988 Jordan renounced its claim, leaving the WB as part of Israel. This claim is insupportable. None of which matters as the UN and International law has no effect with regard to the inner workings of a state when no other state in involved. - - - Updated - - - Then you are not discussing the same people I spoke of. Pay attention. - - - Updated - - - Unsupportable nonsense.
You already stated it. Please stop repeating yourself. You can see my reply to such claims in my previous comments.
Jordan annexed the WB in 1950. The peopel that lived there in 1967 were Jordanian citizens with representation in the Jordanina government. The land was part of Jordan, and so Jordan was the only state to have any standing to counter Isreal's occupation 1967-1988. In 1988 Jordan renounced its claim, leaving the WB as part of Israel.
As I wrote in Comment #67: According to Article 2 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which there states what is "occupation", we will see that it states that occupued territories is when occupation of territory belonging to 'another High COntracting party', and Jordan cannot show any such title to the West Bank, as Prof. Stone clerified: This claim was also got rainforcement from Lauterpacht, whic was a judge in the ICJ, as he stated: Therefore, Israel didnt took this territory from no other country. Source: http://www.mythsandfacts.org/media/u...204-21-05D.pdf
1967? Israel attacked Egypt while Egyptian troops were deployed in Yemen. The war was simple theft...
In one comment you talked about the West Bank and Jordan, but now you are talking about Egypt and total different area? Please decide! But if you want to talk about Egypt, according to the Armistic Lines Agreements from 1949, Egypt was not allowed to enter the Sinai with their army. But in the period of time before 1967 war, Egypt did enter Sinai with their troops, which was a violation of the Armistic Lines Agreement, and thus was casus belli.
According to Article 8 of the Armistic Lines Agreement of 1949 stated: Source: http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/foreignpo...1/pages/israel-egypt armistice agreement.aspx The "Western front unde Egyptian control" was, among other things, Sinai. Therefore, in the Sinai Paninsula Egypt was obligated to maintain defensive forces, and not to make attacking forces enter Sinai. What egypt did in the period of time before 1967 war was a violation on this agreement.
After 1988, there can be no sound argument of an Israeli "occupation" of the WB as Jordan ceded its claim.
I replied to your claims, but if you have doubts, please let me know and I will reply. Correct. There is no "occupation" in the West Bank. I also said that the West Bank is not an occupied territories. You are saying that because of Jordan that ceded its claim over the West Bank, thus there is no occupation, but also in 1967 the territory was not occupied, since Israel didnt take it from another country, or as the Fourth Geneva Conventaion put it, "another high contracting party".
As I said: Your reply does not change the fact everything I said was true. And so, while you did reply, my position remains sound. So, if Israel does not occupy the West Bank, what's the fuss about?
Which part of what I stated didnt negate your claims? To whom are you referring? If it is to the Arabs, then according to them (the charters of the organizations that control them) the fuss is about a non-Muslim entity that control a territory that is Islamic Waqf.
Nothing in any of your statements negated any of the claims I made. You do, however agree that Israel is a legitimate state, has a right to exist, and a right to self-defense. Seems to me then the "issue" you describe, above, has no resolution, other than a change in the hearts and minds of said Arabs.
In your comment #71 you stated that Jordan controlled the West Bank from 1950, but the annexation which Jordan made was illegaly and thus was not recognized by the world , but only was recognized by Britain and Pakistan. Also the Arab League threw Jordan from been a mamber in the league because of the illegal annnexation of the West Bank. Jordan never had a "another high contracting party", which you can read in the Fourh Geneva Convention which described in Article 2 what is "occupied territory", regarding the West Bank, and therefore this territory from 1967 could never been "occupied". I do agree, but it's not me who is the problem, but those who claim that Israel is not. How do you like to change it while the Arabs themselves chounting in mosques that Jews are apes and swans, as the Quran describes them. That in their schools they are been thought that the Land of Israel is "Palestine", and all of the territory (not only the West Bank and Gaza) is "Palestine" and therefore must be liberated and the Arabs must return to Haifa, Acre and rest of Israeli cities?
