Discussion in 'Latest US & World News' started by Dutch, Nov 8, 2020.
Think we need two states .. we can not continue to have one occupying and dominating the other.
"According to Rostow "the Jewish right of settlement in the area is equivalent in every way to the right of the local population to live there".
This right is based on Article 6 of the Mandate, which states: "The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in cooperation with the Jewish Agency referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands not required for public use". In addition, many Israeli settlements have been established on sites that were home to Jewish communities before 1948 such as Neve Yaakov, Gush Etzion, Hebron, Kalia, and Kfar Darom.
Contrary to this view other legal scholars have argued that under Articles 31 and 32 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties the only common sense interpretation of UNSC 242 is that Israel must withdraw from all of the territory captured in 1967, as any interpretation permitting the extension of sovereignty by conquest would violate the relevant governing principle of international law as emphasized in the preambular statement, i.e., "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war" as established through the abolition of the right of conquest by the League of Nations following World War I.
Furthermore, it is argued that UNSC 242 has binding force under Article 25 of the UN Charter owing to its incorporation into UN Security Council Resolution 338 and that it is also binding on Israel and the PLO by agreement owing to its incorporation into the Oslo Accords.
Obviously (though I'm not a lawyer), Rostow's view is wrong since it rests on provisions of the League of Nations re the 'Palestine Mandate' (specifically Article 6 according to the above quote), which were superseded by the UN's charter in 1946.
This bullshit is irrelevant and concocted by the useless UN. The fact of the matter is, all the territories occupied by Jordan prior to 1967 are disputed by Israel, which administers Judaea and Samaria pending direct negotiations between Israel and Palestinians.
Until then, Palestinians have Gaza Strip and Hashemite Palestinian Kingdom of Jordan. Plenty of space to move in, away from the hated Jews.
There are two States already - Israel and Hashemite Palestinian Kingdom of Jordan.
And Gaza Strip.
You do not decide what is law.
Khaled Meshal puts quite simply what would be needed for peace. - Talking about the US, UK and EU. (Speaking in 2009)
same link as below
This is why I decided to reply to you. In particular because I can remember Henry Seigman speaking on Khaled Meshal. I cannot find the Open Democracy transcript I was looking for but in the quote below he confirms that this is not about 'Jews'
Khaled Meshal, Hamas leader: “It is possible to reunite the Palestinians” (newstatesman.com)
You may have something against all Muslims but do not project your antipathy towards them onto them towards Jews.
Actually the Israelis do decide the law and with the USA backing then there is nothing that anyone can do about it. Times will change I hope but that is the reality we live in.
I disagree that they do decide the law but would agree that they ignore it and yes, the Israelis create supposed alternative laws which those on internet sites try to proclaim are the real thing and the US always stops the UN from being able to stop Israel as she is carrying on her Colonialism.
Because in reality they go against International Law and the only thing which allows them to do so is hiding behind the US because it is currently the strongest country in the world. That too will change and then there will be repercussions. Israel herself will move on to hide behind the next most imperialist power. ....at any rate I think that but given that we are living in a world where our media tells us reality is very different from what it is, who knows. Bottom line. Israel goes against International law and the US supports this but the rest of the world is well aware of what they are up to.
This take over was never questioned for 20 years
No there isn't ..
It's discouraging how one American administration can muck up or reverse all the gains and labors of the previous administration. It's like a tug of war game. I pull you this way, you pull me that way. Is there ever a winner?
Palestinian Arabs = Jordanian
Not Syrian nor Egyptian!
Wasn't Palestine a Roman creation?
Yes there are.
John Brennan Laments Biden Will Have to 'Repair the Damage' Trump Did in the Middle East
Demonstrating your contempt for the concept of international law.
Problem for you is Israel was created after the UN charter was created.
Carry on fighting....
Israel is not a problem for me. Israel is a problem for you.
That's because the UN was never in a position to implement its partition plan based on the newly created, new-fangled concept of international law....the impetus for which was the image of that cloud over Hiroshima seared into everyone's brains at the time...
Ah..the confidence of the evil survival of the fittest brigade....
Actually my concern is self-awareness, and exposing the lies of some of the prophets in the Old testament, (and some of the proclamations re 'infidels and criminals' in the Koran).
It was about "oil".
I'm talking about the failure to implement the UN partition plan in 1947, because..... the UNSC was already neutered by the veto forced onto it by the great powers*, against the wishes of the majority of the delegates present at the founding of the UN Charter, guaranteeing that war would remain the chief means of dispute settlement between nations.
* economics and oil - ie, exercise of power - no doubt played a part in the insistence on the veto, by one or more of the 5 SC permanent members.
Nothing to disagree about there....it's just plain (sad) fact.
An so the likes of Dutch can claim "the UN is useless".......
Below are details on the forced adoption of the veto.
1945: The San Francisco Conference | United Nations
(the above is a link).
"Above all, the right of each of the "Big Five" to exercise a "veto" on action by the powerful Security Council provoked long and heated debate. At one stage the conflict of opinion on this question threatened to break up the conference. The smaller powers feared that when one of the "Big Five" menaced the peace, the Security Council would be powerless to act, while in the event of a clash between two powers not permanent members of the Security Council, the "Big Five" could act arbitrarily. They strove, therefore, to have the power of the "veto" reduced. But the great powers unanimously insisted on this provision as vital, and emphasized that the main responsibility for maintaining world peace would fall most heavily on them. Eventually the smaller powers conceded the point in the interest of setting up the world organization.
This and other vital issues were resolved only because every nation was determined to set up, if not the perfect international organization, at least the best that could possibly be made".
I suppose it was good they did not let the perfect get in the way of the good; the UN is still very much alive and kicking ...and amenable to reform.
Jewish nationalism was already very well known in the region long before Balfour. Ottomans tried hard to put a lid on it, by the way, but Arabs in general didn't care. Many Israeli cities of today started as Jewish settlements in the 19th century, alongside Arab villages. Only when the Ottoman rulers lost their empire, did the new pan-Arab nationalism turn against Jewish nationalism.
Spare me the "Christian Restorationism" mantra. Unless you can bring solid proof, of course.
You used the term "illegal", and the settlements are certainly legal under Israeli law, so what law exactly should I have in mind in such situation? The Vulcanian law, perhaps?
Fourth Geneva Convention is a bit vague, but by definition - until bent and twisted again to fit certain agendas - it's about Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Where's the war?
Blood feuds are not fights over turf, they're fights over honor.
The Document of the Mandate is still valid.
Ever wondered why the international community refused to recognize the annexation of Judea and Samaria by Jordan?
Tell me, do you think the Arabs who fought along side the British in WW1 did so because they wanted to live under British occupation rather than Ottoman occupation or did they want independence as promised by the British in 1915 before the Balfour declaration?
Were LLoyd George and Balfour in favour of the restoration of the Jews to Palestine purely for political reasons or because of their religious beliefs which came from Christian Restorationism later known as Christian Zionism?
Would the conflict in Palestine of happened if the Jews had not supported Jewish Nationalism?
Whats the difference between Arab Nationalism and Jewish Nationalism are they not both the aspiration of a people to govern themselves?
Correct I use the term illegal because that is what the majority of the countries in the UN believe the occupied territories to be, as you have said Israel follows its own laws and interprets international law however it considers right. Its pointless pointing to international law since Israel and Zionists propaganda merchants will only dispute it. So I stick to the facts, that the majority of countries consider the occupation to be illegal. Do you dispute that fact?
Separate names with a comma.