Finally a crack in the wall and we see the light

BALONEY!!!!!!!!!
The Land that you are questioning is the <LAND OF THE JEWS> since the time of the Bible...
And <LAND LIBERATED IN A DEFENSIVE WAR> is abosolutely LEGAL!!!
You cannot play both sides of the fence on this Forum like Poles did in POLAND your ancestral home.

 

Nope, you are, as usual, wrong. There is nowhere that states that "land liberated in a defensive war" is legally taken. On the contrary the laws and conventions clearly state that the acquisition of territory through war is inadmissable. No distinction is made between defensive or offensive war.
And, by the way, the land was not yours to liberate. You were given your own country in 1947, so how about not stealing someone else's.
Oh, and I couldn't give two (*)(*)(*)(*)s about 'time immemorial', 'patrimony' or the bible. Neither does international law-you know, that law that you swore to abide by when Israel was grudgingly admitted to the United Nations.
Here, in just one of hundreds of condemnatory resolutions adopted unanimously by the United Nations, is clear evidence of Israel's criminality:
http://unispal.un.org/unispal.nsf/0/7D35E1F729DF491C85256EE700686136
http://unispal.un.org/unispal.nsf/0/7D35E1F729DF491C85256EE700686136

 

and yet, the Hebrews stole the land from the Canaanites.

 

So, What about two terrorist organizations joining forces. Hamas and Hezbollah. You think that will improve chances for a Middle East peace.

If so, you are one of the most naive posters here.

 

they haven't joined forces.

Hezbollah fights on the side of Assad and Hamas fights on the side of the rebels, in Syria.

 

Jordan's occupation of the West Bank was not recognized.
Israel won back the land in a defensive war, thereby it is totally legal for Israel to be there.
Israel did not forcibly transfer people into the land, they went of their own accord.

Simple enough for those of you who say Israel is illegally occupying Judea and Samaria?

 

Israel has the legal right to occupy the land.

but not the legal right to settle it with its civilian population, and fund building of civilian settlements and infrastructure for such settlements.

one penny of Israeli govt. funds spent on civililian settlements in the West Bank, is illegal.

they are only allowed to build military bases, fences, live fire zones, and infrastructure for such security systems.

 

Where do you get that information from?

 

The 4th Geneva Conventions. Read it sometime. Its an eye-opener.

 

I would like to see proof from the 4th GC that it isn't allowed to build homes. The settlement of people to the area is not forced transfer remember.

 

The 4th GC makes it very clear what is allowed.

This includes military bases, security fences, infrastructure for such bases and fences, live-fire zones, etc.

The 4th GC makes it very clear that the Occupying Power may confiscate private land ONLY for military purposes.

The 4th GC makes it very clear that state land may only be confiscated for the use and good of all residents of the occupied territory.

The 4th GC makes it very clear that annexation of Occupied Territory by the Occupying Power, absent an agreement between the two or more concerned parties, is illegal.

The 4th GC makes it very clear that forced transfer of civilian populations to or from the Occupied Territory is illegal.

It doesn't take an idiot to understand that confiscating West Bank private property or State land and turning it into Israeli-only settlements, violates the 4th Geneva Conventions.

But go ahead, spin away.

 

20% according to your link and the Arab majurity part is true to the WB and Gaza, not to the state itself,

The Jewish state or "Jewish home" as described in 181 is the only way to ensure the Palestinian fractions will be outlawed if they continue to "libetrate" terretories after the agreement is signed, by refusing to end future demands you practicly turn the agreement to a one sided retreat of Israel, why would you think Israel will agree to that ???

If the peace process stops formally Israel will might pull from some areas one-sidedly as I heard some party member saying, that's as far as one sided retreat will go.

 

When 20% exceeds 80% they could vote on changing the name, symbol, religion and vote everyone should wear Green shoes if they want.

But that's BS as we both know, the refusal is not due to dictionary definition, its about throwing away 70 years of propaganda against Israel and the Palestinian national vision that Israel has no area of its own - all land was taken/conqured.

 

Nope. The UN and Geneva Conventions are clear on this, and UN Resolution 242 makes it abundantly clear that the acquisition of land through war is inadmissable. There is no distinction made between offensive and defensive war and Israel did not win back the land because it wasn't Israel's land in the first place. The occupation remains illegal.

 

242 has nothing to do with it. Remember that the Jewish people's ownership of the land is protected in international law. In fact countries are obligated to encourage settlement of the Jewish people into the land. The Arabs have 20 or so countries, and the Jewish people have returned home. Shame you can't accept it, but that is the way it goes.

Watch, learn and weep.

[video=youtube;ubDhnM0MUmY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ubDhnM0MUmY[/video]

 

There is no, no was there ever, an international law saying the Jews own the land.

 

Perhaps you could watch the video.

 

I did watch the video.

The fact is, there is no international law that ever gave all the land to the Jews.

International law let the Jews settle on all the land, but didn't take away the rights of non-Jews and their descendants in the land to live and have political and religious rights.

The only international law that gave the Jews any land, was UN 181...and that gave the Jews a state within less than the 1967 borders.

 

Many countries signed the Mandate at San Remo in 1922. How much more of a Law can you have than that for goodness sakes. Political rights were granted to the Jews. The religious rights were preserved for any religion within the land of Palestine as it was called then.

UN resolutions are not Law, they are resolutions.

 

San Remo was a conference. No laws were issued there.

Nevertheless, it only decided that a Jewish homeland could be created in western Palestine, west of the Jordan river. It also stated that this Jewish homeland would be conditional upon the full respect of non-Jewish political and religious rights.

It never said that all of western Palestine was given as a Jewish state and ALL the land was now Jewish.

such a claim is dishonest and untrue.

 

Perhaps read this information. Many are ignorant of what happened in San Remo.

http://www.acpr.org.il/ENGLISH-NATIV/02-issue/grief-2.htm

 

I am very familiar with San Remo.

Its agreements were codified in the Mandate for Palestine, which let the Jews create a homeland in western Palestine, as long as they respected the political and religious rights of the existing non-Jewish population.

That means that the Jews could settle there and create a homeland, but not hurt the lives of the non-Jews in any way, including taking their lands.

 

The Balfour Declaration, the San Remo Conference, and the Mandate for Palestine NEVER gave all of the land of western Palestine to the Jews.

It simply allowed the Jews to buy land and settle on such land, to make a homeland.

But these rights were conditional upon full respect for non-Jewish rights in that land. Which is why UN res 181 created a Jewish state with a sizeable non-Jewish minority within it.

 

Jews bought the land .. Not like the Palestinian Bedouin thieves who illegally steal and occupy land in the Israeli Negev.

 

The Jews bought 12% of the land.