Israel demolishes West Bank homes, displacing 36 Palestinians

If I had said the same thing about Muslims, whom I criticize constantly, I wouldn't have heard a peep out of you. Look, I don't have anything against Jews, at all, but don't think for a second I'm as weak as these other people who will run at the slightest charge of antisemitism--the Jews need a hell of a lot more criticizing than they have received, and they need to deal with it. I will criticize anyone whenever the hell I want to. Jews are the only group in this country who are off-limits, and in Europe it is somehow illegal to deny the holocaust (I do not deny it, but think it is bull(*)(*)(*)(*) that Jews get such privileges). I'm so sick of this victim-hood bull(*)(*)(*)(*) coming from, by far, the most powerful group of people on the planet.

 

I said that according to the White Paper itself, the intention of the White Paper was to give interpetation to the Balfour Declaration.

Area C according to Oslo Accords is under Israeli control, and not the PA. And according to the document of the Mandate the Jews can settle anywhere in "Palestine", which means also in the West Bank since it is part of "Palestne".

The Arabs in the West Bank settle in the West Bank, yes. Some of them are illegal and therefore should be destroyed.

The agreement stated that "Palestine" excluding Trans-Jordan will be for the Jewish hom land.

Accroding to the White Paper itself:

That came after the Arabs had concerns about Balfour Declaration:

Source: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/brwh1922.asp

As you can read, the White Paper states only one document which it gave interpretation to, and that was the Balfour Declaration.

 

I do, as a rule.

 

Consider yourself spared. In the future, you can spare yourself. You don't have to read anyone's post, and there is no need to respond when you have nothing to say.

 

I thought, the meaning of my post was understood. What I mean was

Spare me your nonsense

 

I'm glad you brought up that point. The Palestinian question is a very large one and it would be time consuming and awkward to include one's entire view in every post touching the subject. However, since your ask some very good questions, I will try to answer as briefly as I can.

The confrontation between Israel and Palestine is one of asymmetrical warfare. Israel has an ultra-modern, high-tech military machine unrivaled by any nation in the region. The Palestinians don't have an army, much less an air force. The Palestinian military consists of small bands of volunteer light infantry capable only of guerrilla. That is asymmetry.

The IDF is in control of the West Bank and Gaza as a result of military conquest. Under international law as ratified in the Geneva Conventions, that makes Israel the "occupying power." The obligations and limitations on the occupying power are clear and have been agreed to by both the US and Israel. US law forbids America from violating those Conventions and from supporting another nation with does.

Israel's responses to the Palestinian resistance have been widely and repeatedly condemned by investigative authorities and internation bodies over many years. Palestinian terrorism is not a legal defense against the charge of war crimes. In simple terms, you cannot just grab a piece of territory and then do whatever you have to do to control the people living on it.

Admittedly, this puts Israel in a tough situation because there are millions of Palestinians who do not want their land occupied by Israel. Israel's occupation has been condemned by international law and even the United States agrees that its "settlements" are illegal. US policy is committed to an independent state of Palestine.

As the (illegal) occupying power, Israel is required to figure out some way to live with the Palestinians under its (illegal) control. Israel has failed to do this, not so much for lack of effort as because Israel has a goal of absorbing Palestinian land into Israel. Under these circumstances the asymmetrical warfare against the Palestinians is a problem Israel cannot solve. The world supports the Palestinians. Four hundred million Arabs support the Palestinians. Neither side can defeat the other, but Israel's success hangs by the single thread of US military and financial support. That thread is fraying more and more as Israel's violations of law and of agreements with its only ally are approaching a crisis.

I hope this helps you understand why I do not share your view although I respect it.

 

Fair enough. I do agree with you that Grau's posts are though often accurate they are awful, long winded trash. It is simply rude when posters put this stuff up and expect people to read it all in detail - after all, you wouldnt accept it in an actual conversation. And most of us have lives to live.

 

More so in my case - I mostly post or read PF between my tasks, so only have a couple of minutes at a time to see what's new, and respond. That's why you seldom see topics, started by me. C'est la vie

 

If you don't like my opinions, you are fee to ignore them. Merely labeling them as "nonsense" with no evidence or argument discredits you, not me.

 

Actually the best tactic to use against you is to simply report your post's look back and see. Thats why I seldom bother with long winded replies to you, they will be deleted too.

 

As I said I do not debate your posts since they are mostly insults and rubbish, and they will be deleted. Like this one will!

 

The reasoning is english comprehension, which time and again you and Stuntman do not understand.

A National Home can be a State, that does not mean a National Home is always a State. Government can be of a country, that does not mean Government is always of a country.

Does that help your understanding?

 

Unfortunately Yetzerhara has not realised that the charge of antisemitism has been used far too indiscriminately to hold any sway anymore.

Anyone who thinks "Please don't dance the Hora" is antisemetic has lost their sense of perspective!

 

Indeed, and it is. Its also written to discuss Palestine's future as a mandate territory and does so does it not?

Indeed but its Palestinian land. Nothing prevents either Jews or Arabs living in the west bank as Palestinian subjects, or anywhere else. However, Israel wants to have its citizens settle in the west bank while not allowing Palestinians in the west bank to impose settlements in Israel. Would you agree to let Palestinians to build settlementnt blocks in Israel? That would satisfy the mandate conditions would it not?

Yes, and since its Palestine they have every right. The houses are not illegal according to the mandate, and article 80 and therefore should be allowed to remain.

Would you like also to see Arabs in the west bank moving into israel and building new settlement blocks there? Would that satisfy the mandate conditions international instruments?

So you think Faisal meant to give western palestine to a minority of people over and above the vast majority who lived there? You really think that?

LOL, youre really getting bad at this now - as you can see it references Palestine's future as a mandate territory.

Are you saying that after the white paper, when they agreed to the mandate a year or so later theyd changed their view on Palestines future?

What do you think they mean by exaggerated interpretations of the arabs about the establishment of a jewish national home?

Why do you think they said that arabs had no cause for alarm?

 

Just one question from me to you here; do you find this Israeli Palestinian subject very very interesting? What keeps you coming back?

 

The statements that I qouted for you from the White Paper regarded Balfour Decleration which talked about "Palestine" from 1917, which included Tran-Jordan. Now, of course that the Decleration stated:

So the Decleration of 1917 talked about an establishment of a national home for the Jewish people in "Palestine", and thus the White Paper said that the "exaggerated interpretations" that the Arabs feared from that mentioned like it ment "in whole of Palestine", is incorrect.
Now we need to remember that at the time of when the White Paper was issued, "whole of Palestine" didnt exist, since from 1921 the Arabs ruled Trans-Jordan that was part of "the whole of Palestine" with Western "Palestine", which is the West Bank and the territory of which Israel is existing on. So the "exaggerated interpretations" was no more valid in 1922 (an establishment in whole of "Palestine" a Jewish national home), because the Arabs already took piece from "whole of Palestine" to rule there.

Let me ask you something, would you, as a Scotish citizen, would allow a cirtizen from Ireland to estalish inside of Scotland an Irish cities? Or maybe you would think that this kind of cities would damage the sovereignty that Scotland enjoy within it's territories?

So according to you the document of the Mandate adn Article 80 of the UN Charter, support the building of houses without permits to do so?

That's what the agreement stated.