We Have Legal Grounds!

Discussion in 'Middle East' started by HBendor, Feb 28, 2014.

  1. HBendor

    HBendor New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2009
    Messages:
    12,043
    Likes Received:
    60
    Trophy Points:
    0
    We Have Legal Grounds!
    A Campaign for the Promoting Israel's Legal Rights

    AFSI Americans for a safe Israel


    The legal case: ISRAEL HAS RIGHTS IN JUDEA AND SAMARIA

    ►Judea and Samaria had been part of the area designated by the British Mandate for the establishment of a homeland for the Jewish people only.
    ►Contrary to accepted opinion, the partition of Palestine was not a decision but rather a recommendation made to the United Nations Security Council, which did nothing due, amongst other reasons, to objections from the Arabs. In other words, the status of Judea and Samaria was not changed following the partition recommendation and remained the same: it was part of the territory which, according to the Mandate, was intended for the establishment of a home for the Jewish People.
    ►Jordan's entry into Judea and Samaria in 1948 as part of a military action it had initiated (not for defense purposes), was, therefore, illegal. By the same argument, it can also be said that the Jordanian annexation was also illegal. Even the Arab League condemned Jordan for annexing Judea and Samaria.
    ►In 1967 Israel took control of Judea and Samaria from Jordan, which had annexed the area in contravention of international law. Israel did this during a defensive war, which makes its actions legal.
    Therefore, during the Six Day War, Israel took control of areas that were not part of any other legal sovereignty - stateless areas - and which had, in any case, been designated for the Jewish People. From a legal point of view, Israel could not be classed as a conqueror.
    ►Judea and Samaria are not "Palestinian" as the "Palestinians" were never a nation. There has never been a "Palestinian State". Today there is an argument, and just an argument, made by the Arabs living in Judea and Samaria, regarding their right to an independent state. This is a political argument and Israel is not required to accept it, even if much of the world identifies with this argument.
    ►Furthermore, the right to self-determination, in the legal sense, only took form in International Law long after 1967, from the 1980's onwards. And this even before we begin examining the question as to whether the Arabs in Judea and Samaria have such a right.
    ►Laws of Occupation apply to a situation in which territory is taken from another State. For this reason, they are not relevant and do not apply to Judea and Samaria.

    As a result, the settlements are not illegal.
    All the injunctions and restrictions placed on an occupying nation are not relevant to Judea and Samaria.
    Legal claims regarding Israeli occupation are no more than the adoption of an Arab national narrative. Nothing more than that.
     
  2. snakestretcher

    snakestretcher Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2010
    Messages:
    43,996
    Likes Received:
    1,706
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Israel is expected to abide by the rules, laws and regulations of the organisation of which it is a member state-the United Nations.
    As for your post there is, as usual, nothing remotely substantial contained within it and it is replete with factual errors. Your source is no less than a Zionist propaganda movement which promotes illegality, and Israel has no legal grounds for the ongoing theft of Palestinian lands, irrespective of your whining about 'patrimony', 'time immemorial' and totally spurious archaeological 'evidence'.
    Here, just for you, are the laws regarding occupation. Read them well; and if you believe they don't apply to Israel then please explain why, with reference to legal precedent.
    http://www.icrc.org/eng/resources/documents/misc/634kfc.htm
    http://www.ifamericansknew.org/cur_sit/boyle.html
     
  3. stuntman

    stuntman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2012
    Messages:
    4,616
    Likes Received:
    63
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Do you know that all the Arab cities in the West Bank is under the PA control and NOT under Israel? and that is according to Oslo Agreement, which the Arabs agreed to it.
     
  4. Wizard From Oz

    Wizard From Oz Banned at Members Request

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2008
    Messages:
    9,676
    Likes Received:
    62
    Trophy Points:
    0
    If you want to go down that road you are in conflict with the 2005 IDP protocol. You displace those persons (For whatever reason) You accept certain legal responsibilities for their safe guard. Israel is clearly not doing that
     
  5. Wizard From Oz

    Wizard From Oz Banned at Members Request

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2008
    Messages:
    9,676
    Likes Received:
    62
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It does not matter much. All that changes in his argument is Israel is not an occupier, meaning they dont answer to the 1951 Refugee protocol. But by claiming the areas as Israeli territory they then become covered by the 2005 Internal displaced persons protocol. Either way Israel is not doing that good a job by international law
     
  6. stuntman

    stuntman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2012
    Messages:
    4,616
    Likes Received:
    63
    Trophy Points:
    48
    So you say that Israel dont give right to the Arabs that live in Israel? but they do, and you have to much evidences to it.
     
  7. MGB ROADSTER

    MGB ROADSTER Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2012
    Messages:
    7,866
    Likes Received:
    1,301
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If Israelis will make a mistake by giving away their land to the illegal Palestinian occupiers , at least they should add to the package all fifth column "Israeli" Arabs.
     
  8. stuntman

    stuntman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2012
    Messages:
    4,616
    Likes Received:
    63
    Trophy Points:
    48
    The "wierd" thing is that he Israeli Arabs more like it in Israel and not in Arab country, and I can understand them:)
     
  9. Wizard From Oz

    Wizard From Oz Banned at Members Request

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2008
    Messages:
    9,676
    Likes Received:
    62
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Cant have your cake and eat it - Are Arabs being compensated for their displacement by the settlements? If it is claimed Israel is an occupying force then the 1951 protocol covers the situation. If as MGB is arguing, they are not an occupying force but only extending control over land that should be part of the nation of Israel, then they are covered by the IDP protocol.
     
  10. stuntman

    stuntman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2012
    Messages:
    4,616
    Likes Received:
    63
    Trophy Points:
    48
    The settlements in the West Bank? first of all the settlements there are under Israeli territory according to Oslo Agreement. Secondly Israel evacuated Jewish settlers in the West Bank, and still do it.
     
  11. Wizard From Oz

    Wizard From Oz Banned at Members Request

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2008
    Messages:
    9,676
    Likes Received:
    62
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Great then the Arabs being moved a covered by the IDP protocol
     
  12. stuntman

    stuntman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2012
    Messages:
    4,616
    Likes Received:
    63
    Trophy Points:
    48
    You can find Arabs today in Israel living in their birthplace, or even the place they want to live, without any interuption from anyone.
     
  13. Wizard From Oz

    Wizard From Oz Banned at Members Request

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2008
    Messages:
    9,676
    Likes Received:
    62
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Where they displaced by the settlements?
     
  14. Jonsa

    Jonsa Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2011
    Messages:
    39,871
    Likes Received:
    11,452
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If Israel has a legal argument to annex the West bank, then what to do with the arabs living there? do they become citizens?
     
  15. HBendor

    HBendor New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2009
    Messages:
    12,043
    Likes Received:
    60
    Trophy Points:
    0
    My learned colleague Jonsa... you surely are in a quandary... But the taste of the pudding is in the eating.

    Here is something that would illustrate and substantiate the attachment of the Jews to their Land.

    2,300 Year Old Second Temple Era Village Discovered


    Please go read and watch the latest discovery together with coins, vases, and habitation.


    http://bit.ly/1cun1zb

    Also the oldest hebrew scrolls in the world read and watch here.

    http://www.breakingisraelnews.com/8217/oldest-biblical-manuscripts-earth/
     
  16. Wizard From Oz

    Wizard From Oz Banned at Members Request

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2008
    Messages:
    9,676
    Likes Received:
    62
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You will notice he completely ducked your question. No matter what legal or historical argument they care to offer, there is still a legal responsibility to the local population that they continue to refuse to acknowledge.
     
  17. AdvancedFundamentalist

    AdvancedFundamentalist New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2013
    Messages:
    798
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Nuke Israel and solve the problem.
     
  18. stuntman

    stuntman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2012
    Messages:
    4,616
    Likes Received:
    63
    Trophy Points:
    48
    If you are refering to the Arabs in the West Bank, so the Arabs there live in Arab cities and Arab villages who under the PA rule, also Israeli factories and busnisses hired Arabs from the West Bank, and also a lot of them have Israeli citizenship
    If you are refering to the Arabs inside of Israel live in various cities like Acre, Haifa, Jaffa, Eilat, Be'er Sheva etc.
     
  19. HBendor

    HBendor New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2009
    Messages:
    12,043
    Likes Received:
    60
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Israel did not displace any one, if we did I would have known right away as I live here and you are an unknown forum participant surely with a reason to disparage.
     
  20. HBendor

    HBendor New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2009
    Messages:
    12,043
    Likes Received:
    60
    Trophy Points:
    0

    Normally people criticize California calling it 'La La Land' as not conforming with realities... You live in Florida where I have a lot of intellectual friends... Sir, your demeanor, your outbursts would only subject them to your genre of insane rhetoric and defamation.
     
  21. HBendor

    HBendor New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2009
    Messages:
    12,043
    Likes Received:
    60
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Rather than flaunt 'vegemite' as an icon I would suggest you also eat some and become more apt to comprehend the situation, also ad a few 'Popeye Spinach' to the lot.

    There was a war between the fictitious state of Jordan and Israel in 1947-1948 and the Jordanians won, they controlled West Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria for 19 years... Fictitious Jordan decided to annex this territory... Two states recognized this illegal annexation they were the UK and Pakistan.... Mind you... NOT A SINGLE ARAB STATE RECOGNIZED THIS ILLEGAL ANNEXATION!!!!!!!!!
    On 15 May 1967 worrisome news began to reach Israel. Egypt had declared a state of emergency, and President Gamal Abdel Nasser had moved large military forces through Cairo on their way to the Sinai. By 20 May some 100 thousand Egyptian troops, organized in seven divisions (two of them armored) with more than one thousand tanks, had been deployed along the Israeli border. The Arab world was seized by mass hysteria. The Arab governments, one after another, announced their support of Nasser in a rising wave of enthusiasm for what was perceived as the coming blow against Israel. Egypt received open encouragement in these preparations from her Soviet ally.
    By 16 May the Egyptian government had already demanded the withdrawal of the UN Emergency Force from its position along the Israeli-Egyptian border, and that same evening U Thant, the UN Secretary General, informed the Egyptian delegate that if his government decided to withdraw the agreement it had given in 1956 to the placement of UN troops on her territory, "it was understood" that she was permitted to do so. On 18 May U Thant ordered -the evacuation of the UN force "with no delay".
    In a May 22 speech before Egyptian officers at the Bir Gafgafa base, 160 kilometers from the Israeli border, the Egyptian president announced his decision to once again close the Tiran Straits to ships sailing to and from the Israel port of Eilat. He said: "We are face to face with Israel. From now on the situation Is in our hands. Our armed forces have seized Sharm-al-Sheikh. Under no circumstances will we allow the Israeli flag to pass through the Aqaba Gulf. The Jews threaten to start war; my answer to them: Welcome, because we are ready for war. The waters are ours." This confidence was based on the immense quantities of Soviet arms Nasser had received during recent years - ultrasonic MIG 21 planes, modern T55 tanks, up-to-date artillery, the latest models of ground-to-air missiles, which the Soviet Union had used for its aerial defense. Agreements similar to the mutual defense pact with Syria were now signed with Jordan and Iraq, and expeditionary forces arrived from other Arab states. Israel found herself surrounded by an Arab force of a quarter million troops, over two thousand tanks, and some seven hundred fighter and bomber planes.
    Israel had stated more than once that she would consider an Egyptian blockade a cause for war which would entitle her to use force for self-defense, in accordance with article 51 of the UN Charter. Nevertheless, Israel tried to resolve the crisis through diplomatic means and decided on a waiting period in order to provide the United States, which had condemned the blockade as an illegal act of provocation, an opportunity to work for its cancellation. When it became apparent that there was no chance to resolve the crisis through diplomatic means, the Israeli Air Force, on 5 June, set out to destroy the Egyptian Air Force and landing fields. Flying low, out of Egyptian radar range, the Israeli planes reached their destination, and in less than three hours and with a loss of 19 Israeli planes, 451 Egyptian aircraft had been destroyed. Israel thus gained aerial superiority. On the same day, the southern command forces set out against the large Egyptian troop concentrations in the Sinai.
    The first major breakthrough in the Egyptian front was in the Khan-Yunis-Rafiah region, and that evening one brigade reached the city of El-Arish. The second breakthrough was north of the Nitzana-Abu Ageila line, and toward the morning of 6 June an Israeli armored brigade destroyed the Egyptian tanks in that region and prepared to break through in the direction of Jabal Libni. Other IDF forces engaged in a heavy battle with Egyptian and Palestinian troops in the Gaza Strip, and paratroops and infantry units conquered the Ali Muntar stronghold which dominates Gaza. On the second day of fighting the conquest of the Gaza Strip was completed, one unit moved west along the main axis toward Ismailia on the bank of the canal, a second unit moved south, and a third, south toward El-Kusseima.
    On 7 June Israeli naval forces sailed from the Gulf of Eilat and seized Sharm-al-Sheikh, reopening the Tiran Straits to naval passage. On that same day the large Egyptian base of Bir-Gafgafa was taken, as well as Bir-Hasane. On the fourth day of fighting, in the Mitla region, one of the largest battles in the history of armored warfare, with the participation of almost one thousand tanks, ended in a decisive Israeli victory. The Israeli flag was raised on the banks of the Suez Canal. The Egyptian forces, which only four days previously had been prepared to destroy the State of Israel, were now retreating in panic, each man fleeing for his, life. When Egyptian leaders became aware of the extent of their defeat, they accepted the UN Security Council call for an unconditional cease-fire and a military freeze. The Israeli government had already accepted the cease-fire on the basis of reciprocity.
    On the morning of 5 June the Israeli government, through the head UN observer, had informed Jordanian King Hussein that there was no intent of starting a war with his country; if the Israel-Jordan border stayed quiet his kingdom would not be touched. Hussein, however, ignored this call: on that same day his forces began heavy shelling along the cease-fire lines, the heaviest directed at Jerusalem. Documents later captured by the IDF showed that one of the objectives of the Jordanian Legion was the conquest of Motza, a settlement west of Jerusalem, and the killing of its inhabitants. IDF forces counter-attacked and in three days of fighting conquered the entire west bank of the Jordan (Judea and Samaria) and East Jerusalem. On 7 June the Israeli flag was raised over the Temple Mount, and the Western Wall returned, after centuries, to Jewish hands. Jordan agreed to a cease-fire the following day (8 June).
    Syria, the most warlike of the Arab countries, continued her intensive shelling of northern settlements even after the cease-fire on the Egyptian and Jordanian borders had taken effect and attempted, unsuccessfully, to seize Kibbutz Dan in the northern Galilee. Since Syria refused to agree to a cease-fire the IDF turned its forces against her. During twenty hours of heavy fighting the entire Golan, including the city of Kuneitra, was conquered. Thus, after nineteen years of continual threats and harassment, the nightmare of Syrian shelling was removed from the northern settlements. Now Syria, too, accepted the Security Council cease-fire decision.
    During the six Day War 772 Israeli soldiers were killed, 2800 were wounded, and 17 taken captive. Arab losses numbered 15,000, and 6,000 were captured or missing. Over 400 Arab aircraft were destroyed and over 800 tanks destroyed or captured.
    So one has to come to the conclusion that when there is 'smoke there is fire' and the 'reconquista' of the so called West Bank (Judea and Samaria) was an affair between two burgeoning states and not the so called 'Palestinians' since this nomenclature started in 1964 by the late Mr. Arafat who had no physical control on anything but his own purse.
     
  22. AdvancedFundamentalist

    AdvancedFundamentalist New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2013
    Messages:
    798
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Parasites are not an ally.
     
  23. Wizard From Oz

    Wizard From Oz Banned at Members Request

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2008
    Messages:
    9,676
    Likes Received:
    62
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Instead of throwing out 3rd rate insults and 4th rate history lessons, why dont you answer the question. If Israel is an occupying force, then the Arabs being displaced by the settlements should be cared for under the 1951 refugee protocol. If you claim a legal right through history to the area then the Arabs being displaced should be cared for under the 2005 IDP protocol. Why is Israel doing neither.
     
  24. HBendor

    HBendor New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2009
    Messages:
    12,043
    Likes Received:
    60
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Because there was nothing of what you and your Muslims friends emphasize!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    It is all sucked from the thumb... Have a nice reading of history day friend...

    Myths, Hypotheses and Facts

    Concerning the Origin of Peoples



    The True Identity of the So-called Palestinians

    In this essay I would like to present the true origin and identity of the Arab people commonly known as "Palestinians", and the widespread myths surrounding them. This research is intended to be completely neutral and objective, based on historic and archaeological evidences as well as other documents, including Arab sources, and quoting statements by authoritative Islamic personalities.
    There are some modern myths -or more exactly, lies- that we can hear everyday through the mass-media as if they were true, of course, hiding the actual truth. For example, whenever the Temple Mount or Jerusalem are mentioned, it is usually remarked that is "the third holy place for Muslims", but why it is never said that is theFIRST Holy Place for Jews? It sounds like an utterly biased information!
    In order to make this essay better comprehensible, it will be presented in two units:
    ·1) Myths and facts concerning the origin and identity of the so-called Palestinians;
    ·2) Myths and facts regarding Jerusalem and the Land of Israel.

    Read more here...

    http://www.imninalu.net/myths-pals.htm
     
  25. Wizard From Oz

    Wizard From Oz Banned at Members Request

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2008
    Messages:
    9,676
    Likes Received:
    62
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Why cant you answer the question?
     

Share This Page