Trump to recognise Jerusalem

[SHaYap]

1 minute ago, Sir Smoke aLot said:

When Israel supporter refers to laws as a way of defending Israel apartheid policy, priceless  

Aye ... Precious too ...

~

[Sir Smoke aLot]

13 hours ago, Herr Falukorv said:

a picture says more than thousand words

It does, picture does say more than thousand of words but trust me - many people have their common sense destroyed and they do not have ability to think critically so do not believe that you can achieve anything with such good and pure argument.

Important focus on that picture, if you are interested in the subject, is 1947 UN Plan.

Right now all we hear are references to 1967 borders but, under basic laws, it's actually 1947 and relevant resolutions ( which also Israel signed after 1948 when state was proclaimed ) which has legal foothold.

Hopefully after successful reconciliation Palestinians will manage to start legal fight.

Important notice : 300.000 Palestinians living in East Jerusalem are not important to Trump. Who is important are 250.000 of citizens living in illegal settlements.

They themselves destroyed them in Sinai, someone will in Palestine too.

Edited December 14, 2017 by Sir Smoke aLot

[RoofGardener]

14 hours ago, Black Red Devil said:

Wow, just wow.  The "empty land" is occupied territory, occupied by Israeli's on land assigned to the Palestinians.  The map you see shows the decrease of Palestinian land over time because of Israeli occupation and settlements.  So you've been to Jerusalem and you know everything it appears.  What a waste of money.. 

"Land assigned to the Palestinians" ?

Oh really ? When, and by whom ? Under the terms of the UN proposal, the land was assigned to "The Arabs", not "The Palestinians".

Now, the land WAS allocated to "The Palestinians" in 1994 (or thereabouts), for the first time in recorded histroy,  arising out of the Oslo Accords. It was to be a phased handover. Sadly,  however, the PLO betrayed the Accords before the ink was even dry, annuling any rights they may have had from that agreement. So in theory, zero land is formally "allocated" to "The Palestinians". Now, in realpolitik, neither the UN or the Quartet have forced this issue, and continue in the fiction that Oslo is still valid. I assume this is because they don't want to publicly  'back the PLO into a corner' over the issue, in fear that the PLO will just flounce away from the peace process and kick of another intifada. (as happened with Arafat at Camp David)

As for the "map".. gosh.. it's a while since I've seen THAT graphic.. I thought it had been debunked into hiding LONG ago. Well, here we  go again.

Image #1: Note that the text on the map says "Palestine", but that the colour-legend describes it as "Palestinian Land". Oh REALLY ? Remind me again... which "Palestinian" was it that "owned" the Negev Desert ? What the map SHOULD say is "Israeli owned land" and "land NOT owned by Israel". And that is ALL you can deduce from it; it gives NO indication of any legal claims on the "green" section labelled "Palestinian Land"... so that's lie no. 1

Image #2 - the UN proposal. The green land labelled "Palestinian Land" should be labelled "Arab occupied land". There was NO reference to "The Palestinians" in the UN proposal. So that's lie no. 2

Image #3 - Once more, we have a block of territory labelled "Palestinian land"... but this was in fact Jordanian land (as a result of the illegal Jordanian invasion and annexation in 1948). Jordan had unilaterally naturalised all of the Arabs in the territory, so there WHERE no "Palestinians" ANYWAY.  So the  green area was "liberated, former Jordanian Land", and NOT "Palestinian land". Lie no. 3

Image #4 - so far as I know, this is accurate. However, the reason the "Palestinian" land looks so small is that the PLO broke the Oslo accords, and so the anticipated handover of control of the region to "The Palestinians" was never completed. (indeed, it was barely started). Strangely, the map ommits to mention that.

A picture may tell a thousand words, but in THIS case those words are distortions and propaganda

Edited December 14, 2017 by RoofGardener

[Setton]

1 hour ago, joc said:

Says who?  To the winner go the spoils.  Remember the Alamo? If it is illegal to take land in war...the the USSR was what? Velcome Comrad...Ve are taking your land ya?  Velcome to za Soviet Union!

Says the United Nations... For quite some time now. 60 odd years if memory serves. 

Please, when somebody tells you something you didn't know, at least Google it first. Just firing off a reply like this one makes you look rather silly. 

[SHaYap]

5 minutes ago, Setton said:

Says the United Nations... For quite some time now. 60 odd years if memory serves. 

Please, when somebody tells you something you didn't know, at least Google it first. Just firing off a reply like this one makes you look rather silly. 

'Propaganda' says the Propagandist ...

~

[RoofGardener]

Well well well... isn't the internet marvelous ? I was just browsing around trying to find something to annoy Sir Smoke a Lot, and I came across this concept of Uti Possidetis Juris.

Apparently, this is an established element of "international law". And that then leads to THIS.....

http://arizonalawreview.org/palestine-uti-possidetis-juris-and-the-borders-of-israel/

(in a nutshell, Israel has ownership of ALL of the former "British Mandate" territory of Palestine)

I have no idea as to its legal accuracy.

Edited December 14, 2017 by RoofGardener

[Setton]

26 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

Well well well... isn't the internet marvelous ? I was just browsing around trying to find something to annoy Sir Smoke a Lot, and I came across this concept of Uti Possidetis Juris.

Apparently, this is an established element of "international law". And that then leads to THIS.....

http://arizonalawreview.org/palestine-uti-possidetis-juris-and-the-borders-of-israel/

(in a nutshell, Israel has ownership of ALL of the former "British Mandate" territory of Palestine)

I have no idea as to its legal accuracy.

Yes, the Internet is marvellous. I can also find pages insisting the queen is a giant alien lizard. 

[RoofGardener]

Just now, Setton said:

Yes, the Internet is marvellous. I can also find pages insisting the queen is a giant alien lizard. 

Ooooooh EXCELLENT. Could you post a link ?

[RavenHawk]

1 hour ago, Setton said:

Says the United Nations... For quite some time now. 60 odd years if memory serves. 

Please, when somebody tells you something you didn't know, at least Google it first. Just firing off a reply like this one makes you look rather silly. 

Oh, that’s what the UN says and that makes it written in stone.  Don’t you understand that you cannot legislate war, especially artificially?!  The first rule in war is that there are no rules.  Sure, there can be niceties observed, but that is done real-time on the battlefield.  If you don’t want something done to your side, you don’t do it to the other side.  And even then, there is no guarantee.  If the one side does something grievous, you have to wait until the war is over and hope that you are on the winning side.  To the victor goes the spoils and the history.

[Setton]

9 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

Ooooooh EXCELLENT. Could you post a link ?

Here's the first one I found.

Enjoy 

[aztek]

Just now, Sir Smoke aLot said:

Why?

because Palestine is not  even a country, they can't even take care of themselves,  have you been to Jerusalem? 

[Setton]

30 minutes ago, RavenHawk said:

Oh, that’s what the UN says and that makes it written in stone.  Don’t you understand that you cannot legislate war, especially artificially?!  The first rule in war is that there are no rules.  Sure, there can be niceties observed, but that is done real-time on the battlefield.  If you don’t want something done to your side, you don’t do it to the other side.  And even then, there is no guarantee.  If the one side does something grievous, you have to wait until the war is over and hope that you are on the winning side.  To the victor goes the spoils and the history.

 

If all sides are members of the UN, they are bound by it. Obviously it depends on the guilty party's ability to defend its position. Israel is powerful but couldn't outmatch the rest of the UN together. The UN exists in part to stop these crimes and hold the perpetrators to account

[RavenHawk]

1 hour ago, RoofGardener said:

Well well well... isn't the internet marvelous ? I was just browsing around trying to find something to annoy Sir Smoke a Lot, and I came across this concept of Uti Possidetis Juris.

Apparently, this is an established element of "international law". And that then leads to THIS.....

http://arizonalawreview.org/palestine-uti-possidetis-juris-and-the-borders-of-israel/

(in a nutshell, Israel has ownership of ALL of the former "British Mandate" territory of Palestine)

I have no idea as to its legal accuracy.

And since the Palestinians were not an emerging state (because they rejected statehood), by law, Israel controls all of the land.  I’m sure that was running through the minds of Ben-Gurion and others when they declared statehood in the early hours of the day the Mandate ended.  It was a gutsy move that paid off. 

Israel also revived the Ottoman land laws of 1858 to reclaim abandoned land.  Coupled with the seized bogus deeds of the Palestinians, Israel is following law and reclaiming territory.  It might be underhanded but it is legal.  Instead of slaughtering her enemies, Israel just forces them to go elsewhere, which is far more humane.

So, even if Turkey had not entered WWI, the Ottoman Empire could still be in existence today.  If that would have been, then the Ottomans would be doing to the Palestinians what Israel is doing now.  Would we see the same uproar against the Ottomans?

I find it interesting that people cherry-pick the law to support the Palestinians but when the law supports Israel, it’s a different story.

Israel does have 1.7 million Arab citizens.  82% are Muslim.  They no longer identify as Palestinian.  Most are probably Palestinians that could produce legitimate deeds and gave an oath of loyalty to Israel.

[RavenHawk]

8 minutes ago, Setton said:

If all sides are members of the UN, they are bound by it. Obviously it depends on the guilty party's ability to defend its position. Israel is powerful but couldn't outmatch the rest of the UN together. The UN exists in part to stop these crimes and hold the perpetrators to account

No one is bounded by anything the UN establishes.  Each nation is unto itself.  The UN can establish guidelines and nothing more.  The UN has never exerted anything more than token enforcement on anything.  Sure, there was Korea and Iraq, but Korea turned out to be two security council members against the other three and Iraq really turned out to be an American show, with token aid from allies.  The UN is toothless.  Sure, the UN could muster forces to neutralize Israel, but who wants to use up the lives of their soldiers for Palestinians?

[Setton]

7 minutes ago, RavenHawk said:

No one is bounded by anything the UN establishes.  Each nation is unto itself.  The UN can establish guidelines and nothing more.  The UN has never exerted anything more than token enforcement on anything.  Sure, there was Korea and Iraq, but Korea turned out to be two security council members against the other three and Iraq really turned out to be an American show, with token aid from allies.  The UN is toothless.  Sure, the UN could muster forces to neutralize Israel, but who wants to use up the lives of their soldiers for Palestinians?

 

And there is the crux of it. No one is willing to take a stand for the law. 

Although Trump has at least picked a side. Siding with the guilty party is an unusual approach to international law. 

[RoofGardener]

1 hour ago, Setton said:

Here's the first one I found.

Enjoy 

Umm... there's no link ?

Oh wait... I've just stumbled across this

Oh wait.. the link isn't appearing.

AAAARGH... Alien shape-shifting Royal Lizards have broken the forum and stolen our links

Edited December 14, 2017 by RoofGardener

[RAyMO]

1 minute ago, Setton said:

Siding with the guilty party is an unusual approach to international law

But siding with the victor has its benefits, which probably outweigh other concerns. 

Just saying definitely not advocating.

[Setton]

Just now, RAyMO said:

But siding with the victor has its benefits, which probably outweigh other concerns. 

Just saying definitely not advocating.

Yes, but that loses some weight when they are only the victor because you sided with them. 

[Setton]

11 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

Umm... there's no link ?

Oh wait... I've just stumbled across this

Oh wait.. the link isn't appearing.

AAAARGH... Alien shape-shifting Royal Lizards have broken the forum and stolen our links

What, you expect me to actually post the link as well? 

Clearly our lizard overlords haven't given you the latest implant then. 

 

 

Or I forgot. Could be that I guess... 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reptilians

Edited December 14, 2017 by Setton

[RAyMO]

10 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

AAAARGH... Alien shape-shifting Royal Lizards have broken the forum and stolen our links

its a well know phenomenon, never mention lizards and Brenda in the same sentence.

[RavenHawk]

1 minute ago, Setton said:

And there is the crux of it. No one is willing to take a stand for the law. 

Although Trump has at least picked a side. Siding with the guilty party is an unusual approach to international law. 

Only Israel is standing up for the law.  As I’ve mentioned before but perhaps it wasn’t understood then, that the reason that other nations aren’t “standing for the law” (as you say) is because if they do, tomorrow, they could find sanctions on their country.  This is the stigma that such a body as the UN has produced.  And it can only be that way ever.  Israel is the innocent party here.  They have only been defending themselves.  Sometimes by questionable means but the Palestinians are responsible for how Israel responds.  Trump is breaking the cycle of dependency because the world is too timid.  He is picking a side and that is the only way to finally solve this mess.  It’s going to cause everyone to get mad but it also allows people to vent and once that has been released then a solution can be found.  It might not be a two-state solution but it will be equitable.  I think it is long past the two-state solution anyway.

[Setton]

41 minutes ago, RavenHawk said:

Only Israel is standing up for the law.  As I’ve mentioned before but perhaps it wasn’t understood then, that the reason that other nations aren’t “standing for the law” (as you say) is because if they do, tomorrow, they could find sanctions on their country.  This is the stigma that such a body as the UN has produced.  And it can only be that way ever.  Israel is the innocent party here.  They have only been defending themselves.  Sometimes by questionable means but the Palestinians are responsible for how Israel responds.  Trump is breaking the cycle of dependency because the world is too timid.  He is picking a side and that is the only way to finally solve this mess.  It’s going to cause everyone to get mad but it also allows people to vent and once that has been released then a solution can be found.  It might not be a two-state solution but it will be equitable.  I think it is long past the two-state solution anyway.

 

Let's boil this down to the key points:

Is it legal for a UN member to keep territory captured in war? 

Is Palestine recognised as a state by the majority of UN member states?

Has Israel maintained control of land it took in the 6 day war? 

Yes or no to each please.  

[RavenHawk]

1 hour ago, Setton said:

Let's boil this down to the key points:

Is it legal for a UN member to keep territory captured in war? 

Is Palestine recognised as a state by the majority of UN member states?

Has Israel maintained control of land it took in the 6 day war? 

Yes or no to each please.  

This is a loaded poll.  You say key points but the questions are not anywhere near key.  And the questions are too vague for any valuable information.  But to give you what you want, it would be yes, yes, and yes.

The real answers are:

 

Being a UN member doesn’t mean you have to follow any treaties established in the UN.  Each nation is sovereign and can follow them if it benefits them or not.  Long after the UN is gone, the long establish rule of war will still exist – to the victor goes the spoils.

 

And when did each nation recognize Palestine?  Most recognized Palestine in ‘88 when statehood was declared in absentia from Algeria.  That act can always be questioned.  Israel declared their statehood in Tel Aviv and then they had to fight for their lives.  But what does that have to do with anything?  What have the Palestinians done with it?  Used it to wage war against Israel.  And I’m amazed at how tolerant Israel remains.  Taking blow, after blow, after blow.  Most Muslim nations don’t recognize Israel so why should Israel recognize Palestine?

All but what they returned.  Most notably the Sinai.

[RoofGardener]

3 hours ago, Setton said:

Let's boil this down to the key points:

Is it legal for a UN member to keep territory captured in war? 

Is Palestine recognised as a state by the majority of UN member states?

Has Israel maintained control of land it took in the 6 day war? 

Yes or no to each please.  

1) It wasn't captured, it was liberated from its previous invaders. (Jordan). In doing so, Israel set the stage for a future "state of Palestine".. but nobody thanks them for that

2) Perhaps... but ask them to formally agree on the borders of that "state" ? And then watch their cheap "virtue signalling" dissolve into confusion  

3) Not entirely... it entered into the Oslo accords to hand over control. However, the PLO betrayed that agreement... so the onus is on them.

4) "Yes or no please" .... umm... No ?

[RavenHawk]

7 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

Now THAT was unkind. We expect better of YOU too, RavenHawk

< confiscates RH's biscuits >

I was insulting the world, not Aztek. 

The world does too much expecting and not enough honesty.

They were stale anyway.

Edited December 14, 2017 by RavenHawk