Trump to recognise Jerusalem

[ExpandMyMind]

19 minutes ago, Truthseeker007 said:

I don't know if this has been commented on here but:

The United States has finalized a $38 billion package of military aid for Israel over the next 10 years.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/14/world/middleeast/israel-benjamin-netanyahu-military-aid.html

Your great tax dollars at work that you will never see. When will enough be enough?

Defenders will claim that it's "not aid" because Israel has to spend it on military arms sold by the US or US companies. In reality this just means that it's "aid" for filthy rich weapons manufacturers and also a way to inflate the Defence budget by taking from the aid budget.

Pretty much the definition of institutional corruption.

[Truthseeker007]

3 minutes ago, ExpandMyMind said:

Defenders will claim that it's "not aid" because Israel has to spend it on military arms sold by the US or US companies. In reality this just means that it's "aid" for filthy rich weapons manufacturers and also a way to inflate the Defence budget by taking from the aid budget.

Pretty much the definition of institutional corruption.

That is for sure! Also to top it off since 2013 The United States has provided Israel with $233.7 billion in aid ‏(after adjusting for inflation‏) since the state was formed in 1948. That is just staggering to me and should be classified as fraud,waste and abuse of tax dollars.

[Truthseeker007]

1 billion is 1,000,000,000,000 and that is 233 of them. I don't know the calculations but how much money would that be if you were able to give each citizen of the US a piece of that 233 billion? Any mathematicians here?

[DarkHunter]

3 minutes ago, Truthseeker007 said:

1 billion is 1,000,000,000,000 and that is 233 of them. I don't know the calculations but how much money would that be if you were able to give each citizen of the US a piece of that 233 billion? Any mathematicians here?

It's approximately $720 per citizen of the United States.

[Truthseeker007]

1 minute ago, DarkHunter said:

It's approximately $720 per citizen of the United States.

Great math job. That don't seem that much per citizen. So much for that point.lol!

[RoofGardener]

7 hours ago, Black Red Devil said:

Mate, if the world community, except Israel and the US, believes it's an illegal occupation, then I would suggest your analytical attempt to dissect every word and sentence to suit your agenda is a waste of time.  The only reason that Israel hasn't been forced out of the West Bank and East Jerusalem through debilitating sanctions until now is because the US has vetoing authority at the UN, not because there is doubt whether it's an occupation or not. It's well renown Jews in the US have a lot of political leverage.

Ummm... MY agenda ? No BRD... I'm talking about "international law". And International Law states that an occupation is NOT illegal. Or.... more accurately... it doesn't say anything about it AT ALL. (only about the aftermath).  So far as I am aware, nobody here - and most certainly not ME - has denied that Israel has occupied the West Bank. (along with the Golan Heights). I have only stated that it is WRONG to state that doing so is "against International Law". 

And the "world community" does NOT believe that it is an illegal occupation. 

If we are going to criticise somebody (or a country), then we should criticise them ON THE RIGHT THINGS, and not make stuff up. 

Or would you prefer international law to be a matter of mob rule and whimsy ? I know that Australian politics can be a bit....um... "Robust", but whatever happened to the Aussie concept of "Fair Play" ? 

[RoofGardener]

2 hours ago, ExpandMyMind said:

.......As you can see from the British survey conducted in 1945, Israel did not even own a majority of land in what actually became Israel. This is why they had to expel so many Palestinians in order to create not only a population majority, but also a majority of Jewish owned land in what would become Israel. It's also the reason the refugees have not been allowed to return.

In conclusion, the first image posted might at first glance, due to the wording, seem to be a distortion of reality. But, in fact, it is really quite on the money. 

And also: how could anyone look at the land Israel today controls and has illegally colonised:

And claim that somehow this is okay? And how on earth can the same people try to use the warped reasoning of 'Israel legally owned the land' to then defend the occupation? That stance truly beggars belief.

Some Arab Palestinians fled, some where forced out for being alien combatants or terrorists, and SOME where indeed forced to leave against their will. However, that is not relevant to the issue we are discussing. (though it would make a fascinating topic in and of itself). 

Israel has NOT "colonised" any land. Why do you insist on using these incorrect and emotive terms ? The graphic above shows - I believe - to  "Area A", as designated by the Oslo Accords. This was supposed to then be expanded to include areas "B" and "C". Sadly, as the Palestinians immediately dishonoured the agreement, the transfer of control of "B" (and - ultimately - "C") never happened. But THAT was not really Israels fault. (I'm not 100% of the above and - again - it would be an interesting topic to pursue seperately). 

ExpandMyMind, despite your herculean work on producing linked documents, you have not found a single one that states that the Israeli occupation of the West Bank specifically, or occupations in general, are deemed illegal under international law. Are you now happy to accept that it is NOT illegal, and move on ? 

[ExpandMyMind]

55 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

ExpandMyMind, despite your herculean work on producing linked documents, you have not found a single one that states that the Israeli occupation of the West Bank specifically, or occupations in general, are deemed illegal under international law. Are you now happy to accept that it is NOT illegal, and move on ? 

I already showed you, the war was illegal and thus any subsequent occupation would by default be illegal. Illegal war = illegal occupation.

The multiple UN Resolutions on this subject make it so that this is not even up for debate. It is an extreme view you hold and not at all based in reality, to put it politely.

It is an illegal occupation.

55 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

Israel has NOT "colonised" any land. Why do you insist on using these incorrect and emotive terms ? 

The Occupied Territories are occupied land and the settlers are by definition colonizing the land. Under the Geneva Convention it is illegal to transfer or allow the transfer of any population to a war zone or occupied territory. I'll quote this for you again, which relates to both of your previous texts I quoted, since you seemed to have missed it the last time:

Quote

When it comes to IHL, Israel has invoked various arguments over the years in a bid to avoid upholding its provisions. In the early years of the occupation, the state argued the territories were not at all occupied, as before Israel seized control of them, they had not been recognized as the sovereign territory of any other country. Therefore, goes Israel’s argument, it is exempt from upholding the rules governing occupation. Israel declared that, nonetheless, though not required to do so by law, it would uphold the “humanitarian provisions” of the Fourth Geneva Convention which addresses the protection of civilians. Israel has never stated which provisions it considers humanitarian. 

Regardless, this argument has no basis in IHL, the applicability of which is not predicated on previously recognized sovereignty. Who declared war, who won it or which party is in the right are also irrelevant for this branch of law. All it sets forth is that the country that wields effective control over the  territory must afford  protection to the individuals - defined as “protected persons” - who live in the  area are not its nationals.  

Over the years Israel has also argued that its actions in the Occupied Territories are, in any event, “lawful” and in compliance with the provisions of international law: The building of scores of settlements in the West Bank, and the theft of thousands of hectares of land are lawful because they are pursued under the narrow exception that allows the destruction of private property in case of a “military necessity”; the administrative detention of thousands of Palestinians is lawful because preventing future crimes and security reasons underpinned putting them behind bars; and more than anything – the killing of thousands of Palestinians during the recurrent spells of fighting in the Gaza Strip is lawful because they were always killed in keeping with the fundamental principles of IHL – the principle of distinction and the principle of proportionality. These arguments have nearly always been accepted by Israel’s High Court of Justice. 

The provisions of international law are not mere legal theory. They were formulated in order to provide a modicum of protection even in a state of war or occupation to people who are otherwise defenseless. The various interpretations Israel gives these rules to justify the serious harm it causes the civilian population of the Occupied Territories are completely divorced from this objective, and instead serve the very opposite purpose: to provide a guise of legality for unjustifiable actions and to deny the minimal protection afforded to the defenseless. Given all this, Israel’s interpretation has been rejected by most international law jurists, both in Israel and abroad. While the rules of international law are open to interpretation, as are all legal rules, the reading given by Israel is unreasonable, legally wrong and renders the provisions hollow. 

And this:

Quote

•  

I. Treaties

Geneva Convention IV

Article 49, sixth paragraph, of the 1949 Geneva Convention IV provides: “The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.”

 

Additional Protocol I

Article 85(4)(a) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I provides that “the transfer by the Occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies” is a grave breach of the Protocol. 

 

ICC Statute

Under Article 8(2)(b)(viii) of the 1998 ICC Statute, “[t]he transfer, directly or indirectly, by the Occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies” constitutes a war crime in international armed conflicts. [My emphasis]

The occupation is illegal in a lot of different ways. But feel free to continue beating a dead horse.

1 hour ago, RoofGardener said:

And the "world community" does NOT believe that it is an illegal occupation. 

Yes, they do:

Except for Israel and the United States (and occasionally a US client state), the international community has supported, for the past quarter-century, the ‘two-state’ settlement: that is, the full Israeli withdrawal/ full Arab recognition formula as well as the creation of a Palestinian state alongside Israel. The United States cast the lone veto of Security Council resolutions in 1976 and 1980 affirming the two-state settlement that were endorsed by the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and neighboring Arab states. A 1989 General Assembly resolution along similar lines passed 151– 3 (Israel, US, and Dominica). Despite the historic geo-political changes in the past decade, the international consensus has remained remarkably stable. A 2002 General Assembly resolution (‘ Peaceful settlement of the question of Palestine’) affirming Israel’s right to ‘secure and recognized borders’ as well as the Palestinian people’s right to an ‘independent state’ in the West Bank and Gaza passed 160– 4 (Israel, Marshall Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, US). The 2002 UN voting record on virtually every resolution bearing on the Israeli– Palestinian (and –Syrian) conflict was similarly lop-sided. In the UN Third Committee the vote was 156– 3 (Israel, Marshall Islands, US) regarding ‘the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination’, while in the Fourth Committee the vote was 148– 1 (Israel) regarding ‘Assistance to Palestinian refugees’, 147– 4 (Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, US) regarding ‘Persons displaced as a result of the June 1967 war’, 147– 5 (Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, US) regarding ‘Operations of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees’, 147– 4 (Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, US) regarding ‘Palestine refugees’ properties and their revenues’, 145– 5 (Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, US) regarding ‘Applicability of the Geneva Convention … to the Occupied Palestinian Territory’, 145– 6 (Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Tuvalu, US) regarding ‘Israeli settlements in the Occupied Territories’, 141– 5 (Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, US) regarding ‘Israeli practices affecting the human rights of the Palestinian people’, and 144– 1 (Israel) regarding ‘The occupied Syrian Golan.’

Finkelstein, Norman. Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict (Kindle Locations 196-212). Verso. Kindle Edition. 

55 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

The graphic above shows - I believe - to  "Area A", as designated by the Oslo Accords. This was supposed to then be expanded to include areas "B" and "C". Sadly, as the Palestinians immediately dishonoured the agreement, the transfer of control of "B" (and - ultimately - "C") never happened. But THAT was not really Israels fault. (I'm not 100% of the above and - again - it would be an interesting topic to pursue seperately). 

With regards to Oslo, I'm not sure why you keep bringing it up. According to its own text it is meaningless.

Quote

 

Neither Party shall be deemed, by virtue of having entered into this Agreement, to have renounced or waived any of its existing rights, claims or positions.

 

https://israelipalestinian.procon.org/view.background-resource.php?resourceID=000921

P.S. Start a thread on the ethnic cleansing of Palestine if you wish. I'll gladly debunk both the claims that it was 'by choice' that they left and that it was not a product of Israeli policy.

Edited December 16, 2017 by ExpandMyMind

[RoofGardener]

4 minutes ago, ExpandMyMind said:

I already showed you, the war was illegal and thus any subsequent occupation would by default be illegal. Illegal war = illegal occupation.

The multiple UN Resolutions on this subject make it so that this is not even up for debate. It is an extreme view not at all based in reality, to put it politely.

It is an illegal occupation.

......

ExpandMyMind, I offer you a simple challenge. Show me a document describing the occupation of the West Bank as being "Illegal" under "International Law"

Because despite your comments, NON of the documents you have linked to thus far do that. 

No UN resolution requires Israel to unilaterally cease the occupation. 

No International Law exists forbidding occupation. Such law as exists is SOLELY related to the treatment of the occupants of aforementioned territories. 

ExpandMyMind... THAT is the truth. Please post a document in which International Law states that an occupation is - in and of itself - illegal. 

If you can't do this (which - with the best will in the world - you can't, because non exists), then please have the grace to admit that on this narrow, specific charge ("... illegal occupation"), you are in error. 

[ExpandMyMind]

13 hours ago, RavenHawk said:

You just can’t stay on message can you.  Always attacking the messenger.  When it started, no, Israel did not own the majority of the land, but the thing is is that the Palestinians owned less.  But you still haven’t been willing to comment on my observation of your map as if you are afraid of something.  That’s ok, we all know that makes you uncomfortable and you will never honestly respond to it.  No, Jordan can't grant them the right to be Palestinian, but they can assure that they become Jordanian.  We’re almost done here.

I didn't attack you, at all. 

This stance was debunked by the very table you tried to criticise. But feel free to look at the graphic above that I provided for Roof.

Also, any evidence for you claims? 

13 hours ago, RavenHawk said:

I was talking about Black September.  But if the Jordanians were being custodians of the West Bank for the Palestinians, then why would the world condemn it?

Because they annexed it. It basically led to a power struggle between Egypt and Jordan.

13 hours ago, RavenHawk said:

You are totally clueless.  Jordan tried to give Palestinians citizenship and it blew up in their face.  The PLO tried to overthrow the Hashemite family.  Because of that, the other Muslim nations do not trust Palestinians.  They see how they operate against Israel.  They have no desire for that to happen against them.

Evidence?

13 hours ago, RavenHawk said:

When the British took over they had every right to empty the land if they wanted.

Source?

13 hours ago, RavenHawk said:

The reason is that the British were unable to reconcile the deeds presented to them by the Fellahin.  Most Fellahin were too poor to own land in the first place.

I've today been reading The Land Question in Palestine, 1917-1939 which completely debunks this claim. They were not too poor and were collectively amongst the largest landowners in Palestine. If you believe this then you truly don't understand how the system of land ownership worked in the region.

Quote

 

The musha* land system had at its core collective village ownership or collective tenure of a land area, with each qualified participant in a village or other designated area entitled to shares, generally not parcels, in a particular land area. On a periodic basis of usually one, two, or five years, shares were redistributed allowing each qualified shareholder the opportunity to use the more fertile and arable lands which corresponded to particular shares within a collective unit.

 

- Page 14

Quote

 

The most harmful aspect of the musha* system was its process of periodic redistribution. Most fellaheen lacked interest in improving their temporarily held land when the fruits of the improvement would be taken from them. As a result, manuring, weeding, terracing, or crop alternation was rarely employed, and the already nutrient-deficient soil was further depleted. In 1933, High Commissioner Arthur Wauchope estimated that there were between 4 and 5 million dunams of musha*- held land, mostly in the plains and valley regions.30 Even though fellaheen all over Palestine in 19 2 1 favored dividing the musha* shares into individually owned parcels, the partition of musha* shares, or ifraz, did not occur. Local notables and landowners who were most often entitled to large percentages of village-owned shares were unwilling to give up the local economic and political leverage that they maintained over a musha* community. When musha* shareholders fell into debt, they often remitted their shares as debt payment and remained as tenants on the land they once owned collectively. By 1923, nearly 75 percent of musha* lands were owned not by fellaheen but by individuals who lived in towns.31 Somewhere between 2.6 million to 3.3 million dunams of musha* land were owned by landowners resident outside of the village community.

 

- Page 15

The system was basically one of shared ownership, with shares being issued between the people, fellaheen or otherwise. And do you notice that between 4 and 5 million dunams were held through the musha land system and in the plains and valley regions? That's the majority of arable land in all of Palestine. Conversely, Zionists in 1948 didn't even have 2 million dunams of land.

And did you also notice that '75% of musha lands' were owned by individuals? You're trying to claim that fellaheen were the supposed main landowners and that "they were all just liars!".

Your claims regarding this whole topic are completely removed from reality. And that's putting it nicely.

Also, I don't suppose you have a source? No? Didn't think so.

13 hours ago, RavenHawk said:

The reality still is that the Fellahin did not own the land.  Your maps only denote the land being owned by Arabs.  All Arabs are not Fellahin (Palestinian).

Palestinians were not all fellaheen. Fellaheen were just a group of farmers.

13 hours ago, RavenHawk said:

Given that argument, the land belongs to Turkey then.  By that argument, I could move into your house, have my wife have a kid in your house, then the kid would be able to claim your house.  The Fellahin are indigenous but then never showed taking responsibility of land ownership.  That is key.  The people need to do this to have a nation.  Squatters have no right to self-determination, not here anyway.  It’s very much like illegals in a country; they have no rights in that country.

The right to self determination applies to an indigenous population. And no, you couldn't do what you suggest with my house. Though Zionists do have a history of doing just that.

Also, lies. Outright lies.

Squatters again. Unbelievable. What utter nonsense. 

Do you live in the settlements? If you do, then I think you'll find that you're the squatter. How's that for hypocrisy.

13 hours ago, RavenHawk said:

I guess I really haven’t provided sources.  But in this case, all the facts are known and to rely on sources like you have been is a bit sophomoric.  But what’s the point anyway.  I used one of your sources to rip a key point of yours and you still can’t respond.

No, you really, really did not.

Edited December 16, 2017 by ExpandMyMind

[ExpandMyMind]

41 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

ExpandMyMind, I offer you a simple challenge. Show me a document describing the occupation of the West Bank as being "Illegal" under "International Law"

The transfer of settlers is not only just illegal under international law, it's an outright war crime. This is itself makes the occupation illegal - it's a clear attempt to alter the demographics of the Occupied Territories and a prelude to the eventual annexation of land.

I've already told you and shown you: illegal war = illegal occupation. The occupation became officially illegal the moment 242 passed and the legality and justification for it is not in question.

Also, as I already quoted before:

Quote

Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in which every State in the area can live in security,

1. Affirms that the fulfilment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles:

(i) Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;

(ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;
 

https://unispal.un.org/DPA/DPR/unispal.nsf/0/7D35E1F729DF491C85256EE700686136

Unofficially, the very first Resolution regarding the conflict stated the 'inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war'. It's illegal to acquire land by war and this is exactly what happened, this was clearly set out in the UN Charter and the Nuremberg Trials.

We can keep going round in circles if you want but your position has long been debunked.

[keithisco]

Just wanted to say...and this goes to the OP Topic, the recognition of Jerusalem as the Capital of Israel is long overdue. It has been the de facto seat of Government for the Israeli Parliament since 1949. I do not see this as being at all controversial. A Nation (and Israel IS a Nation) can choose whichever city it wishes to as its Capital City.

[ExpandMyMind]

6 minutes ago, keithisco said:

Just wanted to say...and this goes to the OP Topic, the recognition of Jerusalem as the Capital of Israel is long overdue. It has been the de facto seat of Government for the Israeli Parliament since 1949. I do not see this as being at all controversial. A Nation (and Israel IS a Nation) can choose whichever city it wishes to as its Capital City.

Sure, if it was West Jerusalem then maybe. 

Edited December 16, 2017 by ExpandMyMind

[keithisco]

9 minutes ago, ExpandMyMind said:

Sure, if it was West Jerusalem then maybe. 

The City is Jerusalem, not the District of West Jerusalem. That is like saying Westminster is the Capital City of the UK which, of course, it is not. Its a fair bet to say that anybody asked the question"what is the Capital of Israel?" the reply would be "Jerusalem".

You tell me- which city is the capital of Israel?

[ExpandMyMind]

15 minutes ago, keithisco said:

The City is Jerusalem, not the District of West Jerusalem. That is like saying Westminster is the Capital City of the UK which, of course, it is not. Its a fair bet to say that anybody asked the question"what is the Capital of Israel?" the reply would be "Jerusalem".

You tell me- which city is the capital of Israel?

What was it before 1967? Any land acquired after that is inadmissible unless it has been agreed upon by the Palestinians.

[ExpandMyMind]

38 minutes ago, keithisco said:

I do not see this as being at all controversial

Quote

The United Nations Security Council held an emergency meeting on December 7 where 14 out of 15 members condemned Trump's decision. The Security Council said the decision to recognize Jerusalem was in violation of U.N. resolutions and international law, but was unable to issue a statement without the endorsement of the United States.

That's pretty much the definition of controversial, mate.

When did you flip to pro Israel?

[keithisco]

3 minutes ago, ExpandMyMind said:

What was it before 1967? Any land acquired after that is inadmissible unless it has been agreed upon by the Palestinians.

Jordan controlled the Eastern sector between 1949 and 1967-Ben Gurion declared Jerusalem the capitl of Israel in 1948... not sure if that is relevant however. Jordan is not Palestine

[keithisco]

3 minutes ago, ExpandMyMind said:

That's pretty much the definition of controversial, mate.

When did you flip to pro Israel?

Pro-Israel, anti many Israeli Govt. actions

[ExpandMyMind]

@RavenHawk @RoofGardener

I've been reading more about Jordan and I have to admit I was wrong about their initial ambitions for the West Bank. It seems the king had his own plans. I was not, however, wrong about Egypt or the rest of the Arab nations and it seems they pressured Jordan on this issue countless times.

Apologies.

Edited December 16, 2017 by ExpandMyMind

[ExpandMyMind]

9 minutes ago, keithisco said:

Pro-Israel, anti many Israeli Govt. actions

The Israeli Govt illegally annexed Jerusalem. That was effectively one of their first actions in the Occupied Territories.

[RavenHawk]

1 hour ago, ExpandMyMind said:

@RavenHawk @RoofGardener

I've been reading more about Jordan and I have to admit I was wrong about their initial ambitions for the West Bank. It seems the king had his own plans. I was not, however, wrong about Egypt or the rest of the Arab nations and it seems they pressured Jordan on this issue countless times.

Apologies.

Keep up the research, you will eventually learn the truth.

[ExpandMyMind]

5 minutes ago, RavenHawk said:

Keep up the research, you will eventually learn the truth.

Funny. In reality, all it does is show that I can admit when I'm wrong. You on the other hand? Not so much.

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

7 hours ago, keithisco said:

The City is Jerusalem, not the District of West Jerusalem. That is like saying Westminster is the Capital City of the UK which, of course, it is not. Its a fair bet to say that anybody asked the question"what is the Capital of Israel?" the reply would be "Jerusalem".

You tell me- which city is the capital of Israel?

I always thought it was Tel-Aviv because that was where the main airport was.

[keithisco]

13 hours ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

I always thought it was Tel-Aviv because that was where the main airport was.

Its also where the vast majority of Diplomatic Missions have their Embassies.

[Paranormal Panther]

On 12/16/2017 at 5:49 PM, keithisco said:

Pro-Israel, anti many Israeli Govt. actions

That's an important distinction. I feel the same way about my own country.