Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Setton

Trump to recognise Jerusalem

537 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

ExpandMyMind
25 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

Thanks for your response Expand. 

I'm afraid you did NOT answer my point about Res242. In particular the Resolution requires that all parties abide to it. Israel has abided to it with all parties that ALSO abide to it. Syria and the PLO are in continous disregard of it.... which abrogates Isreal's requirement - UNDER THE RESOLUTION.. to abide to it .. insofar as it relates to their obligations of the non-compliant organisations (Syria and the PLO)

Perhaps these specific issues would be better served in a new thread, rather than the current one ? 

What say you ? :)

 

The text:

Quote

 

The Security Council,

Expressing its continuing concern with the grave situation in the Middle East,

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,

Emphasizing further that all Member States in their acceptance of the Charter of the United Nations have undertaken a commitment to act in accordance with Article 2 of the Charter,

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;

2. Affirms further the necessity

(a) For guaranteeing freedom of navigation through international waterways in the area;
(b) For achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem;
(c) For guaranteeing the territorial inviolability and political independence of every State in the area, through measures including the establishment of demilitarized zones;

3. Requests the Secretary-General to designate a Special Representative to proceed to the Middle East to establish and maintain contacts with the States concerned in order to promote agreement and assist efforts to achieve a peaceful and accepted settlement in accordance with the provisions and principles in this resolution;

4. Requests the Secretary-General to report to the Security Council on the progress of the efforts of the Special Representative as soon as possible.

 

The resolution is against Israel and they haven't shown the first sign of "abiding" to it - how have the addressed the refugees? Why would any Palestinian make the first move, when they are under military occupation? Israel is the aggressor. Get the hell out and move on from there.

You can turn around and say 'but the Palestinians won't recognise Israel' (this actually isn't quite true, by the way, as they have many times, even elements of Hamas, stated that they would recognise Israel, basically saying it without saying it), but it is such an arbitrary demand to recognise the 'right' of Israel to exist - and more ridiculous considering they were dealing with a group of Europeans who literally invaded their country. Why would they ever do this? How could they ever do this? Israel add this to every round of peace talks,  knowing that it cannot be accepted, when it is meaningless. It literally means nothing to them, because all it is is words. Whereas, it means everything to every Arab leader, for obvious reasons: it would say 'yeah, we're okay with being invaded, ethnically cleansed, having our land stolen and national identities denied'. 

Are you suggesting that the only reason Israel has not withdrawn from the Occupied Territories is because they have not had this recognition? That if Palestinians universally decided to recognise Israel, then this would lead Israel to withdraw?

Even Gandhi refused to recognise Pakistan's right to exist.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener

Expand... read my earlier post. Can I refer you to section (II) of paragraph (1) ? AGAIN ? :P 

1) Israel has met all of the requirements of Res242... in sofar as it relates to nations or organisations that ALSO have met it... or have demonstrated a desire to work towards it

2) in regard your comment about the "arbitary"  (your words) requirement of the recognition of Isreal... this was implicit in the Oslo Accords, which the PLO claimed to have signed up to. (but in reality never have). 

It is also an OBVIOUS point... how can there be a peace treaty with organisations that are commited to the destruction of Israel. That breaches the core constitution of the UN. 

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/plocov.asp

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/hamas.asp

ExpandMyMind, you are onto a losing point here. If you would like to discuss the specifics in another thread, then I would be delighted to debate it with you. 

Meanwhile.. back in Jerusalem.... 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ExpandMyMind
9 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

Expand... read my earlier post. Can I refer you to section (II) of paragraph (1) ? AGAIN ? :P 

1) Israel has met all of the requirements of Res242... in sofar as it relates to nations or organisations that ALSO have met it... or have demonstrated a desire to work towards it

2) in regard your comment about the "arbitary"  (your words) requirement of the recognition of Isreal... this was implicit in the Oslo Accords, `

It is also an OBVIOUS point... how can there be a peace treaty with organisations that are commited to the destruction of Israel. That breaches the core constitution of the UN. 

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/plocov.asp

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/hamas.asp

ExpandMyMind, you are onto a losing point here. If you would like to discuss the specifics in another thread, then I would be delighted to debate it with you. 

Meanwhile.. back in Jerusalem.... 

1) This isn't how things work, especially when one requirement is removal of a military invasion and the other is just a few words. It's also actually not true. All of the Arab states have recognised Israel, the PLO did so in 1988, and Hamas themselves have even taken steps towards recognition - they definitely recognised the internationally defined borders, as you can see from the link I provided.

2) The Oslo Accords are meaningless, because Israel has continued the expansion, not only during the actual talks, but exponentially ever since.

Hamas are not 'commited to the destruction of Israel'. They have been so in the past, but for years now - more than a decade actually - that stance has soften more and more.

 

This thread has many different discussions regarding different aspects of the conflict - none of which I originally brought up, it should be noted. I am happy to discuss it here, but perhaps if @Setton would prefer us to discuss it elsewhere we can?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pallidin

This situation will not hold well with the militant Palestinians, whom are both inside and just outside the borders of Jerusalem.

They will see this as a threat to their "holy sites" and will respond.

Middle East issues seem especially difficult and potentially inflammatory given the region's strong base of religious ideological differences.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Paranormal Panther
14 hours ago, Manfred von Dreidecker said:

Can we trust that this idea of his has finally put to bed that old calumny that was thrown around during the election campaign and afterwards towards the Trump of "anti-Semitism" , at least?

I doubt that the old calumny will get a wink of sleep. Such lame memes tend to be insomniacs. The Resistance is resistant to facts and truth. These are the people who portray Black conservatives as White supremacists.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener
10 hours ago, Paranormal Panther said:

I doubt that the old calumny will get a wink of sleep. Such lame memes tend to be insomniacs. The Resistance is resistant to facts and truth. These are the people who portray Black conservatives as White supremacists.

I fear you may be correct PP. I battled my way through the snow thismorning to my local shop, only to see Calumny coming out with two carrier bags full of strong coffee ! 

Going back to the OPA.... has anyone noticed how muted the response has been around the Islamic world ? Many middle-eastern countries have made comments about the move being an "obstacle to peace".. which is odd, as Israel is already at peace with everyone (except Gaza and - in theory - Syria). 

There where riots in Gaza, and HAMAS launched a couple-or-three rockets at Israel (precipitating an Israeli counter-attack). But.. that is almost "business as usual" in the region. 

So what happened to the armageddon we where promised ? I wants my monies back !!!!

Edited by RoofGardener
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ExpandMyMind
5 hours ago, RoofGardener said:

Going back to the OPA.... has anyone noticed how muted the response has been around the Islamic world ? Many middle-eastern countries have made comments about the move being an "obstacle to peace".. which is odd, as Israel is already at peace with everyone (except Gaza and - in theory - Syria). 

They have been responsible for a military occupation for 50 years. By definition, this is a state of war, not peace.

Edited by ExpandMyMind
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener
21 minutes ago, ExpandMyMind said:

They have been responsible for a military occupation for 50 years. By definition, this is a state of war, not peace.

No EspandMyMind.... by definition, that is a state of occupation. 

Can you confirm which countries - within the Middle East or beyond - that Israel is at war with ? 

I think you'll find it is down to .... ummm.... nobody ? Earlier, I stated that Syria was still technically at war with Israel, but I believe this may no longer be the case ? 

Do you not find it curious that the surrounding nations - for the most part - have only made pro-forma protests about the embassy move ? And the "days of rage" within the disputed territories have been... well... underwhelming so far ? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk
26 minutes ago, ExpandMyMind said:

They have been responsible for a military occupation for 50 years. By definition, this is a state of war, not peace.

There’s been no military occupation.  There has been reclaiming of ownerless abandoned land.  Squatters do not make it unabandoned.  Do squatters pay land taxes?  If they do, to whom do they pay them to?  Despite the rocket attacks Israel tries to ignore them to maintain the peace by only retaliating against the launch sites.  It shows great restraint on the Jewish side.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ExpandMyMind
5 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

No EspandMyMind.... by definition, that is a state of occupation. 

Of course it is a state of war, and, as such, an occupying military force is beholden to the articles of war as defined by the Geneva Convention:

Quote

In the case of occupied territory, the application of the present Convention shall cease one year after the general close of military operations; however, the Occupying Power shall be bound, for the duration of the occupation, to the extent that such Power exercises the functions of government in such territory, by the provisions of the following Articles of the present Convention: 1 to 12, 27, 29 to 34, 47, 49, 51, 52, 53, 59, 61 to 77, 143.

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Geneva_Convention/Fourth_Geneva_Convention#Article_6

It is, as I said, by definition a constant state of war. That there is a state of peace is factually incorrect.

13 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

Can you confirm which countries - within the Middle East or beyond - that Israel is at war with ? 

Palestine.

13 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

I think you'll find it is down to .... ummm.... nobody ?

Israel was the aggressor of the 6 Day War, and have continued the occupation since. It is clearly 'down to' them. That's basically what aggressor means.

17 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

Do you not find it curious that the surrounding nations - for the most part - have only made pro-forma protests about the embassy move ? And the "days of rage" within the disputed territories have been... well... underwhelming so far ? 

What is curious about this? What are you suggesting?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
third_eye

~

il_340x270.1156859608_nuwj.jpg

 

~

1917_-_3_March_-_Bagdad_copy.jpg

 

~

442.jpg?w=300&q=55&auto=format&usm=12&fi

~

 

Quote

 

How the Guardian and Observer covered the Arab Revolt of 1916-1918

To mark 100 years since the Arab Revolt we look at how the Guardian and Observer covered events

 

~

 

Quote

 

~

Lawrence of Arabia wouldn't have been surprised by the rise of Isis ...

https://www.theguardian.com › Opinion › Islamic State
Apr 8, 2016 - Loose canon: TE Lawrence was always angry about the British betrayal of the Arabs in the Sykes-Picot agreement. A century on, the borders it established are falling apart.

~

Were Arabs betrayed by Sykes-Picot? | UK News | Al Jazeera

www.aljazeera.com/focus/arabunity/2008/02/200852518563324466.html

Feb 11, 2008 - We asked our readers from across the world whether the Arabs were betrayed by the Sykes-Picot Agreement of 1916. What are the effects of the British-French accord which divided the Arab World into regions of influence? Join our Arab Unity debate on the Your Views section of the site to let us know your ...

~

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ExpandMyMind
28 minutes ago, RavenHawk said:

There’s been no military occupation. 

Incorrect.

Quote

Military occupation is effective provisional control by a certain ruling power over a territory which is not under the formal sovereignty of that entity, without the volition of the actual sovereign.

 

28 minutes ago, RavenHawk said:

There has been reclaiming of ownerless

As I pointed out to you previously, legally owning land is not a prerequisite to having a country. Here, to make this simpler for you to understand:

Quote

The ownership factor is 1. The Queen is the sole legal owner of all the land of Canada. The private “holdership” factor, based on freehold tenure of housing is 67%. For all other land it is less than 9.7%, with over 90% of Canadian land remaining as Crown leasehold, administered for the Crown by various agencies and departments of the government of Canada

http://www.whoownstheworld.com/canada/

According to your logic, the Queen owns Canada, therefore Canada could not be a sovereign, independent country, unless the Queen gave them permission to do so. 

Again, you really need to read about and understand the right to self determination. I'm sure I provided you with links earlier.

28 minutes ago, RavenHawk said:

ownerless abandoned land

Despite this being a myth,

5a2d63ac89623_land2.jpg.d444142004b1c19338f3e95ab21d095e.jpg

it also has no bearing on the realities of self determination. 

28 minutes ago, RavenHawk said:

Squatters do not make it unabandoned.  Do squatters pay land taxes?

This is complete nonsense and only worth replying to to highlight that it is nonsense.

As I mentioned before, anyone - even someone with zero knowledge of this conflict - can debunk every incorrect claim you make within 30 seconds with the use of Google. I suggest you employ some basic use of fact-checking practices yourself.

Edited by ExpandMyMind
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener
2 hours ago, ExpandMyMind said:

Of course it is a state of war, and, as such, an occupying military force is beholden to the articles of war as defined by the Geneva Convention:

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Geneva_Convention/Fourth_Geneva_Convention#Article_6

It is, as I said, by definition a constant state of war. That there is a state of peace is factually incorrect.

Palestine.

Israel was the aggressor of the 6 Day War, and have continued the occupation since. It is clearly 'down to' them. That's basically what aggressor means.

What is curious about this? What are you suggesting?

So you state that Israel is in a "state of war" against "Palestine" ? 

Doesn't the definition of a "state of war" require that there are two sovereign states involved ? There is no state of "Palestine" to be at war WITH. If you expand the definition to include the Palestinian Authority, then Israel is NOT at war with them. 

ExpandMyMind, you are ascribing novel meanings to standard words. There WAS a war, back in the 1960's, but it was against Egypt, Syria and Jordan, and NOT against the state of "Palestine", which has never existed, then or now. 

And the term "occupation" requires that the territory involved was a sovereign state, or belonged to a sovereign state. In the case of the West Bank, there WAS no sovereign state, UNLESS you count the illegal annexation of the area by Jordan back in 1948. It was "disorganised territory". 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Setton
3 hours ago, RoofGardener said:

No EspandMyMind.... by definition, that is a state of occupation. 

Can you confirm which countries - within the Middle East or beyond - that Israel is at war with ? 

I think you'll find it is down to .... ummm.... nobody ? Earlier, I stated that Syria was still technically at war with Israel, but I believe this may no longer be the case ? 

Do you not find it curious that the surrounding nations - for the most part - have only made pro-forma protests about the embassy move ? And the "days of rage" within the disputed territories have been... well... underwhelming so far ? 

Yes, because the fallout of a piece of political stupidity is always obvious within 7 days of that decision... 

I'm sure during the Suez crisis, the British were aware they were no longer a superpower when they woke up the next morning. Must have been kicking themselves. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
third_eye
21 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

ExpandMyMind, you are ascribing novel meanings to standard words. There WAS a war, back in the 1960's, but it was against Egypt, Syria and Jordan, and NOT against the state of "Palestine", which has never existed, then or now. 

Maybe you and the Pope needs to sit down over a cuppa tea ...
 

Quote

 

~

Vatican signs treaty recognizing State of Palestine | The Times of Israel

Pope Francis exchanges gifts with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas during an audience at the Vatican Saturday, May 16, 2015.(Alberto Pizzoli/Pool Photo via AP). The Vatican on Friday signed a historic accord with Palestine, two years after officially recognizing it as a state, in a move criticized by the Israeli ...

~

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk

A well thought out reply but almost entirely wrong.  All the typical Palestinian apologist tripe.  Despite all of that where is the next intifada?  Maybe Trump is onto something?  But thank you for the effort…

 

On 12/8/2017 at 11:04 AM, ExpandMyMind said:

You might want to read up on the right to self determination. It's a very basic concept, and, incidentally, it's the reason that Israel even exists and has any legitimacy.

Yes, it is a very basic concept and what goes with it is the ability to control and maintain the land.  The Palestinians never had nor would they ever, even if Israel wasn’t in the picture.  As I stated before, the neighbors aren’t about to allow an independent Palestinian state to exist.  It is similar to the situation with the Kurds and their neighbors.

 

It was their - the Palestinians - land, whether or not it had been controlled by an outside force.

Actually, it is the “outside” force that controls it that determines who owns it.  I dare you to pick some patch of land and squat on it evoking the right of self-determination.  And see what the rightful “outside” owner does to you.  If you are lucky, perhaps the owner is dead and no one had previously put a claim on the land.

 

Are you trying to claim here that the people living in Palestine were migrants? Because according to the Ottoman's own, rather meticulous, records, this has long been debunked. The population of Palestine has been shown to have lived there more or less all throughout the Ottoman and British occupations. There were migrants, but it was more a case of seasonal work, with Palestinians leaving and then returning and other Arabs coming and then going. 

No, that’s not what I was saying.  I’m saying that the peoples that later became known as the Palestinians who where better known as Fellahin during the Ottoman Empire were mostly semi nomadic.  Some tribes did settle and become city dwellers and merchants but the majority was herders and laborers.

 

During the Mandate the Palestinians owned the overwhelming majority of land,

No, they didn’t.  It was mostly owned by absentee landowners; mostly Ottomans that died without issue.  That’s why the British couldn’t figure out land ownership because of the bogus deeds.  The Ottomans had initiated a program to reclaim that land and Israel has kept those laws for the same reason.  So Israel is really only carrying out the policies of the Ottomans.

 

and in fact the British actually made it illegal for Jews to purchase land because with their European wealth they were taking advantage of financially poor Palestinian landowners. It seems like you are basically trying to say that the opposite is true.

The British slowed it down quite a bit.  Most of the land that was purchased was between 1909 and 1923.  They weren’t taking advantage of some poor Palestinian landowners.  The Jews bought the land from the Ottomans because money talks and the Rothchilds had it, the fellahin did not.

 

Also, it doesn't matter who 'bought' land. The Chinese are buying up large swaths of Canada as we speak, but that doesn't somehow mean they have more - or indeed any - claim to Canada than Canadians.

I would suppose that it depends.  I really don’t think the Chinese are buying living space.  It is simply an investment.  They have no intentions in creating a new homeland.  They will probably sell it off in a few years anyway.  Every decade or so, some nation buys up land here in America and there are fears that arise but in time, that land is sold to someone else.  Palestine was uniquely different.  It was unorganized territory (i.e. not a nation – not sovereign).  The bottom line to what that meant is that the slate is wiped clean.  All prior claims to land mean jack.  This created a headache for the British because they tried to confirm legal ownership of the land so they could leave.  The terms of the Mandate required that they couldn’t leave until the inhabitants could govern themselves.  Without establishing more land ownership, the British were inclined to declare that Palestine was Class A and ready for self rule.  It really wasn’t.  The British were no longer capable of keeping the Palestinian and the Jews separated.  The British were more than ready to get the Hell out of Dodge.

 

There is no such thing as an 'ancient claim' to land. This is simply religious nonsense.

Actually there is and it has noting to with religion but prior occupancy.  But like I just said, that really amounted to jack.  I just use it for comparison.  And for the British, it was a legitimate solution for an impossible problem.

 

Do Australians have a claim to the UK? Do Scots have a claim to Scandanavia? In reality, the opposite is true. The more recent claim to land has more legal and moral basis.

Well, that is nonsensical.  You’re twisting a poor comparison.  How does the more recent claim mean it’s moral?  That is just so much BS.

 

See: all ex colonies, including Israel. See, we're back the right to self determination again.

We are??

 

It's the reason that I believe Israel has the right to exist now (though they certainly didn't when they were originally European immigrants invading another country).

You express a total lack of understanding this situation.  They never invaded another country.  They were immigrants seeking a new homeland where there was plenty of land.  Palestine was never another country.  Prior to 1923, it was a province of an empire.  After, it was a protectorate of another empire.  It has always been part of another empire since the Romans.

 

Israelis have been born on the land and therefore have the right to decide their own fate and identity. It's actually the only thing that gives Israel any legitimacy, yet pro Israeli internet posters for some reason think they can have this for Israelis but deny it to Palestinians. It is a blatant double standard that is easily ripped apart by employing only the most basic of logic to the situation.

You’ve mischaracterized the nature of the situation.  Where one was born in this situation really has no merit.  It is all about the legality of the situation coming out of a Mandate with who had the more legitimate deeds.  The Jewish deeds were all in order while the Palestinian ones were questionable.  In ’67, Israel captured the repository that housed the Palestinian land records, which was good because it prevents the Palestinians from destroying or manipulating them.  Israel preserves that evidence of bogus deeds.  Using this with the Ottoman land laws of 1858 tells Israel where they can legally build settlements.  If you want to use your “newer claims are the moral ones” argument then the Jewish deeds are the more recent (legitimate ones).

 

First, this is untrue:

And I have shown you where you are wrong.  Pay attention.  I’d like to state this only once.  I don’t want this to drag on repeating the same thing because you don’t listen.

 

On 31 December 1944, out of 1,732.63 dunums of land owned in Palestine by large Jewish Corporations and private owners, about 44% was in possession of Jewish National Fund https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_land_purchase_in_Palestine 

Who purchased it doesn’t really matter.  That is was purchased legally for a Jewish homeland is all that matters.  The Ottomans placed restrictions but eventually accepted sales.  The British also setup restrictions but there were ways to get around that.  So nothing new there, but what is of interest is the map on that page.  This is the crux of all the problems in the West.  This map shows only Jewish ownership.  It doesn’t include Palestinian.  The assumption that every one made, which was in error was that whatever was not marked Jewish must be Palestinian.  That is incorrect primarily because that there was no way to determine how much land was legally owned by Palestinians.  If you ignore everything I say, at least take this point to heart.  Again, that was the problem that the British were having difficulties with.  That remaining land was divided up between 4 other groups.  Remaining Ottomans (which could have included Jews), Palestinians, Others (which included Jews), and finally abandoned land.  This made up the lion’s share of remaining territory.  And as your wiki pointed out, most of the Palestinians congregated in the cities as protection from the nomads.  The nomads were not landowners.  They couldn’t afford to buy land or even pay taxes on it.  Their herds where only large enough for survival.

 

Second, as I mentioned before, much of this land was purchased illegally, since the British

made it illegal.

It was restricted, not necessarily illegal.  The wealthy families of Beirut and Damascus bought up vast tracts of land and sold it to Jewish entities; all legal.  Once money changed hands, there was no way to undo the transactions.  The Jews paid whatever the landowner wanted.  And for the less wealthy seller, it was more money than they knew what to do with.  With that money they could return home, wherever that might have been (Turkey, Syria, Lebanon) and retire.

 

Third, as I have shown previously, owning land does not equate to owning a country. You are conflating two separate issues. 

You showed no such thing.  Whoever owns the country owns the land.  It’s up to the Ruler of the country to determine disposition of the land.  The British came in with the intension of returning the land to the rightful owner but that turned out to be an impossible task in Palestine.  As I said before, whatever land was not under Jewish control was assumed to be Palestinian and that was incorrect. 

 

As I am finishing up this reply, I’ll add this comment about the example of the Queen and Canada.  Canada is still part of the Commonwealth.  It acts as a de facto independent nation yet still shows respect to the Queen.  I’m sure that if she wants a few acres in each province to erect a royal museum, etc.  That Canadians would not object.  But this state of existence is one that developed over the centuries of give and take between the Lords and Commoners.  That’s hardly the situation in Palestine.  Squatters lived free under the benevolence of the Ottomans (until it got too unmanageable), but with the changing of the guard, the British and then the Israelis have no obligation to observe that same benevolence and the longer the Palestinian attack and kill, the more reason Israel has no motivation to do so.

 

Wow. When I saw this the other day there I simply couldn't believe what I was reading.

Don’t worry; it was just your bubble bursting.  You just need to learn to continue to do research and not stop at wiki.  Wiki is where you start.  I was lucky to have a teacher in jr high (way before google and wiki) that was Jewish and had a copy of the Commission Reports and he would let us read portions of it (with his help of course to point out the pertinent sections).  He was heavy into Israel’s history.  He knew how interested I was because I had kept a diary (news paper clippings) of the Yom Kippur War and the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971.  Our library didn’t have the Reports and I had never bothered to track them down.  Not too long ago, I found them on the internet going for £800.  That was too rich for me and I’m not into going downtown to the library these days.  But it is my belief that if these reports were truly digested here that most of your points would disappear.

 

The right of conquest didn't exist when Israel was created. It directly conflicts with the right to self determination that was adopted by nations during WW1. 

Seriously?  The right to the spoils of war existed when the first conflict between humans was settled.  The “spoils of war” *IS* the right of self determination.

Considering that this so-called right was what led directly to WW2 (invasion of Poland to reclaim land taken from Germany), anyone can see that it has no place in society. And to claim that Israel 'legally' won anything through war is completely untrue.

It is a part of society and will always be.  If you have two claims for the same land, how do you equably solve it?  Split the land equally?  That is more dangerous than letting them fight it out.  It didn’t seem to slow down the Soviet Union from gobbling up countries.  One fact about nations is that the borders will constantly change.  If you look at a map of Europe when you were a child and compare it to a map today, it won’t be the same.  If it were untrue in Israel’s situation, then why did so many nations recognize in ’48?  These nations understood the legal aspects of the situation.

My father-in-law was born in Poland but now it is in Belarus.  The history of Poland shows periods of great extent to non-existent.  Since the breakup of the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia till today we see what’s going on in Scotland and Catalonia, the movement against Globalization is taking place as people exercise their right of self determination and that is good, but it is also dangerous.  If you become too small, others will pick you off, yet if you get too big, you lose your borders, language, and culture.  There is another danger here.  It is beyond the op but I’ll mention it.  The UN has been a joke from its inception.  If it was a serious organization, it would put forth forces to overwhelm belligerents.  But it doesn’t because every member knows that similar action could be taken against them.  But this will give way to a global organization that will promise the right of self determination to all, but in actuality, they will be usurping it to gain control.  I keep harping that with 7 billion people on this planet, you can’t make everybody happy.  Cultures will come and go.  That is what makes our society healthy.  But if enough are duped in believing that there is room for everybody, they may find themselves quietly gone for the good of Mankind.  Like getting rid of Jews and Christians but this is a different thread and even forum.

 

Again, simply not true. First, they had no reason to want to share the land with an invasion force of Europeans. To try to claim that they should somehow have accepted these immigrants is quite laughable.

That is just an excuse.  They had every opportunity to exercise their right to self determination and they rejected it.  It wasn’t an invasion force.  It was immigrants willing to fill an empty land where the Palestinians were too afraid to do so.  You’re right that the Palestinians didn’t want to share the land with Europeans but it wasn’t because of where they came from.  It was because they are Jews.  But the thing was, was that the Jews were willing to accept the Palestinians and share their birthright.  There was free land for everyone.

 

Is there any country in the world that would accept such an invasion? I doubt very much that there is. Would you, if a large group of, say, Syrian immigrants did the same with the US?

It would seem to be happening now as we speak.  But it’s for different reasons.  You have the Hijrah going on in Europe.  The experts say that Europe will be Muslim in 50 years.  It’s beginning to happen here.  In Indonesia more and more of the Muslim regions are becoming semi-autonomous.  The Constitution of Indonesia provides for an equality between religions, but this is sinful in Islam and in time, the other religions will take a subservient role.

 

Do you see your moral dilemma when you try to push this narrative?

I think you should look at your moral dilemma.  You parrot the same old misinformation that leads to incorrect solutions.  You see, it is my stance that is the counter to yours, not the other way around.

 

Second, there have been many signs over the decades that show the Palestinians have been willing to settle the dispute along the Armistace Lines (pre '67 borders), but throughout all negotiations Israel have expanded the buidling of settlements in the West Bank and added ridiculous conditions that they know no Palestinian leader could accept.

Some signs.  Their constitution is based on killing Jews.  They teach their children hate.  The Palestinian hates Jews more than they love their children.  They teach their children that it is desirable to martyr themselves for Allah.  They have no place to demand concession.

 

Have you looked at the map of the armistice borders?  It basically divides both sides into three separate parts.  That is totally indefensible.  You want to bring up laughable.  No nation can exist like this.  Do you really think that the Palestinian would stay in their areas and leave the Jews alone?  Those borders have continual warfare written all over it.

 

Third, to try to claim that Palestinians are responsible, when they are the victims and Israel are the aggressors, is actually laughable. It is the most heinous attempt at blaming the victim the world has ever seen. 

The Palestinians are hardly the victim.  Unless it is of their own stupidity.  This is all about two people fighting for control over one land.  There will be one loser and one winner.  The Palestinian has shown that they will never rest until they have it all.  If that is the situation, then I say let attrition finish its course.

 

Again, you have presented another lie. The Egyptian and Jordanian occupation of the Palestinian territories were in a caretaker capacity. They were holding onto the land for different reasons, but always intended to give it back to the Palestinians.  

Yeah right.  They always intended to give it back.  And I’ve got a bridge in New York to sell you.  Palestinians still aren’t fully assimilated into Lebanon.  Why?  Egypt keeps the border with Gaza closed most of the time.  Why?  Black September kind of put a monkey wrench into that idea that Jordan was holding that land.  Why?  You do realize that there were just as many Palestinians in Jordan as there were in Palestine before 1948?  The Palestinians were told to stay out of the way in 1948 because the neighbors were going to come in and take care of the Jews and lay their claim to the land for themselves.  With the Jews gone, do you think the neighbors would actually just give the territory back?  Like I said earlier, the Palestinian would be very much like the Kurds.  Kurd territory would be carved out of Turkey, Syria, Iraq, and Iran.  What do you think the odds are of that happening?  I don’t see the Syrian Kurds giving up the land they’ve taken in the war against ISIS.  That’s not going to make Erdogan very happy.

 

Do you have a source for this claim? In case you were not aware, it was Zionists who were the prolific terrorists during the Mandate.

All you have to do is google it.  During the Mandate, both sides were fighting each other and the British at the same time.  Violence directed at Jews goes back to at least the 1200s.  But I was thinking of the modern incarnation began with the 1834 massacres in Safed and Hebron.  There wasn’t a whole lot the Jews could do since they were Dhimmis.

 

Who do you think the Muslims

learned it from?

I would say Mohammad.  Muslims are allowed to kill non-believers in Jihad for the cause of Allah.

 

The Lavon affair refers to a failed Israeli covert operation, code named Operation Susannah, conducted in Egypt in the Summer of 1954.[vague] As part of the false flag operation,[1] a group of Egyptian Jews were recruited by Israeli military intelligence to plant bombs inside Egyptian, American, and British-owned civilian targets, cinemas, libraries and American educational centers. The bombs were timed to detonate several hours after closing time. The attacks were to be blamed on the Muslim Brotherhood, Egyptian Communists, "unspecified malcontents" or "local nationalists" with the aim of creating a climate of sufficient violence and instability to induce the British government to retain its occupying troops in Egypt's Suez Canal zone.[2] The operation caused no casualties among the population, but did cost the lives of four operatives: two cell members who committed suicide after being captured; and two operatives who were tried, convicted, and executed by Egypt.

Did you notice that there were no civilian casualties?  That was the intent.  You need to familiarize yourself with the reason why things are instead of cherry-picking events based on sound bites.  If this was a Palestinian operation, the maximum number of civilians would have been targeted.

How do you think you can get away with all of this blatant lying?

Well, anytime you think you can prove me wrong, please do so.  So far you haven’t even come close.

 

A quick Google search debunks just about every claim you have made here, and that was a

lot of lies to wade through. I mean it's actually staggering just how completely and utterly false almost every single thing you have said here. I couldn't believe what I was reading when I first saw the post. 

No, google doesn’t debunk everything I’ve said.  If anything, it supports it.  You clearly have been brainwashed through years and years of a polished script.  There are many concepts you are having problems with.  I’ve pointed out many of them here.  You should go back and read this and try to catch them and understand.

Now that we've done the background, what's going on today?

 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ExpandMyMind
6 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

So you state that Israel is in a "state of war" against "Palestine" ? 

Doesn't the definition of a "state of war" require that there are two sovereign states involved ? There is no state of "Palestine" to be at war WITH. If you expand the definition to include the Palestinian Authority, then Israel is NOT at war with them. 

ExpandMyMind, you are ascribing novel meanings to standard words. There WAS a war, back in the 1960's, but it was against Egypt, Syria and Jordan, and NOT against the state of "Palestine", which has never existed, then or now. 

And the term "occupation" requires that the territory involved was a sovereign state, or belonged to a sovereign state. In the case of the West Bank, there WAS no sovereign state, UNLESS you count the illegal annexation of the area by Jordan back in 1948. It was "disorganised territory". 

Countries that recognise the state of Palestine:

1376px-Palestine_recognition_only.svg.pn

You can try to, once again, argue your case based on what you view as a legal technicality but it is an occupation of a country recognised by the vast majority of the world - and a military occupation is by definition an act of war (this is why the Geneva Convention have been cited on numerous occasions in resolutions put forth against both the Palestinians and the Israelis). 

A state of war does not require that 'two sovereign states' be involved. You are thinking of a declaration of war.

 

To clear this up: if a country goes at war with itself - a civil war - are you suggesting that this is not a state of war?

Quote

War is a state of armed conflict between states or societies

You seem to be under the impression that because of the unique nature of the conflict that somehow the Palestinians are in a sort of legal limbo, where they have no rights and no recognition by the international community. This ignores the fact that Palestine and the claim of its people to the land of Palestine has always been recognised by the UN. And the multitude of UN Resolutions regarding the Occupied Territories debunks your claim as comprehensively as is possible.

It is without a doubt a war. This is not even a slightly controversial claim.

 
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk
1 hour ago, ExpandMyMind said:

Countries that recognise the state of Palestine:

I’ll agree with you that there is a state of war between the two.  It’s more like a defensive war on the part of Israel.  But I see what you are doing.  You’re applying strict definitions of aspects of legislating war, which is a nice thing to happen but it is different for each conflict.  And then only implying that Israel is violating it.  The only place it applies is on the battlefield provided both sides abide by it.  In this war, Israel has tried not to do the same things that the Palestinians do.  Not that they haven’t but it’s not usual.  And retribution of wrongs perceived in war is usually up to the victor.  As far as the list of nations that now recognize Palestine, how long has it taken to get this far?  And what are the political ramifications for individual nations?  The UN is where the little nations are bullied by larger entities with agendas.  I think you’ve missed the boat on this one.  It doesn’t matter if Palestine is a nation, entity, or what now.  They continue to break the peace.  And Israel will continue to do whatever she needs to do to protect herself.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ExpandMyMind

 

I couldn't help but notice that I provided loads of links to UN resolutions and the relevant international laws, not to mention census and other sources, yet all you have provided is unverified opinion. Very interesting.

52 minutes ago, RavenHawk said:

Despite all of that where is the next intifada?

I haven't mentioned anything about an intifada

52 minutes ago, RavenHawk said:

Yes, it is a very basic concept and what goes with it is the ability to control and maintain the land.....

Do you have a source for this? Because I think it is verifiably false:

Quote

[m]embers of the United Nations which have or assume responsibilities for the administration of territories whose peoples have not yet attained a full measure of self-government recognize the principle that the interests of the inhabitants of these territories are paramount, and accept as a sacred trust the obligation to promote to the utmost, within the system of international peace and security established by the present Charter, the well-being of the inhabitants of these territories.

 

52 minutes ago, RavenHawk said:

....The Palestinians never had nor would they ever, even if Israel wasn’t in the picture

This, I have already shown to be false. Look at my last reply to you. The Palestinians controlled the vast majority of Palestine, legally. They owned most of the land. This is a verifiable fact.

Also, nationalism is often born in response to outside forces. Poland only exists due to the Russian threat at that time. With the Philippines it was the same - as it was with many other countries. In fact, Israel itself only exists in reaction to the actions of Germany in WW2.

So often you apply logic that would debunk Israel's own claim to any land and you don't even realise you do so.

It should also be noted that Palestinian nationalism began in the early 1900s, and they identified as being Palestinian as far back as the 1800s, according to writings by Palestinians from that time. Again, part of the documented record. This was almost an entire half a century before the birth of Israel. 

The other part of your reply means nothing with regards to any claim on the land, but it should be addressed because it's a disgusting insult thrown by Israel apologists. The claim you're making is that Palestinians are inherently unable to 'maintain' the land. This is not true. The Europeans who invaded used tools and knowledge from being European and applied it to farming, yes, but, since that era, all Arab countries have learned similar techniques. So why do you think that Palestinians would have been unable to do the same?

52 minutes ago, RavenHawk said:

As I stated before, the neighbors aren’t about to allow an independent Palestinian state to exist.

Could you provide verifiable evidence of this please? You keep making this same baseless claim, but it simply isn't true. The Palestinians were expected to be granted statehood by the British, the same as the surrounding Arab countries, as per the Balfour Declaration. I don't recall ever hearing surrounding countries intended to invade them and steal the land and, in fact, during the Mandate people were sent there from those countriies to encourage Palestinian nationalism.

1 hour ago, RavenHawk said:

Actually, it is the “outside” force that controls it that determines who owns it.  I dare you to pick some patch of land and squat on it evoking the right of self-determination.  And see what the rightful “outside” owner does to you.  If you are lucky, perhaps the owner is dead and no one had previously put a claim on the land.

This is competely and utterly untrue. I refer you to the first link I provided in this reply. In fact, I refer you to the quoted text from that link: 

' the principle that the interests of the inhabitants of these territories are paramount'

Literally the exact opposite of what you claimed is the actual truth. Literally the exact opposite.

You seem unable to grasp the basics of the right to self determination. It's like I'm debating with someone from the 1800s, before international law and the UN came into existence.

Squatters? You are actually, 100%, reversing the realities of this situation. The vast majority of Jews in Palestine after WW2 were European immigrants. The Palestinians were the indigenous population. How is it possible to squat in your own house?

number.jpg.5d27af40c4cc4301307c3bec2a11d670.jpg

The outright lies just keep coming.

1 hour ago, RavenHawk said:

No, that’s not what I was saying.  I’m saying that the peoples that later became known as the Palestinians who where better known as Fellahin during the Ottoman Empire were mostly semi nomadic.  Some tribes did settle and become city dwellers and merchants but the majority was herders and laborers.

Evidence (there is none)? You realise that this claim was thoroughly debunked by Dr Norman Finkelstein and is one of the reasons that Joan Peters does not have a career. Unfortunately for you, both the British and the Ottomans were rather meticulous when it came to recording demographics. Here:

Quote

 

In the late nineteenth century, prior to the rise of Zionism, Jews are thought to have comprised between 2% to 5% of the population of Palestine, although the precise population is not known.[26]

According to Alexander Scholch, Palestine in 1850 had about 350,000 inhabitants, 30% of whom lived in 13 towns; roughly 85% were Muslims, 11% were Christians and 4% Jews.[27]

The Ottoman census of 1878 indicated the following demographics for the three districts that best approximated what later became Mandatory Palestine; that is, the Mutasarrifate of Jerusalem, the Nablus Sanjak, and the Acre Sanjak.[26] In addition, some scholars estimate approximately 5,000-10,000 additional foreign-born Jews at this time:[28]

 

numberss.jpg.18211a3872984bc6605a076131af924c.jpg

And:

Quote

There are now in the whole of Palestine hardly 700,000 people, a population much less than that of the province of Gallilee alone in the time of Christ. Of these 235,000 live in the larger towns, 465,000 in the smaller towns and villages. Four-fifths of the whole population are Moslems. A small proportion of these are Bedouin Arabs; the remainder, although they speak Arabic and are termed Arabs, are largely of mixed race. Some 77,000 of the population are Christians, in large majority belonging to the Orthodox Church, and speaking Arabic. The minority are members of the Latin or of the Uniate Greek Catholic Church, or—a small number—are Protestants. The Jewish element of the population numbers 76,000. Almost all have entered Palestine during the last 40 years. Prior to 1850 there were in the country only a handful of Jews. In the following 30 years a few hundreds came to Palestine. Most of them were animated by religious motives; they came to pray and to die in the Holy Land, and to be buried in its soil. After the persecutions in Russia forty years ago, the movement of the Jews to Palestine assumed larger proportions. Jewish agricultural colonies were founded. They developed the culture of oranges and gave importance to the Jaffa orange trade. They cultivated the vine, and manufactured and exported wine. They drained swamps. They planted eucalyptus trees. They practised, with modern methods, all the processes of agriculture. There are at the present time 64 of these settlements, large and small, with a population of some 15,000.[35]

There is no proof that, other than coming and going for seasonal work, the Palestinians were 'semi-nomadic' and their numbers were recorded rather thoroughly all throughout the time period you mention.

1 hour ago, RavenHawk said:

No, they didn’t.  It was mostly owned by absentee landowners; mostly Ottomans that died without issue.  That’s why the British couldn’t figure out land ownership because of the bogus deeds.  The Ottomans had initiated a program to reclaim that land and Israel has kept those laws for the same reason.  So Israel is really only carrying out the policies of the Ottomans.

Simply not true, as I showed earlier:

land 2.jpg

I mean, it's like you don't know that I have this vast wealth of information at my very fingertips.

1 hour ago, RavenHawk said:

I would suppose that it depends.  I really don’t think the Chinese are buying living space.  It is simply an investment.  They have no intentions in creating a new homeland.  They will probably sell it off in a few years anyway.  Every decade or so, some nation buys up land here in America and there are fears that arise but in time, that land is sold to someone else.  Palestine was uniquely different.  It was unorganized territory (i.e. not a nation – not sovereign).  The bottom line to what that meant is that the slate is wiped clean.  All prior claims to land mean jack.  This created a headache for the British because they tried to confirm legal ownership of the land so they could leave.  The terms of the Mandate required that they couldn’t leave until the inhabitants could govern themselves.  Without establishing more land ownership, the British were inclined to declare that Palestine was Class A and ready for self rule.  It really wasn’t.  The British were no longer capable of keeping the Palestinian and the Jews separated.  The British were more than ready to get the Hell out of Dodge.

This completely ignored the well-established right to self determination, which incidentally also debunks your claim. As I showed you in my last reply, legally owning land - like the Queen legally owns most of Canada - has no bearing on any claim to a country or its people's nationalism. It is completely superseded by the right to self determination.

I have showed you irrefutable proof that the Palestinians owned the vast majority of the land - even in the land that is now Israel. Now, by applying your own faulty logic and reasoning, those Palestinians and their descendants have more claim to Israel than Israel itself. Can you see where your logic eats itself?

1 hour ago, RavenHawk said:
Quote

There is no such thing as an 'ancient claim' to land. This is simply religious nonsense.

Actually there is and it has noting to with religion but prior occupancy.  But like I just said, that really amounted to jack.  I just use it for comparison.  And for the British, it was a legitimate solution for an impossible problem.

Show me this ancient claim to land. If what you claim were true, the examples I provided with Australia and Scotland would be true. 

There is no ancient claim to land. It simply doesn't exist. It's all the more ridiculous when Israel won't even recognise the refugees' claim to land they actually owned and lived on - and some of them along with all of their descendants are still alive. This is an incredibly glaring double standard. Again, your own logic is in conflict with Israel's own actions and your own opinion. 

1 hour ago, RavenHawk said:
Quote

Do Australians have a claim to the UK? Do Scots have a claim to Scandanavia? In reality, the opposite is true. The more recent claim to land has more legal and moral basis.

Well, that is nonsensical.  You’re twisting a poor comparison.  How does the more recent claim mean it’s moral?  That is just so much BS.

Yes, it is nonsensical. Unfortunately for you it's at the exact level of nonsensical as Israel own ancient claim to land. It is the perfect analogy.

The more recent claim is more relevant because there are still people alive who actually lived there. Both them and their direct descendants.

1 hour ago, RavenHawk said:
Quote

See: all ex colonies, including Israel. See, we're back the right to self determination again.

We are??

Yes, by definition you are a colony.

Quote

Colony - number of people coming from the same country, or speaking the same language, residing in a foreign country or city, or a particular section of it; enclave:

the Polish colony in Israel; the American colony in Paris.

 

2 hours ago, RavenHawk said:

And I have shown you where you are wrong.  Pay attention.  I’d like to state this only once.  I don’t want this to drag on repeating the same thing because you don’t listen.

Actually, you haven't shown anything about Jews owning the majority of land in Palestine. You have made the claim, but you have shown nothing.

On the other hand, I provided you with verifiable evidence from the documented history that shows your claim to be so completely and utterly untrue, that it's worrying that you think you can continue to make the claim

I'll show you again (hopefully twice in the one post will ram this home):

land 2.jpg

2 hours ago, RavenHawk said:

Who purchased it doesn’t really matter.  That is was purchased legally for a Jewish homeland is all that matters.  The Ottomans placed restrictions but eventually accepted sales.  The British also setup restrictions but there were ways to get around that.  So nothing new there, but what is of interest is the map on that page.  This is the crux of all the problems in the West.  This map shows only Jewish ownership.  It doesn’t include Palestinian.  The assumption that every one made, which was in error was that whatever was not marked Jewish must be Palestinian.  That is incorrect primarily because that there was no way to determine how much land was legally owned by Palestinians.  If you ignore everything I say, at least take this point to heart.  Again, that was the problem that the British were having difficulties with.  That remaining land was divided up between 4 other groups.  Remaining Ottomans (which could have included Jews), Palestinians, Others (which included Jews), and finally abandoned land.  This made up the lion’s share of remaining territory.  And as your wiki pointed out, most of the Palestinians congregated in the cities as protection from the nomads.  The nomads were not landowners.  They couldn’t afford to buy land or even pay taxes on it.  Their herds where only large enough for survival.

 

Quote

"The Reports of several expert Commissions have indicated that, owing to the natural growth of the Arab population and the steady sale in recent years of Arab land to Jews, there is now in certain areas no room for further transfers of Arab land, whilst in some other areas such transfers of land must be restricted if Arab cultivators are to maintain their existing standard of life and a considerable landless Arab population is not soon to be created. In these circumstances, the High Commissioner will be given general powers to prohibit and regulate transfers of land.'

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Paper_of_1939

What do you think prohibit means?

The assumption that every one made, which was in error was that whatever was not marked Jewish must be Palestinian.  That is incorrect primarily because that there was no way to determine how much land was legally owned by Palestinians.  If you ignore everything I say, at least take this point to heart

Of course there was a way to tell. The british carried out extensive census of demographics. Read the quote I provided earlier.

There are now in the whole of Palestine hardly 700,000 people, a population much less than that of the province of Gallilee alone in the time of Christ. Of these 235,000 live in the larger towns, 465,000 in the smaller towns and villages. Four-fifths of the whole population are Moslems. A small proportion of these are Bedouin Arabs; the remainder, although they speak Arabic and are termed Arabs, are largely of mixed race. Some 77,000 of the population are Christians, in large majority belonging to the Orthodox Church, and speaking Arabic. The minority are members of the Latin or of the Uniate Greek Catholic Church, or—a small number—are Protestants. The Jewish element of the population numbers 76,000. Almost all have entered Palestine during the last 40 years. Prior to 1850 there were in the country only a handful of Jews. In the following 30 years a few hundreds came to Palestine. Most of them were animated by religious motives; they came to pray and to die in the Holy Land, and to be buried in its soil. After the persecutions in Russia forty years ago, the movement of the Jews to Palestine assumed larger proportions. Jewish agricultural colonies were founded. They developed the culture of oranges and gave importance to the Jaffa orange trade. They cultivated the vine, and manufactured and exported wine. They drained swamps. They planted eucalyptus trees. They practised, with modern methods, all the processes of agriculture. There are at the present time 64 of these settlements, large and small, with a population of some 15,000.[35]

They were incredibly meticulous with records. Your claim has no basis in reality. It is simply false.

 

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Phaeton80
On 9-12-2017 at 3:14 PM, ExpandMyMind said:

Wow. You're actually attempting to lawyer your way out? That's pretty low, though pretty easily dismantled by applying many of the basic laws and international agreements that I have already brought up in this thread - if you want to keep it just legal and not look at the morality of the situation, that is.

Look, regardless of whether or not you think they can still occupy the Territories due to a technicality, this is not how it is interpreted by literally the entire rest of the World. Any land acquired by the use of force through the course of war is illegitimate - there is no way to "legally" claim it, as you seem to suggest, and Israel are required to withdraw. But, like I said, even if you think they have a right to it - they don't. Let's just keep ramming that one home for both yourself and anyone who might have thought what you said sounded anywhere near legitimate - the resolution has been reaffirmed multiple times throughout the years, along with others having been introduced. If Israel had done as you seem to suggest, and withdrawn from all the territory they were supposed to, then there would be no problem, would there? You seem to be... confused? No, that's not it.

Both Israel - and no doubt yourself - can try to employ all the use of intellectual dishonesty you wish in an attempt to try to legitimise a claim to the land belonging to another people - the indigenous population - all while ignore the calls and demands by practically every other country in the World (I always forget the likes of Micronesia and the like - who can blame me?). You no doubt have debated similar in the past with people who maybe weren't up for doing the research or perhaps thought that what you were claiming sounded legitimate, but you're quite simply lying - you're not mistaken, because you can clearly see that the right to self determination and the demise of the right of conquest make everything you say legally impossible (not to mention the multiple resolutions passed exposing the lie), so the only alternative is that you are actually lying and spreading false propaganda. 

and the PLO (in defiance of their commitments in the Oslo Accords) is still constitutionally committed to the destruction of Israel as a state. Accordingly, Israel is NOT obliged to withdraw from those territories under the terms of the Resolution. 

I truly wonder if you try to say this with a straight face. You realise that all throughout the Accords, Israel were expanding the land- grab (not to mention since). They continued and even quickened the expansion of the settlements, so let us not try to claim that those "agreements" are in any way more binding to the Palestinians as or the PLO or other Palestinian factions, than they are to Israel. You don't come to an agreement, break the agreement, and then try to claim the other party is still somehow beholden to said agreement. What a completely ridiculous notion.

The Oslo Accords are not what binds Israel to the duty of having to leave the Occupied Territories - international law dictates this and there is no controversy anywhere else in the world with the interpretation of this, other than with religious extremists and online Israeli apologists. 

Well, that last bit is debatable, but if Israel WAS to withdraw, then the Resolution would STILL not be fulfilled due to the intransigence and belligerence of Syria and the PLO

Israel refuse to withdraw from the Occupied Territories (and Syria), therefore they are, by definition, the ones standing in the way of peace. This is about as simple as anything else I can imagine and I'm not sure how you think you can somehow try to reverse cause and effect? It is, in a dark, morally bankrupt way, actually quite comical. You're another who is attempting to blame the victim. Good luck with that.

 

 

Well said sir. Sadly, youre dealing with some 'special' people 'round here that probably dont have a clue what youre talking about. Wouldnt waste too much time.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ExpandMyMind
2 hours ago, RavenHawk said:

You showed no such thing.  Whoever owns the country owns the land.  It’s up to the Ruler of the country to determine disposition of the land.  The British came in with the intension of returning the land to the rightful owner but that turned out to be an impossible task in Palestine.  As I said before, whatever land was not under Jewish control was assumed to be Palestinian and that was incorrect. 

2 hours ago, RavenHawk said:

Seriously?  The right to the spoils of war existed when the first conflict between humans was settled.  The “spoils of war” *IS* the right of self determination.

Quote

You seem to be holding onto the 'right of conquest'. This simply does not exist. It was phased out during WW1 and completely abolished during Nuremberg, before the creation of Israel. It was replaced with the right to self determination. I'm not sure why you can't seem to grasp this fact - for it is a completely undeniable fact. I even provided you with the links to the relevant information and documents. Did you bother to read them?

I'll say it again: the people of a nation decide their own fate, not an invading military force - or any outside force for that matter.

Quote

The completion of colonial conquest of much of the world (see the Scramble for Africa), the devastation of World War I and World War II, and the alignment of both the United States and the Soviet Union with the principle of self-determination led to the abandonment of the right of conquest in formal international law. The 1928 Kellogg–Briand Pact, the post-1945 Nuremberg Trials, the UN Charter, and the UN role in decolonization saw the progressive dismantling of this principle. Simultaneously, the UN Charter's guarantee of the "territorial integrity" of member states effectively froze out claims against prior conquests from this process.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_conquest

2 hours ago, RavenHawk said:

As I am finishing up this reply, I’ll add this comment about the example of the Queen and Canada.  Canada is still part of the Commonwealth.  It acts as a de facto independent nation yet still shows respect to the Queen.  I’m sure that if she wants a few acres in each province to erect a royal museum, etc.  That Canadians would not object. 

Thanks. It is an independent nation and the Queen has no right to claim the country as her own, even though she owns the vast majority of the land. Australia is the same. 

Legally owning parts of land does not mean you own a country. Would you care to show me where in law this right is granted? Would you care to provide a source for any of your wild claims at all?

2 hours ago, RavenHawk said:

Scotland and Catalonia, the movement against Globalization is taking place as people exercise their right of self determination and that is good, but it is also dangerous

So you do recognise the right to self determination. Thanks. You've just invalidated every claim you've previouosly made about spoils of war and right of conquest.

2 hours ago, RavenHawk said:
Quote

Israelis have been born on the land and therefore have the right to decide their own fate and identity. It's actually the only thing that gives Israel any legitimacy, yet pro Israeli internet posters for some reason think they can have this for Israelis but deny it to Palestinians. It is a blatant double standard that is easily ripped apart by employing only the most basic of logic to the situation.

You’ve mischaracterized the nature of the situation.  Where one was born in this situation really has no merit.  It is all about the legality of the situation coming out of a Mandate with who had the more legitimate deeds.  The Jewish deeds were all in order while the Palestinian ones were questionable.  In ’67, Israel captured the repository that housed the Palestinian land records, which was good because it prevents the Palestinians from destroying or manipulating them.  Israel preserves that evidence of bogus deeds.  Using this with the Ottoman land laws of 1858 tells Israel where they can legally build settlements.  If you want to use your “newer claims are the moral ones” argument then the Jewish deeds are the more recent (legitimate ones).

This is completely untrue, yet again. Where one is born has every merit on their right to the land. It's actually the only right that exists when birthing a country or deciding the fate of their people - that the people of their own land get to choose their own identity.

You keep making claims with zero evidence. None. 

They cannot legally build settlements anywhere. All the settlements are illegal. What planet do you live on? The only country in the world who thinks this is how things work is Israel. It has no basis in reality.

2 hours ago, RavenHawk said:

That is just an excuse.  They had every opportunity to exercise their right to self determination and they rejected it.  It wasn’t an invasion force.  It was immigrants willing to fill an empty land where the Palestinians were too afraid to do so.  You’re right that the Palestinians didn’t want to share the land with Europeans but it wasn’t because of where they came from.  It was because they are Jews.  But the thing was, was that the Jews were willing to accept the Palestinians and share their birthright.  There was free land for everyone.

This isn't an excuse, it is a valid reason. Not a single country in the world would have accepted those Europeans coming to their country, displacing the indigenous population and declaring half the country theirs. Not a single country. 

Also, the Mark Twain empty land myth has been debunked to thoroughly over the decades that it's worrying that you think you can bring this up. And it means nothing. Most of Scotland is empty land. Most of England is empty land. Hell, want to know just how empty the world is? You could fit every human being on a piece of land the size of Australia and give them enough land to grow their own crops.

"Yeah we took the land, no one seemed to be using it"

Madness that you think this validates land theft. Mind if I come and live in your garden? There's a wee patch up the back where I could set up my tent. No? According to your own logic, I would be well within my rights to do so.

It was because they were, essentially, an invasion. Don't try to make this about Jew and Muslim. This is a conflict about colonialism and land, not religion. Hate has grown, largely since the 90s, but Jews, Christians and Muslims had lived there in relative harmony for hundreds of years. Thousands of years.

Jews had no birthright. This is religious nonsense. I mean it's completely ridiculous that someone thinks they can use religion to justify a land grab.

3 hours ago, RavenHawk said:

It would seem to be happening now as we speak.  But it’s for different reasons.  You have the Hijrah going on in Europe.  The experts say that Europe will be Muslim in 50 years.  It’s beginning to happen here.  In Indonesia more and more of the Muslim regions are becoming semi-autonomous.  The Constitution of Indonesia provides for an equality between religions, but this is sinful in Islam and in time, the other religions will take a subservient role.

Oh. My. God. I'm actually in hysterics right now. Laughing so hard. Europe will be Muslim in 50 years? What on eeeearth. Let me give you an example: 200+ million Muslims can't even take over India (14% of the population), yet you think Europe is under threat (between 3% and 5% of the population). There is no other word for that opinion - it's outright crazy.

Which experts are these? Please give me your source on this. It's brilliant. 

It's not sinful in Islam. Please, if you want to spout anti-Muslim, bigoted lies, do it in another thread. I'll be happy to discuss it with you there.

3 hours ago, RavenHawk said:

I think you should look at your moral dilemma.  You parrot the same old misinformation that leads to incorrect solutions.  You see, it is my stance that is the counter to yours, not the other way around.

Except I provide verifiable evidence to back up my claims and opinions and you do not (literally you have not provided one, single source). In fact, most of your claims are long-debunked, baseless conspiracy theories.

3 hours ago, RavenHawk said:

Some signs.  Their constitution is based on killing Jews.  They teach their children hate.  The Palestinian hates Jews more than they love their children.  They teach their children that it is desirable to martyr themselves for Allah.  They have no place to demand concession.

You mean this Charter, created this year? It should be noted that their original charter was never officially adopted or recognised, but it seems this one has been. No doubt Israel will react in much the same way as the did with Arafat in '88.

'The Palestinian hates Jews more than they love their children'

Oh, that old chestnut. I think Manfred addressed this sort of rhetoric earlier in the thread just about as perfectly as possible

3 hours ago, RavenHawk said:

Have you looked at the map of the armistice borders?  It basically divides both sides into three separate parts.  That is totally indefensible.  You want to bring up laughable.  No nation can exist like this.  Do you really think that the Palestinian would stay in their areas and leave the Jews alone?  Those borders have continual warfare written all over it.

.With respect, that's Israel's problem - they put themselves in this situation. I don't jump into a crowd of people and start swinging punches and start crying when I get slapped about. However, you vastly exaggerate the inability to defend those borders.

Continual warfare as opposed to what? 

3 hours ago, RavenHawk said:

The Palestinians are hardly the victim.  Unless it is of their own stupidity.  This is all about two people fighting for control over one land.  There will be one loser and one winner.  The Palestinian has shown that they will never rest until they have it all.  If that is the situation, then I say let attrition finish its course.

Thank you for the bold. It's good that you know this, because it invalidates your earlier claim that this is about hating Jews. Good one.

Palestinians are the victims by definition. They are under a Military occupation and have been royally screwed for literally, this year, 100 years. Don't try to reverse cause and effect. 

Really? To me, it looks like Israel are the ones who are continually stealing and annexing land. If anything, it seems far more true that they are the ones who will not rest until they have it all, since they're actively taking it as we speak.

3 hours ago, RavenHawk said:

Yeah right.  They always intended to give it back.  And I’ve got a bridge in New York to sell you.  Palestinians still aren’t fully assimilated into Lebanon.  Why?  Egypt keeps the border with Gaza closed most of the time.  Why?  Black September kind of put a monkey wrench into that idea that Jordan was holding that land.  Why?  You do realize that there were just as many Palestinians in Jordan as there were in Palestine before 1948?  The Palestinians were told to stay out of the way in 1948 because the neighbors were going to come in and take care of the Jews and lay their claim to the land for themselves.  With the Jews gone, do you think the neighbors would actually just give the territory back?  Like I said earlier, the Palestinian would be very much like the Kurds.  Kurd territory would be carved out of Turkey, Syria, Iraq, and Iran.  What do you think the odds are of that happening?  I don’t see the Syrian Kurds giving up the land they’ve taken in the war against ISIS.  That’s not going to make Erdogan very happy.

Considering they created the PLO, it's intellectually dishonest to claim that they didn't want the Palestinians to be free. They created the Palestinian Liberation Organisation. It's in the name, for goodness sake.

Provide evidence that Egypt and Jordan intended to keep the land and deny it to the Palestinians. It gets tiring hearing and trying to figure out the logic behind so many baseless conspiracy theories that completely go against the realities of the situation.

3 hours ago, RavenHawk said:

All you have to do is google it.  During the Mandate, both sides were fighting each other and the British at the same time.  Violence directed at Jews goes back to at least the 1200s.  But I was thinking of the modern incarnation began with the 1834 massacres in Safed and Hebron.  There wasn’t a whole lot the Jews could do since they were Dhimmis.

Well, that's intellectually dishonest, is it not? You present your examples and claim as though there was a great campaign by the Arabs to destroy the Jews, when in reality what we had is a few isolated incidents. During the period you mention, less than 5% of the population was Jewish. If there was really such a campaign against the Jews there then they could have been fairly easily wiped out.

It's a bit like claiming that because you have mass shootings in the US, all Americans are mass shooters. My point being that your examples clearly aren't representative of the Arabs as a whole. Largely, they all lived in peace.

Also, how can those be defined as terrorism? 

3 hours ago, RavenHawk said:

Did you notice that there were no civilian casualties?  That was the intent.  You need to familiarize yourself with the reason why things are instead of cherry-picking events based on sound bites.  If this was a Palestinian operation, the maximum number of civilians would have been targeted.

Quote

Indeed, it looks like they intended as few civilian casualties as possible. That doesn't quite equate to 'no civilian casualties?  That was the intent' though, does it? They were blowing up bombs, and as such I'm sure they were fully aware that casualties were a very real possibility. Besides which, human casualties isn't the only problem with carrying out terrorist attacks in another country and trying to use it as a way to bend others to your political will, is it?

But, anyway, what about these?

Israel was born through terrorism and I stand by my comment. Today's Palestinians learned it from the Zionists. I don't think that's too unreasonable a claim.

3 hours ago, RavenHawk said:
Quote

How do you think you can get away with all of this blatant lying?

Well, anytime you think you can prove me wrong, please do so.  So far you haven’t even come close.

Anyone who reads this exchange should be able to clearly see that I have done this, time and again. I have provided statistics, laws - evidence in general -  while you have provided nothing but baseless conspiracy theories.

3 hours ago, RavenHawk said:

No, google doesn’t debunk everything I’ve said.  If anything, it supports it.  You clearly have been brainwashed through years and years of a polished script.  There are many concepts you are having problems with.  I’ve pointed out many of them here.  You should go back and read this and try to catch them and understand.

I learned about this subject by reading the documented history of the situation, from books mainly, but also from the actual British documents from the Mandate. I have not been brainwashed, simply because I do not frequent anywhere where this might happen. And I always try to verify anything I read. You, on the other hand? Are you Israeli (if so, then it's far more likely that you have been actually brainwashed, since you would have grown up in an environment where this could easily happen)? I don't know anything about you really so I can't say if you are brainwashed. What I can say is that your claims are complete crap.

I look forward to your reply.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ExpandMyMind
1 hour ago, Phaeton80 said:

 

 

Well said sir. Sadly, youre dealing with some 'special' people 'round here that probably dont have a clue what youre talking about. Wouldnt waste too much time.

Thanks. Roofy aint so bad really. He does try to look at and provide evidence with most topics. He's not an anti-intellectual like many others who debate this topic on the internet, at least that I can tell. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ExpandMyMind
1 hour ago, RavenHawk said:

I’ll agree with you that there is a state of war between the two.  It’s more like a defensive war on the part of Israel.  But I see what you are doing.  You’re applying strict definitions of aspects of legislating war, which is a nice thing to happen but it is different for each conflict.  And then only implying that Israel is violating it.  The only place it applies is on the battlefield provided both sides abide by it.  In this war, Israel has tried not to do the same things that the Palestinians do.  Not that they haven’t but it’s not usual.  And retribution of wrongs perceived in war is usually up to the victor. 

You might want to have a wee gander at the Geneva Convention. While you're at it, you might want to throw Israel a wee looksie as well.

1 hour ago, RavenHawk said:

As far as the list of nations that now recognize Palestine, how long has it taken to get this far?  And what are the political ramifications for individual nations?  The UN is where the little nations are bullied by larger entities with agendas.  I think you’ve missed the boat on this one.  It doesn’t matter if Palestine is a nation, entity, or what now.  They continue to break the peace.  And Israel will continue to do whatever she needs to do to protect herself.

There is no peace. You just said in this same reply that 'there is a state of war'. You have contradicted yourself multiple times in these replies.

Any time the Palestinians attack Israel, it is - by definition - a retaliation. This is how occupations work. There is a clear and obvious cause and effect. Incredible just how often you think you can reverse the realities of this conflict. 

And, yes - of course - the old "the UN sucks because they expose our logical and legal fallacies for what they are". Sort of ridiculous when it was the UN that legitimised Israel back in '47 . I suppose it's only relevant when you agree with them - and with Israel's policy and actions since then, that's not been very often.

Edited by ExpandMyMind
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RAyMO
25 minutes ago, ExpandMyMind said:

Really? To me, it looks like Israel are the ones who are continually stealing and annexing land. If anything, it seems far more true that they are the ones who will not rest until they have it all, since they're actively taking it as we speak.

Och aye, sure dats the truth of it. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Paranormal Panther
14 hours ago, RoofGardener said:

I fear you may be correct PP. I battled my way through the snow thismorning to my local shop, only to see Calumny coming out with two carrier bags full of strong coffee ! 

Going back to the OPA.... has anyone noticed how muted the response has been around the Islamic world ? Many middle-eastern countries have made comments about the move being an "obstacle to peace".. which is odd, as Israel is already at peace with everyone (except Gaza and - in theory - Syria). 

There where riots in Gaza, and HAMAS launched a couple-or-three rockets at Israel (precipitating an Israeli counter-attack). But.. that is almost "business as usual" in the region. 

So what happened to the armageddon we where promised ? I wants my monies back !!!!

Just wait a few days. There's a promised Armageddon each week now. It could be Israel or North Korea. It could be the new tax legislation. Take your pick. There's no moderation or nuance. All events are at "10" on the panic scale now. The calibration changed when Trump won the presidency.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.