Netanyahu plans to annex the Jordan Valley

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

7 hours ago, RoofGardener said:

I know, why don't we ask one of the Israeli Muslims about that ? After all, they constitute slightly over 20% of the country ? 

Ahh 20%. I see. African Americans make up 20% of the American population too. Does that mean all was hunky dorey during slavery?

It surely is important as to who owns the land. Perhaps we should look at titles/deeds to properties.

[RoofGardener]

7 hours ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

Ahh 20%. I see. African Americans make up 20% of the American population too. Does that mean all was hunky dorey during slavery?

It surely is important as to who owns the land. Perhaps we should look at titles/deeds to properties.

What an absurd comparison. And perhaps we should indeed look at titles deeds. 

Hmm... who's got the deeds to the Negev desert ? 

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

6 hours ago, RoofGardener said:

What an absurd comparison. And perhaps we should indeed look at titles deeds. 

Hmm... who's got the deeds to the Negev desert ? 

LOL you don't like it when I get all too cogent and stuff, eh? 

Personal property, eg homes. Many Palestinians thrown out of Palestine had - and still have titles to homes in Palestine (now occupied)

[RoofGardener]

31 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

LOL you don't like it when I get all too cogent and stuff, eh? 

Personal property, eg homes. Many Palestinians thrown out of Palestine had - and still have titles to homes in Palestine (now occupied)

Indeed. And they vacated all claims to those houses when they left Israel. 

In point of fact, Israel HAS offered compensation for all such seizures. However, it is PLO policy NEVER to accept it. Any palestinian who DID accept it would be killed. 

In addition, I would point out that any Palestinian with homes in occupied Palestine DOES have rights to their land, except when such homes have to be cleared for security purposes. However, the "refugees" are not FROM the occupied territories. They are from Israel. 

[Sir Smoke aLot]

On 9/20/2019 at 2:32 PM, RoofGardener said:

I'm afraid I'm confused @Sir Smoke aLot. Could you explain your meaning ? 

I was sure it was obvious. Sorry for the late answer.

Immigrants got their rights respected and native population was deprived of every human right. This includes right to land, to return, right to vote... By having territory one can have state. Without connected parts one can't have future (that's what 'green line' supposed to give to Israel). If you need deeper explanation then read below, i am not lazy to write :

we've talked about this, about how self determination for Jewish immigrants in Palestine was given to them, enshrined in 1947 plan and around green line. Proposal which early Zionist leadership was accepting as binding (even tho that proposal was merely an proposal by international community, not demand for either side) because it was sort of necessity in order to proclaim the state which would be recognized by world powers and the others. USA at the time was very clear about their position and without Israeli acceptance of those plans and proposals in 1947 they would not have legitimacy anywhere for their state. Because without recognized territory one can not have the state.

So you ask me, in contrast to my own question and general point, about self determination for Jews?

But that was given to them so many years ago.

Here we were discussing (at least i was) the Palestinian right for self determination which also include the essential aspect which served making of the state of Israel - the right of return. This here is called selective application of international law which in turn undermines it and undermines every achievement which civilization has made in the field so far. By attacking the foundations of the law in order to deny Palestinian state one is also attacking the foundation of that which made Israel.

That is absurd, illogical, shameful, self disrespecting and cruel way of acting. Double standard is shiny term which doesn't portray the meaning behind it as much as hypocrisy is a shiny word which doesn't describe all which is behind it.

So, with this in mind - as Israel keeps fortifying current illegal settlements it's also separating Palestinian territories further because, as evident in prior developments behind illegal settlements :

- illegal settlements grow, in turn making it a necessity to take more land for expansion and that land is taken from Palestinians, as no one else is around isn't it (there are many aspects here, from social care, waste disposal, economy growth)

- claims to the land made by Palestinians which were expelled  lose weight as time passes and it happens on steady rate - while Israeli claims grow as time passes - situation in which Palestinian people, with enough time, will lose both their legal and political case

- also connected to above point - now generations of Israeli citizens have already identified themselves with the land, their homes, communities and they now also feel how their human rights, even tho inside illegal settlements, have to be respected

These are most evident problems which are related to smaller, but growing areas. When politicians reveal that state strategy includes connection of those areas it means only one thing for the occupied territories and that is - occupied territory will be annexed, contrary to reason and to law and, in light of my earlier argument - Palestinian cause is effectively being made impossible because it takes only this one step for Israel to finish the romantic story about two states.

So regardless of what the land looked like before, was it disorganized or sovereign - the people have decided but only one part and only immigrants for that matter while the native population has still not given the right to vote for their future, even tho that was one of the conditions both under mandate, League of Nations and in peace deal between Brits and Ottomans where territorial integrity was to be secured for the region.

There are many sources for you to use and data is usually the same among Israeli historians.  This is why i say that ''immigrants'' got right to vote and right for state but native population was prevented. Such a cruelty and discrimination, worst of the worst.

Also, keep in mind that after 1945 immigration also flourished and immigration was the essential necessity for Israel to became sustainable state. Proclamation of the state was only the beginning. Netanyahu's most recent stunt proves, beyond doubt, that Israel still acts as if it was their survival they have to ensure - all while they effectively occupy and oppress Palestinians. I can not name, not one nation which was struggling to survive but also managing to oppress and impose it's rule to whole other nation in the same time. The two notions, obvious contradiction is like matter and antimatter relation. That just can not stand together.

[RoofGardener]

7 minutes ago, Sir Smoke aLot said:

I was sure it was obvious. Sorry for the late answer.

Immigrants got their rights respected and native population was deprived of every human right. This includes right to land, to return, right to vote... By having territory one can have state. Without connected parts one can't have future (that's what 'green line' supposed to give to Israel). If you need deeper explanation then read below, i am not lazy to write :

we've talked about this, about how self determination for Jewish immigrants in Palestine was given to them, enshrined in 1947 plan and around green line....

And they gave THEMSELVES self-determination in 1948 when they declared the State of Israel. 

The Palestinians could have done the same thing, but they didn't exist at the time, because in 1948 they abruptly became Jordanians when Jordan invaded and annexed the West Bank permanently into the Kingdom of Jordan, and all future hope for a Palestinian state was snuffed out. They didn't seem to complain that much at the time. 

It was only in 1967 that Israel liberated the West Bank from Jordan, and the possibility of a future Palestinian State re-emerged. In retrospect, I think Israel would have preferred to leave the Jordanians in situ  

[Sir Smoke aLot]

7 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

And they gave THEMSELVES self-determination in 1948 when they declared the State of Israel. 

So you believe that it could have been achieved without world's nations? Then why was everything done to get US approval, which could not be gifted to Israel back then, it had to be partially earned back then and that's why Israel accepted some resolutions as BINDING to them at the time.

Diplomacy records prove this beyond doubt, you can not make a state out of thin air, for God's sake man.

[RoofGardener]

14 minutes ago, Sir Smoke aLot said:

So you believe that it could have been achieved without world's nations? Then why was everything done to get US approval, which could not be gifted to Israel back then, it had to be partially earned back then and that's why Israel accepted some resolutions as BINDING to them at the time.

Diplomacy records prove this beyond doubt, you can not make a state out of thin air, for God's sake man.

Oh yes you can  

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

5 hours ago, Sir Smoke aLot said:

you can not make a state out of thin air, for God's sake man.

you can also make a state out of thick air,, thick with smoke.  LOL

Then you will hear the Zionists claim foul.

[Sir Smoke aLot]

On 9/26/2019 at 3:36 PM, RoofGardener said:

Oh yes you can  

By disregard for every civilization norm, sure. But that wasn't the case with recognition of Israel anyhow.