the EU catches Israel off-guard regarding its illegal settlements

[DogOnPorch]

You've already said you advocate removing families including women and children from their homes. I believe you. It's disturbing...like this.

[GostHacked]

I advocate for removing the settlements from the occupied territories. Plain and simple.

Do you advocate removing the illegal settlements from the occupied territories?

[DogOnPorch]

I advocate for removing the settlements from the occupied territories. Plain and simple.

Do you advocate removing the illegal settlements from the occupied territories?

As soon as we remove Southern Ontario from Canada and give it back to the Natives.

Little red dress....

[GostHacked]

As soon as we remove Southern Ontario from Canada and give it back to the Natives.

Little red dress....

Yes little girls in red dresses to pull at heart strings.

Let's leave that aside for a moment and deal with the particulare issue of the internationally recognized illegal Isreali settlements in the West Bank. Gaza and the West Bank are now now on the path to be recognized as a soverign state by the UN and the international community. Any futher expansion is now considered an attack on a soveriegn state.

So let's stick with this issue, and if we make some headway there we can start comparisons to native lands in Canada and other land issues in the world. Each one has a different set of circumstances that we need to consider. Very important to look at the time frames in which all these take place.

The North American expansion took place when there was no world governing body to protect anyone. So heavy Europeean colonization and genocide of American Native populations took place.

Unlike modern Israel, there was no land 'bought', no real legal framework for that to happen. So it just did. The creation of Israel had to happen different with the newly formed League of Nations and then the eventual inception of the UN to mandate what goes on in the world. Or tries to anyways.

Different era, different situation. We can use it as a comparison, but we also need to understand what were the different circumstances that bought about each case.

But on another note of 'genocide' and 'ethnic cleansing'....Ethnic cleansing is happening in the West bank, as Isreali settlements are expanded along with the infrastucture to support those enclaves. While denying Palestinans the right to even build a simple shack to live in. Denying them the right to move freely about their own land. Two tiered infrastructure, one for Isrealis and one for Palestinians. Checkpoints everywhere. Papers please. Denying them the basic rights as humans, while blockading essential items from getting to these people to even give them a sense of civility.

Little Red Dress.

Someone think of the children!!!

[DogOnPorch]

Yes...and you'd be throwing the children from their homes.

[DogOnPorch]

Different era, different situation. We can use it as a comparison, but we also need to understand what were the different circumstances that bought about each case.

And there we have it. Ethnic cleansing is OK as long as it isn't you...the rules are different....DIFFERENT you say...lol.

[GostHacked]

Yes...and you'd be throwing the children from their homes.

Should be putting the blame on their parents for putting them in that situation.

[DogOnPorch]

Should be putting the blame on their parents for putting them in that situation.

Yes...on the left is Ghetto A...on the right...Ghetto B. I get it. You're fine with ethnic cleansing as long as it isn't you being cleansed.

[GostHacked]

And there we have it. Ethnic cleansing is OK as long as it isn't you...the rules are different....DIFFERENT you say...lol.

Typical Dog projection on something I never said. No evidence, like all your other claims against me. Even Rue is more balanced than you. And he is a Zionist!!!

[DogOnPorch]

Typical Dog projection on something I never said. No evidence, like all your other claims against me. Even Rue is more balanced than you. And he is a Zionist!!!

Rue and I often do not see eye to eye. Is this a surprise to you?

No evidence, like all your other claims against me.

Bonam and I BOTH called you out on your apparent support for ethnic cleansing.

GH: Yes I support it.

[GostHacked]

I support the removal of the illegal Isreali settlements in the occupied territories. That is not calling for 'ethnic cleansing'. Both you and Boman are out on this one. If what I am calling is for ethnic cleansing then the settlements themselves represent ethinc cleansing.

Even our staunch Zionist Rue admits the illegal settlements are a problem. If he can, you two surely can see the issue.

Yes the Palestinians need to give up terrorism, and recognize Israel. Yes Isreal needs to dismantal the illegal settlements.

Like debating with children here.

[GostHacked]

Hey Dog, what is your view on Isreal removing the Beduins from that one area? Was that ethinc cleansing?

Edited January 7, 2014 by GostHacked

[DogOnPorch]

Then you'll naturally want to support the complete dismantling of Canada since our cities, etc, are illegal and occupying Native land.

Yes the Palestinians need to give up terrorism, and recognize Israel.

Finally moved that goal post, eh? So...by rewarding terrorism you hope to get rid of terrorism? How will that work? How do you plan on getting Hamas, Fatah, Hezbollah, al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, Islamic Jihad, al-Qaeda to play along?

Hey Dog, what is your view on Isreal removing the Beduins from that one area? Was that ethinc cleansing?

The word is actually 'Israel'...and 'Bedouin'.

I understand they built without acquiring building permits. I think that is a must in any society. Try building in Canada w/o one. You'll be removed and your building torn down. Same should happen to the squatters in the WB who build w/o one.

[GostHacked]

Finally moved that goal post, eh? So...by rewarding terrorism you hope to get rid of terrorism? How will that work? How do you plan on getting Hamas, Fatah, Hezbollah, al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, Islamic Jihad, al-Qaeda to play along?

My goal posts never moved. I have been conistant in my stance from the start. I am not the one bringing red herrings into the conversation. And when I get you to clarify things, your double standard is easly displayed.

I understand they built without acquiring building permits. I think that is a must in any society. Try building in Canada w/o one. You'll be removed and your building torn down. Same should happen to the squatters in the WB who build w/o one.

Try building in the west bank without a permit from Israel. Jewish settlements good, Palestinian homes, bad. Systematic government sanctioned ethnic cleansing.

[DogOnPorch]

My goal posts never moved. I have been conistant in my stance from the start. I am not the one bringing red herrings into the conversation. And when I get you to clarify things, your double standard is easly displayed.

Try building in the west bank without a permit from Israel. Jewish settlements good, Palestinian homes, bad. Systematic government sanctioned ethnic cleansing.

Building permits are a good idea...as are inspections, etc. Prevents slums, etc. Arabs build w/o permit in the WB all the time. This is why a river of raw sewage runs from East Jerusalem to the Dead Sea. Not hooked into the sewage system. Permits, inspections and proper building codes prevent this in civilized regions like Canada.

You didn't answer the question as to how those of you promoting ethic cleansing of Jews from their homes in the West Bank is going to stop terrorism. Don't know? Don't really care? What's to stop the West Bank from being another Gaza...essentially a launching pad for missile attacks? Don't know?? Don't really care?

[Rue]

The popular and often repeated legal arguement advanced by the UN, International Red Cross, the U.S. and the world is that all Israeli activities in the West Bank are governed by the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949.

People assume this popular view must be right since the majority of the world says so.

Then again the majority of the world describes the West Bank as "occupied" by Israel when in fact the area of the West Bank was never part of a sovereign nation and so in fact is not "occupied" as in law, to be occupied, a land must first have been part of a sovereign nation.

However in the discussion on the West Bank, actual international law and political opinions are mixed together and made one and the same.

It is worth noting there is actually another side of the story and Israel does have a legal arguement although no doubt the majority of people on this forum believe politically Israel should not be on the West Bank and believe international law is black and white on the subject.

It is Israel's legal arguiement that it does not occupy the west Bank as it was never a sovereign nature and from a purely legal perspective they are correct. The decision to change the international legal definition of "occupation" has only been done with the West Bank issue. No other land in the world is defined as occupied if a nation takes it over but it was never a sovereign nation, only the West Bank. The actual legal definition is ignored and replaced for the sake of discussions as to the West Bank by the common layman use of the word occupation,

Then again the law has also been changed unilaterally to apply a legal definition to the Palestinian situation and that is with the definition of "refugee".

When the term "refugee" is applied in its legal sense to any displaced person from a civil war or conflict, it only applies to the actual displaced person once they have left their country seeking refuge from civil war or conflict. Its not applied to their children born outside the country they were citizens of and fled from.

In the case of the Israel-Palestine conflict, the term "refugee" was changed but only for those persons who are MUSLIM or CHRISTIAN and identify themselves as Palestinian. This would mean anyone who lives on the West Bank or in GAza today, anyone who claims to be descended from a Palestinian, and ANY Muslim or Christian who chooses to call themselves Palestinian. There is zero proof required as to status.

So the majority of people today born in Palestinian refugee camps who would not be considered refugees anywhere else in the world are considered to be refugees and the definition has been widened to include anyone who is not a Jew who identifies as being Palestinian.

Its important to keep in mind that on these two instances, the international law was unilaterally changed to apply a different standard for Palestinians and the West Bank because of popular political sentiment, not the application of law.

Most people on this forum assume that a political opinion that leads to the arbitrary changing and application of laws creating different standards for different people is acceptable as long as its for Palestinians.

The problem is this means all refugees of the world or all land possessed by nations that were never sovereign lands are treated differently than is the current state in the Middle East and this sets a legal precedent to challenge the arbitrary political imposition of a different application of law for Palestinians.

International law to be valid must be applied equally to all world citizens and not set up one set of laws for Palestinians and one for the remainder of the worlds' populations.

This has already led to inconsistency as to how refugees in Africa have been treated. One only need look to the war between Rwanda and Mali, the civil war in Sudan, the civil wars in Nigeria including Biafra, the civil wars in Liberia, Chad, Uganda, Niger, the former Spanish Sahara, or the treatment of refugees in East Timor or the former Yugoslavia to see the double standard of how all those refugees are not provided the same rights the world assumes anyone calling themselves Palestinian should be entitled from Israel.

To make this even more ironic, African economic refugees are trying to get into Israel demanding they seek asylum there for economic reasons and if Israel in fact did that, in theory it could turn itself black African and non Muslim creating an interesting dilemma for Mr. Abbas who today as I speak demands anyone who identifies as Palestinian without any proof, simply based on their say, the right to enter Israel, be given land title and citizenship not withstanding the creation of a seperate state on the West Bank.

Israel's arguement is that it does not occupy the West Bank but administers it. There is a large legal difference but for the purpose of this forum people automatically think the two are the same. In law they are not. In layman's languge it sounds like a semantical difference only.

However if the land was never sovereign and therefore is in fact administered the ;legal status of the people on the West Bank and Israel's legal obligations are quite different and despite the wide spread belief the west Bank is occuped, the fact remains and the law could not magically suspend reality-it can't be occuped, it was never sovereign and no a political opinion however popular can't change the law.

The Israeli government in fact set out legal memoranda from its Ministry of Foreign Affairs, arguing the territories did not belong to any sovereign State at the time Israel captured them during the 1967 war. That is a fact.

More to the point, Egypt did and has never claimed the Gaza Strip, and Jordan at one point attempted to annex and absorb the West Bank into the state of Jordan claimed the West Bank, but that annexation was deemed illegal by the UN and even more importantly, Jordan itself renounced the West Bank.

In fact there is no state today in the Arab world that wants the West Bank and neither does Israel.

Even the often quoted UN resolutions 242 and 338 on this forum, that called on Israel to withdraw from the West Bank, NEVER STATED thany other state has claimed sovereignty of the West Bank and this means in law, the West Bank has never been part of a sovereign nation let alone disputed by another nation as part of its own.

finished next post

[Rue]

It is Israel's contention that the 4th Geneva convention was only designed to apply to occupied nations not the situation on the West Bank and despite the UN asking in its resolutions that an exception me made to have it applied differently to the West Bank situation then it has in any other political conflict in the world-that this assumption it can simply because popular political opinion says it can be applied this way-is not a credible legal arguement.

What the UN now does is to ignore Article 2, and its second paragraph.

Now that is an interesting legal exercise. Just ignore what you don't like about an international law. In this case the world arbitrarily ignores the second paragraph of article 2, because if it did not the entire convention could not apply-so it just ignores that little technicality and presto the assumption from most on this forum that Israel has zero legal rights to anything on the West Bank.

The problem is popular political sentiment and I am the first to concede its wide spread in the world, does not change a law-it may place political pressure on Israel to do something for sure, but it does not change the law. If popular political opinion alone decided the legitimacy of laws that would create an unmangeable legal precedent. Popularity alone does not make a law legitimate for obvious reasons.

There are indeed arguements today that Article 1 can be read in a manner that allows it to ignore article 2 but in law, if article 2 was not intended to be applied it never would have been drafted. In law to state a part of that statute is not applicable because of the operation of another section in that law only applies if there is a specific provision allowing the one article to supercede the other. There is none in the 4th convention so this notion you just read what you want and ignore what you don't like is not how law works. That is how political selectivity works-you just read a law like the statute and only enforce those sections you like and ignore the rest-the problem is in actual law, you can't.

In fact it would be interesting if the world got together and agreed to rip up article 2 of the 4th Convention because until they do it doesn't poof go away because the majority of the world says so. In an international court despite popular political sentiment Judges would have their hands tied and they would state-go back and change the law, until you do, we can't magically ignore the law and apply one standard to Palestinians and one for the rest of the world.

As it now stands from a purely practical perspective, the demands for Palestinian return to Israel sound wonderful politically if you are Palestinian or anti Israel and anti Zionist, but in law, if you did that, you would have to allow anyone anywhere in the world who is a child or what we call legal issue (child, grandchild, great grandchild, etc.) the same right of return to countries they were never born in.

This legal notion there will be one law for the rest of the world and one to be applied against Israel may seem politically popular particularly if you are a Palestinian seeking selective treatment but it is not consistent. So when I hear people on this forum lecturing about unfair application of Israeli laws in regards to permits for building on the West Bank, I do note its from the same people who cry a double standard applying the law is wrong when it comes to discriminating for Israelis, but if its against them, no problem its morally o.k.

The international laws and how they apply to the West Bank are not as black and white as the simplistic formulas provided by certain persons on this forum who then attach smileys. sure in their world you can reduce a complex maze of legal issues into one smiley and one easy to understand assumption but the law does not work that way. Then again on this forum if someone tries to explain just how complex the legal issues are, the attention span required to read the explanation is soon giggled at.

The bottom line is at this time, 42% of the land on the West bank is being lived on by Israelis. Many of the new settlements being build today, will be used to move other Israeli settlers out from deeper inside the West Bank and closer to Israel.

Israel is preparing to resettle all its settles on about 20% of the West Bank closest to Israel.

It has no intention remaining on the other 80% and Jordan and Egypt already no its intentions and agree as does Saudi Arbia because none of these 4 nations wants extreme terrorists using the West Bank as a staging ground for attacks on any of their nations.

Hamas sealed its fate as an enemy of Egypt when it tried to assist Morsi violently impose its brand of Islam on the country,

Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood understimated the strength of the Egyptian Military.

as long as Iran and Iraq to the East, Syria and Lebanon to the North remain imbalanced Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Israel have no choice but to assure the West Bank or Hamas in Gaza both remain contained.

Turkey which also helped the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood and saw itself the champion of the Palestinians replacing Egypt is now facing its own

internal economic crisis and could very well see a coups d'etats there in the coming year or so.

The Iran, Syria, Lebanon axis is compig apart. Hezbollah finds itself for the first time, the target of mass unpopularity in its own country and in Turkey let alone Syria.

The fate of the West Bank has already come about through default. The new settlements going up are where Israelis are going to be moved to and the security walls are permanent for years to come-that is coming about because the practical reality is there is no other choice. Abbas will not renounce taking back Israel and never will. He has made that clear. Hamas, hezbollah and Fatah Hawks have made that clear as well.

Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan will impose a solution on the West Bank that will allow Israel defensible borders-its the only way to contain radical Shiite Islam as well as radical Sunni Islam for all these nations.

Will it be fair to Palestinians?

What will be fair to Palestinians is that they have a government that does not steal all its money for a few corupt Abbas cronies and does not see fatah Hawks taking its children captive. What will be fair to Palestinians is if they can get jobs, water, decent homes. Fair to Palestinians is food, water, shelter, a hopeful future for their children. Fair? Its a relative term and reality means it requires cooperation with Jordan and Israel and between Palestinians as much as it does between Israel and Palestine or the armchair experts on this forum who think its simply a black and white issue that can ignore the terrorists who exist.

Ah yes terrorists. Funny how no one discusses their implications and ignores them in such discussions.

[bud]

Then again the majority of the world describes the West Bank as "occupied" by Israel when in fact the area of the West Bank was never part of a sovereign nation and so in fact is not "occupied" as in law, to be occupied, a land must first have been part of a sovereign nation.

However in the discussion on the West Bank, actual international law and political opinions are mixed together and made one and the same.

besides every single country in the world, the international court of justice (ICJ) agrees that the west bank and east jerusalem are occupied territory.

the only country that rejects this is israel.

Edited January 8, 2014 by bud

[bud]

another european company boycotts israeli companies due to their ties with the illegal settlements:

Largest Dutch pension fund boycotts Israeli banks over settlement ties

PGGM cites policy of 'social responsibility' in decision to divest millions of euros from Israeli banks that have West Bank branches and offer financing for settlement construction.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/.premium-1.567548

Edited January 8, 2014 by bud

[Bonam]

Then again the majority of the world describes the West Bank as "occupied" by Israel when in fact the area of the West Bank was never part of a sovereign nation and so in fact is not "occupied" as in law, to be occupied, a land must first have been part of a sovereign nation.

...

The area of the West Bank may not have been part of a sovereign nation at the time that Israel gained control of it (although Jordan did claim ownership of the West Bank at the time), but your statement that it was *never* part of a sovereign nation is not true, as it was certainly part of the Ottoman Empire prior to the end of World War One. Your other point that no sovereign nation wants to claim ownership of the West Bank is of course true, Jordan certainly no longer wants it. However, the Palestinian Authority presumably wants the West Bank (among other things), and the UN has granted it the status of a (non-member) state.

Certainly the nonsensical sets of international laws that the UN nominally uses are unclear in many places, and a plausible legal argument can be made to support any position. Among other reasons, that's one reason I don't put much stock in such supposed "international law". More important is the reality of a situation, in this case the reality being that the West Bank is a region filled with millions of Palestinians who are hostile to Israel and have no desire to live under its administration. Furthermore, it is beneficial for Israel to distance itself as far as possible from the West Bank, interference in which only causes damage to its international image, costs lives and resources, etc.

The only real question is how to get from the current situation to the desired situation of an independent West Bank, and of course there are very real security concerns on Israel's part which remain to be addressed. And of course the repeated refusal of Palestinian leaders to accept realistic deals, always demanding more at the last second, has been an issue as well.

[DogOnPorch]

Yup...and well said. The removal of extremists from one's midst is #1 on the runway for both sides...but, perhaps more so with the known terrorist groups playing at being rational governments. I have a distinct feeling that Israel will become more moderate as the Arabs do likewise by eliminating Hamas, Hezbollah...yes, even Fatah. And anyone else who likes to carry military weapons openly. They can't have a Holocaust denier as a leader, for example, and see eye to eye with Israel. Acknowledgment of the transgressions of the Mufti who murdered so many Jews personally and really lit the fuse on this conflict should also be an issue. Perhaps a 'we're sorry'?? We do it all the time in Canada. It costs nothing and feels soooooooo good.

Likewise for Israel...more young people as leaders. Let the old warriors retire...get the Hasidim off their asses and working. It's not "rocket surgery" to rehash an old joke.

Edited January 8, 2014 by DogOnPorch

[Rue]

Back in 1899 and then 1907 two conferences were held by the League of Nations to discuss how to apoint judges to the International court.

Of course no one could agree on anything but a convention then arose creating what was called the+

" Permanent Court of Arbitration ".

Thjs convention stated each member nation of the League of Nations could moninate up to 4 four jurists to consider international laws and if need be serve as arbitrators.

Eventually the Permanent Court of International Justice evolved after World War I, and it was then decided the legal experts nominated named as potential arbitrators under the Hague convention would have the right to nominate candidates, and then the League of Nations would elect Judges from those names put forward as nominees.

The nomination of the nominees by other nominees was a step put in to supposedly circumvent government just being able to choose the Judges to then be passed for consideration.

This is the case today and so from the pool jurists already established in the Permanent Court of Arbitration or by similar groups specially constituted in countries not members of that court, comes the nominee names. There can be no more than 4 per country with only 2 from a country being able to be nominated at any given time and only 1 of those 2 being chosen.

So this list of jurors is sent to the UN and tobe elected to a judgeship on the international court, the Judicial Branch of the UN, the candidate must obtain an absolute majority in the Security Council and the General Assembly.

If more than one candidate of the same nationality obtains the required votes, (which rarely happens) the eldest of the 2 is elected and the other is not.

Now with that in mind consider this, how is this court going to remain politically unbias? Does this process sound fair? Basically the UN is electing Judges so the process necessarily is political and will always favour certain nations over others.

Toiday the UN is dominated by tyrants, dictators and the worst human rights offenders possible committing far worse things than any Israel and yet they Judge Israel.

Israel will never be dealt with fairly and never have an Israeli Judge elected, ever.

There is a clear apprehension of bias. Before the Judges are even appointed the UN has already passed non binding resolutions stating what the popular political views are and the Judges then elected just rubber stamp the views of their nations.

So why is it a surprise the International Court would do anything but rubber stamp the UN resolutions which are in fact politically based decisions not legal ones? This is not an application of law, its a rubber stamping of the majority political opinion of the UN.

So is the UN righteous? Is it the fair neutral moderator of world civility?

Really?

How is it the Chinese Armed Forces when they went into Lebanon and Syria as neutral observers in fact built train tracks for Hezbollah and set up missile systems for them?

How is it the UN Refugee Office in Ramalah and in Gaza has allowed its UN marked vehicles to transport weapons for terrorists as well as terrorists posed as injured people?

Why did the UN allow its buildings to be used to store Hezbollah and Hamas aresenal and be turned into dormitories for terrorists?

You call this neutral? Its a far cry from the days of Lester B. Peason winning the Nobel Peace prize for coming up with the idea of peace keeping forces. Its certainly not what the Canadian Army did in the Sinai. The Canadian Armed forces were respected by Beduins, Sinai Egyptians and Israelis for their impeccable behaviour and neutrality. Today? Well? Ask Romeo Dellaires what we were used for. Ask how our troops were told to look the other way as the innocent were massacered because of the blatant partisan politics of the UN. You want Israel to put its fate in the hands of the UN-the same UN that did nothing in Biafra, Sudan, East Timor, on and on and on?

Please tell me where was the League of Nations and then the UN after the holocaust when Elenor Roosvelt, Ambassador to the UN for the US was the only Ambassador and world representative to stand up and ask what happens to the Jews of Europe? Where was the UN? Did it show any concern for the millions of displaced and dispossed Jews as it does today for Palestinians?

Where was it? Well the majority of you will never ask that question nor do you give a damn but Israel and the Jews of Israel remember and I would contend we other Jews bloody well should remember? With the exception of Mrs. Roosevelt who single handedly battled the indifference of the UN and for that matter the US, no one gave a damn and then as in now Israel and Jews could not rely on the UN for survival.

Today the same UN says Israel should take down its security wall but remained silent when terrorists used the West Bank over 40 years to kill Jews.

Not a peep.

The same UN abandon and turned its backs on jews who fled to Israel after WW2 and found themselve surrounded by Arab nations armed and run by ex Nazis and the British regular armed forces and air force.

Its interesting to read the revision of how Israel came about to read as if it started the war. They were a bunch of homeless jews who fled to Palestine to join other Jews who were born there and Jews released from Russia by Stalin in an effort to buffer the British and German Nazis in the Middle East who took over the armed forces of Syria, Egypt, Iraq, Saudi Arabia.

The Jews were completely outnumbered and had few weapons but the revisionists described them as better armed, The few weapons they had came from the Czechoslovaks who supported them. They were joined by former soldiers from Western armies, some Christian and they were joined by Beduins, Druze and certain Muslims.

Certain Muslims donated land to them and were murdered for doing so.

Israel offered to accept a tiny kidney shaped piece of land, less than 6% of the original land earmarked for a Jewish state. Britain seized 980% of it illegally and created the Hashemite Palestinian Kingdom of Jordan making that Jew free in its constitution. That left only the West Bank and what is pre 1967 Israel.

Gaza was created by Egypt as an open air prison for Palestinians because it hated them and did not want them coming into Egypt.

Israel never declared war. It said we agree to a 2 state solution and we will take out tiny portion of land. The Aab League said they would not give one inch of land to a Jew and invaded claiming they would exterminate these Jews and the Mufti of Jerusalem a guest in a stolen Jewish home throughout WW2 in Berlin and a prime architect behind convincing Eichman to use mass wide spread gas to kill as many Jews as possible and his supposed nephew Yasir Arafat called for a new holocaust. They failed.

To this day n o one talks about that. They act as if Israeli jews just walked in from Europe as colonial oppressors when in fact they came fleeding colonial oppressors only to run into puppet Arab armies conrolled by these very same oppressors. Not a peep of the Nazi and British roles in trying to wipe out the Jews in the Middle East although Churchill before he died was very to the point about it and said the British never would or could understand why Jews would want a nation let alone back in the desert where they originated. He admitted in his memoirs the British liked, manipulated and tried everything to avoid a Jewish state but failed. Interestingly he himself was very blunt and antiseptic about it saying he did not hate Jews and wwas only doing at the time what was ordered by his foreign affairs office and in retrospect he may have done other things.

The International Court? The UN? Where were they for Jews? Where have they been when Israel has been repeatedly attacked by terrorists? They have remained forever silent. So you really expect Israel to trust them?

You really think Israel gives a sh..t what the world thinks if it means exposing itself to extermination?

Israel wants peace. Its courts openly have criticized settlements on the West Bank repeatedly. So has the IDF and politicians but do you really think any Israeli will agree to a two state solution that means terrorists can continue attacking them as soon as they leave?

You really think that? They withdrew from Gaza and Hamas has used Gaza ever since as a staging ground for attacks. They left Lebanon and Hezbollah who said they would disarm and would only remained armed if Israel stayed in Lebanon lied and attaced Israel the moment they withdrew and now attack Syria in direct contravention of international law. Hamas openly contravenes international law and yet the world says to Israel agree to borders that expose you to continued attacks from international criminals or we will call you an international criminal...really?

You think Israel cares about world opinion? They do on one level, but they can't on another because to do that would second guess their right to exist as a Jewish people and they will not do that. They will not apologize for choosing life and a collective.

This is why I say, sure its a no brainer. If Palestinians genuinely want peace and would disarm their terrorists, it would make good sense to get the hell out. That can not happen right now. The cold hard reality is the terrorists are going nowhere and as long as they refuse to disarm and give up their mantra to dismantle Israel no peace can come about.

In that respect they are no different then the IRA. Until terrorists are disarmed, no meaningful talks can take place.

The entire world expects Israel to return to unsafe borders where terrorists can continue to attack them. Britain never did, Israel never will either.

Edited January 9, 2014 by Rue

[DogOnPorch]

Israel never declared war. It said we agree to a 2 state solution and we will take out tiny portion of land. The Aab League said they would not give one inch of land to a Jew and invaded claiming they would exterminate these Jews and the Mufti of Jerusalem a guest in a stolen Jewish home throughout WW2 in Berlin and a prime architect behind convincing Eichman (sic) to use mass wide spread gas to kill as many Jews as possible and his supposed nephew Yasir Arafat called for a new holocaust. They failed.

A few more words on the Mufti...

-Ran Hitler's Arab Bureau which broadcast Nazi propaganda to the Middle East via shortwave.

-Had a 50,000 RM monthly stipend from the SS beyond his regular salary for being an SS Major-General.

-Had more than one mansion...his main HQ in Germany when not in Berlin was Oybin...a small city in Saxony near the (then former) Czech border.

-Personal friend of Heinrich Himmler...Himmler taught him grouse hunting. Also friends with Eichmann but more on a 'business level'.

-Said to have gassed a load of Jews at Auschwitz-Birkenau personally...had a stronger stomach than Himmler.

-Indeed convinced the Axis minor nations...along with Eichmann's help...to send their Jews to Poland rather than deporting them to Turkey (and beyond).

-Had plans to conduct a terrorist attack on Haifa using nerve agents but the Luftwaffe couldn't spare the aircraft.

-Formed the largest SS unit of WW2, the 13th SS Handshar (scimitar) Mountain division. An all Muslim unit with German officers.

-Formed numerous other SS auxiliary divisions...some all Muslim like the 369th Croat Devil's Division...notorious for its anti-partisan offensives.

-Father of the Palestinian Cause.

Members of the 13th SS learning some details of their duties.

Edited January 9, 2014 by DogOnPorch

[bud]

typical. even the opinion of well-respected international jurists are considered to be anti-semite, because they go against the zionist viewpoint and criticize israel.

the international court of justice has put to rest (outside of israel) how international law applies to the occupied territories - this is one of the reason why the EU is taking action against any company that associates with the illegal jewish settlements:

* The construction of the wall being built by Israel, the occupying Power, in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem, and its associated régime, are contrary to international law

* Israel is under an obligation to terminate its breaches of international law; it is under an obligation to cease forthwith the works of construction of the wall being built in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem, to dismantle forthwith the structure therein situated, and to repeal or render ineffective forthwith all legislative and regulatory acts relating thereto, in accordance with paragraph 151 of this Opinion

* Israel is under an obligation to make reparation for all damage caused by the construction of the wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem

* All States are under an obligation not to recognize the illegal situation resulting from the construction of the wall and not to render aid or assistance in maintaining the situation created by such construction; all States parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of 12 August 1949 have in addition the obligation, while respecting the United Nations Charter and international law, to ensure compliance by Israel with international humanitarian law as embodied in that Convention

source: http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/131/1677.pdf

[Rue]

Bonam the area known as Palestine was never formally a part of the Ottoman empire or annexed by it. check it out for yourself

Palestine was never a foreign nation nor was it ever created as part of a foreign nation.Portions of it were most certainly occupied by many empires including the Ottoman one for periods of time but known of these empires exists anymore to contest soverignty and that is precisely the point. Even if you could argue the Ottoman Empire annexed Palestine which it never did, that Empire no longer exists. The current Turkish regime never claimed to have inherited Palestine as part of its nation or claim it as part of its nation.

The former Ottoman empire never claimed Palestine as a region or province or formerly annexed it. The Turks of the Ottoman had little if anything in common with the Arab peoples of the Arabian peninsula. In fact the Arab peoples to this day resent and do not trust the Turks because of their treatment by the Ottoman Empire which was considered a brutal foreign invader.

What did happen at once point is that the Sultan of the Ottoman Empire awarded land titles of parcels of land in parts of Palestine to his cronies but they were figure heads. There was no formal system to enforce any ownership. They were supposed to be able to tax people moving in and out of Palestine working their land but farming was sporadic and not organized by any means.

Farming never became organized until Zionist settlers came. Until then the Beduin peoples who would travel in and about the region were not stationary farmers. They were goat herders. They are people who would move from Morrocco on one end to Pakistan on the other if they had to. They had a tradition of constantly moving like their goats following an ancient path that some say is deep within the code of their dna. At least they say that. The Beduins say borders mean nothing to them. Their souls they say, go where the wind goes.

If what you said was true, Turkey would have by now been able argue the West Bank belongs to it and then argue Israel occupies and should give it back to them so they can formally let it seperate. They have never made that arguement preciselyt because it was never part of their country.

In fact there was never any definitive boundary for what Palestine was. That's just a name for a geographic region that was never formally part of any country until the British and French came in and imposed borders through the Picot agreement which blatantly violated international law and has been contested by Syria and Lebanon to this day.

The geographic zone called Palestine never had a definitive border. Its reference to land constantly changed depending on who used it and when. It roughly included parts or all of Jordan, the West Bank, pre 1967 Israel, chunks of Syria and Lebanon.

France and Britain took 90% of it to create Lebanon, Syria and Jordan. Jordan is 85% of the land.

Britain and France unilaterally in direct contravention of Britain's mandate under the League of Nations. mandate to create a Jewish state deliberately lied to the League of Nations and then unilaterally created a muslim Palestinian state in Jordan and two woudl be French colonial puppet regimes in Syria and Lebanon.

It was the British and French with the Picot agreement who ripped up the agreement between Arabs and Jews so as to thwart a peaceful Jewish-Arab alliance with two states living side by side one jewish one Muslim.

Britain and France stabbed Faisal in the back. They lied to him saying the Zionists would after getting their country invade his. Faisal believed them and ripped up his agreement with the Zionists and the very next day was arrested byt he French in Damascus and deported.

Faisal realized he had been lied too and threatened a war. So to placate him his two sons were delcared Kings of puppet monarchies in Iraq and Jordan then later Saudi Arabia was awarded to the rest of the remaining Faisal clan. This was all to control oil.

Sorry but you are wrong. Palestine was never part of the Ottoman Empire. The absentee land ownership titles never defined it as part of the Ottoman Empire, just protectorate land.

There are no existing nations that ever defined the West Bank as part of their country other than Jordan who annexed the West Bank but then divested themselves of it.

Edited January 9, 2014 by Rue