Israel admits: Just 0.7% of West Bank allocated to Palestinians

The only way Israel will become secular is if all Christians and Jews give up their faith in God and become atheist. So your fighting a loosing battle there.

 

No I havent been claiming that. But for that matter should the UK abide by UN resolutions?

What property and what crime? How can hundreds of thousands of people whove lived there for generations be committing a crime?

Um no they supported international law, particularly the UN charter. And it wasnt unprovoked.

- - - Updated - - -

You cant repatriate to a land youve never even seen.

 

At some point in the future, the US will no longer be able to protect Israel. Then the ill will it has built up with its neighbors will be visited on its people. The Israelis will be treated as they have treated others.

 

You haven't? LOL You accused UN resolution of grand larceny. Oh and the UK does not abide by international law and UN resolution, even though it's not surrounded by 23 states committed to wipe you off the map. You know that as well as I do. Why don't you set an example before justifying Arab violations and attacking Israel.

Unprovoked invasion, Jordan,Lebanon, Egypt, Iraq, sending troops across the border into foreign land not only without a UN mandate but in order to directly thwart the implementation of a UN resolution now qualifies as support of international law. LOL, coming from you I am not particularly surprised though.

Well, that's nice to know, I presume you will never argue in support of Palestinian pseudo-refugees, right? 99% of them have never set foot in Israel, you know

 

Let's simply look at the applicable definitions of repatriate and immigrate.

Both of these definitions relate to the "person" and not to their ancestors. A person can be repatriated if, for whatever reason, they are removed or leave their country of origin. A person can also immigrate from their country of origin to another country. The non-Jewish refugees from "Israel" have long demanded that they be allowed to repatriate. The European Zionist Jews that moved to Palestine were immgrants as they were born and were citizens of their country of birth in Europe.

No partition and confiscation are not the same nor have I ever implied that.

Partition based upon individious criteria is unaccepable, period. The partition of Palestine into a Jewish and non-Jewish nations would still have been wrong as it would have merely created two separate tyrannical nations.

The confiscation of property for nefarious reasons and without compensation is a violation of the inalienable Right to Property.

I am not confusing the Rights of the People with the tyranny of any group whether they are a majority or a minority.

Protecting the Inalienable Rights of the People, all People, is the only rational basis for government to exist. Tyranny is a violation of the Inalienable Rights of the Person regardless of who commits it.

International law is established by treaty agreements where the signatories voluntarily agree to abide by the conditions of the treaty. Israel is a treaty member of both the United Nations and the Geneva Conventions and Israel, by being a treaty members, as established both (i.e. the UN Charter and the provisions of the Geneva Conventions) as international law that it will comply with.

No, I don't confuse utopia with reality. I live in the United States which is dedicated to the ideal established by our Declaration of Independence:

Utopia would actually be a society where no Person violated the Inalienable Rights of another Person by acts of aggression and were government wasn't required at all.

In the United States we're doing the best we can but even with government the extensive violations of the inalienable Rights of the Person remain the most critical concern for America today. Racism is rampant for example as well as anti-gay discrimination and both violate the ideals upon which America was founded. Government based upon protection of the inalienable Rights of the Person (regardless of their religion, race, ethnic background, sexual orientation, or other invidious criteria) is a pragmatically addressing reality, even though we continue to fail, and does not reflect utopian beliefs.

 

OKay then, don't miscontrue this as an agreement with your views but at least we can close the book on pseudo-palestinian refugees. When the last one born before 1948 dies they will have absolutely no "right of return", or right to any kind of compensation, at least according to your standards.

LOL, the idea that inalienable Rights of Jewish Persons would not be violated in Arab/muslim majority country is as much a utopia as what you describe.

LOL, nonsense. This is your personal non-existent issue, this is not America's concern, let alone the most critical one.

 

Indeed I did, that doesnt mean Im against all UN resolutions. Was that too nuanced for you?

Why should I set an example? In any case do you think the UK should abide by UN resolutions?

It was in support of the actual charter, which is much more important. And UN resolutions are quite capable of being against international law dont you think?

No the Palestinian refugees werent psuedo refugees they were real refugees. But indeed no I wouldnt argue for all their return. Never have. This proves my position is credible and reasonable - which is why it will now be ignored.

 

Are you thus saying that descendents of Palestinian refugees have no rights but Jewish people no matter where theyve been born were somehow different?

On what basis do you say this?

 

Speaking of refugees and, I am giving one example here for I am busy doing something else... there were 16 million refugees between Pakistan and India 8 million in each direction... no one complained so far no UNRA was created for them.

Here we have 450,000 that left at the behest of Arab leaders, crowns themselves refugees and their progeny has turned into refugees. You are pointing the crooked finger of indignation towards Israel when I am practically sure Israel had no hand in the matter... Now there are evil people in every country of the world, that does not mean Israel is at fault. My slogan today is the following <All Muslims are not terrorists, but ALL TERRORISTS are Muslims>... There must be something in the water they are drinking.

As to my little country Caroline Glick writes :

Column One: Israel: The happy little country
Caroline B. Glick

The Jerusalem Post, April 18, 2013


Prime Minister Netanyahu at Singing Independence, April 16, 2013.
(Photo: Amos Ben-Gershom/GPO)

As Independence Day celebrations were winding down Tuesday night, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu made a guest appearance on Channel 2&#8217;s left-wing satire show Eretz Nehederet. One of the final questions that the show&#8217;s host Eyal Kitzis asked the premier was how he would like to be remembered after he leaves office.

Netanyahu thought a moment and said, &#8220;I&#8217;d like to be remembered as the leader who preserved Israel&#8217;s security.&#8221;

On the face of it, Netanyahu&#8217;s stated aspiration might seem dull. In a year he&#8217;ll be the longest-serving prime minister in the state&#8217;s history, and all he wants is to preserve our national security? Why is he aiming so l ow? And yet, the studio audience reacted to Netanyahu&#8217;s modest goal with a thunderclap of applause.

After pausing to gather his thoughts, a clearly befuddled Kitzis mumbled something along the lines of, &#8220;Well, if you manage to make peace as well, we wouldn&#8217;t object.&#8221; The audience was silent....


Click here for the complete article, or copy and paste this link into your web browser:
http://www.unitycoalitionforisrael.org/news/?p=9277

 

LOL, of course not, you pick and choose. And next moment you turn around and blame others for doing what you are doing. Was not too nuanced at all, was too hypocritical and intellectually dishonest - you support international law...as long as you agree with it and feel free to violate it when you disagree. Yuck.

Your country actually. Because you keep bleating about a speck in someone else's eye, how about that huge ugly log that's in your own country's?

If it and its citizens like you want to retain the right to criticize others for non compliance, then yes. See my previous statement about a speck and a log for more info.

Right, they invaded a foreign land in order to prevent a UN resolution from being implemented, captured and annexed foreign land in support the actual charter...Do you seriously believe in the nonsense you are spewing or you think you are clever and fooling others?

On the basis of Shiva's claim of course that because some Jews were not born in Palestine they had no right to "repatriate". Based on this logic Palestinian pseudo-refugees who were not born in Israel (probably 99% of them and growing) have no right of return to Israel either.

 

Of course I pick and choose which UN resolutions I agree with. If I didnt, then I would end up supporting whatever came out. For example if a resolution came out that the moon is made of cheese I would have to support that - do you think I should support it?

If you want to have a debate about Britains role in the Palestine Mandate I have extensive evidence and research to provide. Lets have the discussion. But Im not sure thats what we're discussing is it? But yes, I am entirely against Britain's Balfour declaration, as Im sure you are too.

So youre saying that the UK should abide by UN resolutions, which ones? And as such does that mean that Israel should to?

Yes, to prevent ethnic cleansing already going on and in support of the actual charter of the UN, have you even read it?

I agree, so we can both be certain that there is no case for repatriation of either Jews or descendents of palestinian refugees to Israel or the old mandate Palestine or whatever. The logic is entirely spurious, we can both finally agree on that cant we?

 

That's also known as hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty. You have no moral right to demand others to support "all" UN resolutions including those that go against your interests and your beliefs when you yourself don't.

Not really, only if the UK and its citizens want to retain moral right to criticize others for non-compliance. But the UK does not comply with UN resolutions and international law so it and its citizens should better S.T.F.U about alleged non-compliance of others. It's not easy to find a more hypocritical double-standard stance than yours.

So predictably you can't quote a single international law or UN resolution permitting Arab countries to invade neighbors on whatever pretense...let alone annexing foreign lands which was exactly what they ended up doing in 1948. Case closed, The Arab world is guilty as charged of illegal invasion, attempted genocide and acquisition of land by force.

Did I ever say I agreed with that? LOL I said that was your and Shiva's logic based on which you "lost" the right of return. Abbas and Hamas would be pissed at you guys if they were aware of your existence and your undermining their trump card

 

Apparently as a non Jew, you miss the point.

JEWS WERE UPROOTED FROM THEIR 'PATRIMONY' BY THE ROMANS AND THEY RESERVE THE RIGHT OF RETURN TO REBUILD IT.

1)Explain something here why do you consider that Israel has taken the Land from the Arabs, when Jordan sits on 77% of the so called Palestine Mandate?

2)Explain this little one phase of the <give and take> you logically consider that Palestine is Arab but <JUDEA> could perhaps be Jewish?

3)Explain why an Arab can visit Tel Aviv and Haifa while a Jew who lost his way to another destination is lynched in Ramallah, Nablus and Schem, and it is Israel that you accuse of apartheid?

4)Explain why it is normal that Arabs could live in Israel but unthinkable that a single Jew could live in an Arab Town?

5)Explain why is it that after Israel took Gaza from Egypt , Judea and Samaria from Jordan that you started called them <occupied Territories> <Arad al Muhtalla>?

6)Explain here why the Arabs never found the 'presence of mind' to create an Arab State in these territories when they were under Arab dominion.

7)Explain once and for all why you avoid to answer these <seven> questions... you are fearing perhaps that your backing of the Arab cause against Israel might be just another humane expression of your disguised anti Semitism?

Translated from Alain Legaret 3/15/13

 

I havent demanded any such thing. I think UN resolutions should be presented to the ICJ first to see if they hold up against its own charter. Are you saying that if a UN resolution declares the moon to be made of cheese that should be supported?

So UK citizens, given their wish to criticise others, should make sure their country always complies with international law. Im in complete agreement with that.

So we can agree that both Israelis and British people, given their wish to criticise others, should make sure their country always complies with international law. We are in complete agreement are we not?

Sure I can, the UN charter, the basis of international law. Protection of human life etc, self determination of peoples etc. Indeed the case is now closed.

Perhaps Abbas and Hamas would be pissed at us, so what?

We can both be certain that there is no case for repatriation of either Jews or descendents of palestinian refugees to Israel or the old mandate Palestine or whatever. The logic is entirely spurious, we can both finally agree on that cant we?

What exactly is your logic here?

 

There is no point to miss. Nothing was stolen and no jew has automatic right to anything. Just like I dont have any right to lands in europe from which my ancestors came.

Probably to do with all the refugees, the bulldozed villages, and actual emptied houses moved in to, farms taken over etc etc.

Why would it be jewish?

Is Scotland now Irish?

Probably because in general Israelis like you dont just want to visit but to take it over and call it Israel.

Probably because in general Israelis like you dont just want to visit but to take it over and call it Israel.

Probably because in general Israelis like you just want to take it over and call it Israel. And you occupy it.

They did. The British prevented them.

I have answered these questions and am willing to discuss each point respectfully and in detail. I hereby promise not to miss any point of contention and to discuss everything and anything you wish. Are you?

 

Your answers are <baseless> and repetitive, you are a waste of my good time... carry on with the others, I will reserve the right to retort when your <outlandish> thinking becomes unbearable. Bye.

 

HBendor how about you just leave us all alone? Clearly you dont want a discussion with us.

 

WITH US????????????????????????????????

Who died and elected you the <Porte Parole> of this Forum?????????? hmmmmmmmm

Ref. Scotland being Irish???????????????

BTW just to correct a <lapsus calami> The word JUDEA signify JEW... Open a dictionary, best yet, open a book and educatwe yourself.

 

As it relates to "Repatriation" that is technically correct but this is also an acknowledgement that Israel violated the Rights of well over 400,000 people by refusing them the "Right to Return" subsequent to the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. It is also an acknowledgement that the "Zionist" claim that the Jews have an ancient inherent Right to Palestine is also false. So lets sum this up:

1. Only non-Jews that were residents of the Israeli Territory when Israel was formed have an inherent Right of Return.
2. Israel violated the Right of Return for over 400,000 non-Jews and that was an act of tyranny by the Zionist controlled Israeli government.
3. European Jews had no Rights related to Palestine nor do Jews have any historical claim to Palestine.

This does no apply to the Right of Property as Property Rights are inherited. There is literally no difference between Rights of Jews that had property wrongfully confiscated property from their parents or grandparents during WW II seeking compensation in the European courts than there is for the Rights of non-Jews to be able to have recourse to an unbiased court to seek compensation for wrongfully confiscated property from their parents or grandparents by Israel. Only a hypocrite would state that the European Jews have a Right of Compensation related to property losses in Europe during WW II but non-Jews don't have this identical Right related to Israel.

If a country is established based upon criteria such as religion, race, ethnic heritage or other invidious criteria that creates a division between the People then there will always be an inherent violation of the Rights of those that are not a part of the group upon which the nation was established. This is just as true for Israel as it is for Muslim nations. Israel is inherently tyrannical just as Muslim nations are inherently tyrannical. There is no difference between the two.

The only way to eliminate the inherent tyranny is to eliminate all invidious criteria in the nation so that all People are identical under the law. There cannot be a national preferential group defined by government. The people of a nation need to be unified and not divided by government which is not the case in either Israel or the Muslim nations.

Justifying the tyranny of Israel based upon the tyranny of Muslim nations is an invalid argument as tyranny cannot be used to rationalize tyranny.

Sadly most people are very shallow in their political beliefs but that doesn't imply that a serious problem doesn't exist. Denial of equality of opportunity based upon bigoted prejudice in the United State is actually the core problem we face but most Americans don't realize it. Most people tend to look at the "effect" and not the "cause" of a problem. For example we have high black crime rates and high dependancy on social welfare for blacks in America today. We also have documentation from a scientific survey that 56% of Amerricans have anti-black explicit racial prejudice that results in denial of equality of opportunity (racial discrimination) in employment for African-Americans. African-Americans, on the average, only receive 60% of the compensation for the identical job performed by a white American, are less likely to be promoted, and suffer about 2 1/2 times the unemployment rate when compared to a white American. If we eliminated the discrimination against African-Americans in the United States then it would dramatically reduce "black crime" as well as dramatically reducing the welfare assistance required by African-Americans. It would also lead to stronger African-American families as poverty is the most identifiable reason for the break-up of families.

Cause and effect is not well understood by most people. They address the "effect" without considering the cause.

Israel faces this same problem. The people of Israel seem to be ignoring the "cause" behind their conflict with Palestinians which is tyranny by the Zionist controlled Israeli government. They address the "effect" which is a hatred of Israel, terrorist attacks, and the external threat to the very existiance of Israel but fail to address the fact that it is the tyranny of Israel that is creating the problem. They look at the "effect" without looking at the "cause" behind it.

Personally I have no problem with Jews wanting to live in "Israel" or "Palestine" but I have serious objections to a Jewish State of Israel and a Muslim State of Palestine and both represent tyrannical governments. I would have far rather seen the principles expressed in Article 22 of the League of Nations Covenant fulfilled where a State of Palestine was created without any invidious criteria and where ALL Palestinians were :"equal" regardless of their religion, race, ethnic heritage or other invidious criteria was used in the creation of government. Sadly Great Britian failed miserably in its role as Mandatory when it had adminstrative authority over Palestine and actually encouraged the invidious division of Palestines into "Jews" and "non-Jews" starting with the British Mandate for Palestine.

Then again Great Britian failed miserably related to its colonialism and many problems in the world today can be traced to Great Britian in addition to Palestine. It should come as no surprise to anyone that Britian failed as the Mandatory over Palestine considering it failed virtually everywhere else as well. Great Britian, moreso than the Jews and Arabs, is responsible for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict today as it divided the People as opposed to uniting them when it was the Mandatory.

Cause and Effect.

 

So in other words every country has a right to ignore UN resolutions and you see nothing wrong with that, right?

We will be in complete agreement when all these anti-Israel voices, whether Arabic (like Abu) or European like you put their money where their mouth is, S.T.F.U and clean up their own act before they have the gall to open their mouths and criticize others.

So any invasion of any country by any country is completely legal if the invading country claims self-determination, protection of human rights etc...and this justifies annexation as well, right?

 

Without agreeing with your statement, virtually all of them are dead today so the point is academic. Do you agree that based on your own theory the right of return demanded by their descendants who never set foot in Israel is absurd?

Don't write a dissertation, a simple yes or no will suffice.

 

It's universally recognized that Isaeli arabs have more rights in Israel than they do in Arab countries, that they are no worse off than in France, the UK and elsewhere. That said no one frankly gives a flying f*ck about your utopian theories. People wanted to live normal lives, not sacrifice them on the altar of fantasies of some anonymous blogger half a century and half the world away, cavalierly spewing utopian garbage in his safe boring neighborhood as his personal risk and his personal sacrifice if things don't go according to his "dreams" is zero.

In the real world Jews and Arabs needed to be separated to protect their inalienable Rights, grant both peoples self-determination, avoid tyranny, persecution, never ending civil war. You don't live in the real world so you probably don't care about its realities but others do and no amount of wishful thinking and utopian nonsense can change these facts of the ground.

PS 99% of countries on the planet are established based upon criteria such as religion, race, ethnic heritage or other invidious criteria. Why don't you change them first, why this obsession with Israel?

 

If the resolution contravenes international law and the UN charter then yes most definitely. You agree with me right?

Isnt that a stupid thing to say? Shouldnt you therefore S.T.F.U. while you get busy cleaning up your own act in Khazakstan? Why are you here talking to me, cricitising palestinians when you should therefore be cleaning up your own act there?

If the UN wont stop a civil war, as it couldnt back then, then someone has to. Nowadays the UN can do such things. As for annexation, I dont agree with that but whats your problem with it when you repeatedly tell us that Jordan is Palestine?

 

Yes, so does that mean we can agree that the idea of repatriation of jews whod never set foot in Palestine was/ is also absurd or does your logic only apply to arabs?

 

It's not up to you or me to decide which resolution contravenes international law. You agree with me right? Unless there is an explicit ruling by qualified international body declaring a UN resolution to be in violation of international law we have to either take them all at face value or ignore them. You agree with me, right? Countries are not expected to take the views of anonymous ignorant biased bloggers into account when deciding whether they need to comply with UN resolutions or not. You agree with me, right? LOL

LOL oh but I don't criticize the Arabs about their violation of UN resolutions. It's the mantra of Islamofascists of all stripes to criticize others for non-compliance etc, while they don't notice a huge ugly log in their own eye. I merely point out the utter hypocrisy of the anti-Israel mob. This thread is illuminating, your ilk spends half of it arguing that Arabs have no reason to comply with international laws and UN resolutions unfavorable to them ... and the other half criticizing Israel for not complying. And on top of that this is done by citizens of countries like the UK which have broken every international law in the book in the last 20 years.

So any country on the planet can decide to send armies across the border and join a civil war on whatever side it prefers, right? And you believe it's totally legal and the country is entitled to annex the land it "liberates" from the civil war. LOL