Israel to let more building materials into Gaza. WHY ??

This is actually backward because if the US policies were not pro-Zionist in 1948 then Israel would not have existed at all. Remember that the Israeli Declaration of Independence violated the lawful authority of the United Nations over Palestine. Had the UN acted without pro-Israeli support then the UN would have immediately dispatched troops to crush the Jewish uprising and would have supported the Arab nations that attemtped to suppress the rebellion agianst UN authority.

It was the "pro-Zionist" agenda of the West that created the problem in Palestine today and that actually goes back to the British Mandate for Palestine which was outside of the scope of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations and in violation to it's provisions related to territories of the former Turkish Empire. Great Britian had one role and one role only related to Palestine and that was to bring a "modern government" to the existing residents of that territory under Article 22. It had no authority to "give away Palestine" to European Jews.

 

That support fell far short of military intervention and even aid was limited. My grandfather played a minor role were stopped by the U.S. Navy from sending some freighters loaded with surplus arms and supplies from Texas to Israel when the war there started. The U.S. hardly supplied a lot of support outside of political rhetoric.

This is a selectively spun narrative that leaves out a lot, not to mention the UN never exercised any 'lawful authority' after the British abandoned the region to begin with, having no troops and doing nothing to prevent Arab armies from invading and massacring Jews and other Arabs supporting them, and invaded with British generals heading their planning and military support, artillery and the like. This is a fake argument, and a distortion of the facts on the ground.

This is nonsense. Hatred of Jews was and is the 'problem'.

Britain didn't 'give away' Palestine, they abandoned Jews to be genocided by Arab armies, as did the UN, and the British clandestinely supported those Arab armies illegally themselves.

 

Shiva_TD; et al,

OK, I'll bite!

(COMMENT)

How did "the Israeli Declaration of Independence violated the lawful authority of the United Nations over Palestine?" Israel declared independence IAW the implementation of the UNPC.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

While the worst place is arguably the Occupied Territories of the Golan Heights, West Bank, and E Jerusalem where they are subjected to the tyranny of the Israeli military and anti-Muslim discrimination and oppression.

We can also argue that had Great Britian followed the actual directives of Article 22 of the Convanent of the League of Nations that the Arabs in all of Palestine (including the territory occupied by Israel) should have been the best place in the Arab world. There is no question whatsoever that "Palestine" would have been far better off without the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that the British initiated with the Mandate for Palestine. European Jews had no claim to Palestine as a "homeland" because it was already the homeland of the Palestinian People (that included the Arab majority plus Jews, Christians and others) that lived there in 1922.

 

they aren't 'occupied territories'. Hamas and the PA exercise authority over their own people, and Jordan handed over administrative authority over the West Bank to Israel a long time ago. There is no legal 'Jew Free Zone'; Jews have as much right to settle there as Arabs do. The double standards re Israel and Jews here is hilarious. The UN is a joke, and has zero credibility on anything; they've never once prevented a war there, and they've never once condemned Arab gangsters and their murder sprees. Only antisemites would pay any attention to UN resolutions re the ME, or much of anywhere else, really. The majority of the membership are dictators on one sort or another, hardly shining role models for 'Peace and Justice'.

 

nice job disregarding the UN Charter and the 4th Geneva Conventions.

when Neo-Zionists disregard all international law, they render their views and opinions to be null & void.

 

Nice job avoiding the reality that the UN doesn't live up to its charter, and of course does nothing worth mentioning re 'Peace and Justice'. The International Court isn't any better, at least to those who know how its 'Justices' are picked.

Which international law prohibits Jews from settling in the West Bank? Neo-Nazis seem to think there is one.

 

strawman, as no one has made such a claim.

but there is an international law that bans Israel from confiscating private property in Occupied Territory, and using it for civilian settlement.

 

So no 'international law' claiming the West Bank is some sort of Jew Free Zone then. I didn't think so. Speaking of strawmen, the 'private property' rubrick is one, as is continuing to refer to the West Bank as 'Occupied Territory'.

Who passed this 'Law', or is it just some worthless UN 'resolution' being passed off as a 'Law'? Is there an International Court case that ruled this?

 

the 4th Geneva Convention, which Israel signed, says an Occupying Power may only confiscate private property for purely security and military purposes.

 

To claim that the Israeli military is not in the West Bank, East Jerusalem, or that it doesn't routinely invade Gaza is a blatant lie.

We can also note that while Jordan did exercise adminstrative control over the West Bank the West Bank was never a part of Jordan and did not belong to Jordan anymore that the fact that "Palestine" never belonged to Great Britian when it was that Mandatory. A territory belongs to the residents of the territory and to no one else.

As for the settling of the territories occupied by the Israeli military in 1967 Article 49 of the Geneva Conventions, a treaty agreement between nations that Israel is a party to, expressly establishes the prohibition agianst a nation in military occupation of terrotory outside of it's internationally recognized nation boundries, to allow civilian immigration to that territory. The Geneva Converntions establish International Law and Israel, in allowing Jewish immigration, is in direct violation of International Law that it voluntarily agreed to comply with. The Jewish civilian occupation of the Golan Heights, West Bank, and E Jerusalem are actually War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity under International Law.

Sorry but the Israeli propaganda fails even based upon basic examination because Israel is in violation of the treaties, including both the Geneva Conventions treaty and the UN Charter treaty, that it has voluntarily entered into in the past.

 

Now, where is the evidence that 'private property' was confiscated for civilian use? Any tax rolls to back this up, or is just the usual hearsay and anecdotal assumptions?

 

And yet not a single case has been filed before the International Court on any of this Since 1967. Fascinating.

 

In February 2008, the Civil Administration stated that the land on which more than a third of West Bank settlements was built had been expropriated by the IDF for "security purposes."[117] The unauthorized seizure of private Palestinian land was defined by the Civil Administration itself as 'theft.'[118] According to B'Tselem, more than 42 percent of the West Bank are under control of the Israeli settlements, 21 percent of which was seized from private Palestinian owners, much of it in violation of the 1979 Israeli Supreme Court decision.[60]

In 1979, the government decided to extend settlements or build new ones only on "state lands".[39][78]

A secret database, drafted by a retired senior officer, Baruch Spiegel, on orders from former defense minister Shaul Mofaz, found that some settlements deemed legal by Israel were illegal outposts, and that large portions of Ofra, Elon Moreh and Beit El were built on private Palestinian land. The "Spiegel report" was revealed by Haaretz in 2009. Many settlements are largely built on private lands, without approval of the Israeli Government.[119] According to Israel, the bulk of the land was vacant, was leased from the state, or bought fairly from Palestinian landowners.

Invoking the Absentee Property Law to transfer, sell or lease property in East Jerusalem owned by Palestinians who live elsewhere without compensation has been criticized both inside and outside of Israel.[120] Opponents of the settlements claim that "vacant" land belonged to Arabs who fled or collectively to an entire village, a practice that developed under Ottoman rule. B'Tselem charged that Israel is using the absence of modern legal documents for the communal land as a legal basis for expropriating it. These "abandoned lands" are sometimes laundered through a series of fraudulent sales.[121]

According to Amira Hass, one of the techniques used by Israel to expropriate Palestinian land is to place desired areas under a 'military firing zone' classification, and then issue orders for the evacuation of Palestinians from the villages in that range, while allowing contiguous Jewish settlements to remain unaffected.[122]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_settlements#Land_ownership

 

Claiming they have no right to be there or retaliate against attacks from the West Bank and Gaza is a lie.

So where are the UN troops?

Unless they're Jews.

So where are the Court cases, again?

Hyperbole, not fact.

 

For decades, Israel has used the text of the 4th Gevena Conventions to steal land from Palestinians and give it to settlers for free.

Israel is well aware that the 4th Gevena Conventions allows the Occupying Power to confiscate private property for military and security purposes. Israel therefore confiscated land from Arab owners in the West Bank, delares this is for "military and security purposes", kicks off the residents, and then allows Jewish settlers to farm the land or even build on it, without paying a dime. This has been going on for decades, and many of the settlements are built on land that was confiscated in this way.

The Israeli govt. even called this "theft", and has since declared that Israeli settlements will only be built on confiscated state land, not confiscated private lands. Nevertheless, the Israeli govt. continues to declare "closed military zones" on Arab land in the West Bank, kick out Arabs, but conveniently let Jewish settlers remain.

http://news.yahoo.com/rare-case-palestinians-reclaim-settlement-land-125639923.html

 

An interesting point related to the current peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians. The Palestinians are proposing an international military force (i.e. NATO) act as a military barrier located on Palestinian territory to prevent future aggression between the Palestinians and the Israelis but Israel has rejected that proposal. Israel is insisting that the IDF occupy the Palestinian territory so that Palestinians can't attack Israel but allowing Israel to attack the Palestinians at will.

Unless they're Jews. [/auote]

False. Palestine always belonged to those residents of the territory that included Arabs, Jews, and Christians.

Palestine never belonged to the European Jews that were encouraged by Great Britian to immigrate to Palestine against the will of the "Palestinian" people that had the exclusive Right to Palestine as their Homeland. Palestine, that always belonged to the Palestinians (Arabs, Jews, and Christians) as it was their homeland and Great Britian violated the Rights of the Palestinians by allowing European Jews to immigrate especially considering that those European Jews never had the intention of sharing Palestine as a Homeland but instead sought take it away from the existing Palestinians that were predominately Arabs by force.

Today there are Jews that were born in Israel and they have the natural Right of Citizenship to that territory but immigration of Israeli Jews with the intent of taking away the homeland of the Palestinians that were forced out of Israel in 1948 or that have moved into the Palestinian territories since then by the use of force (i.e. the IDF) is unacceptable and is a violation of International Law that Israel has agreed to comply with.

 

It's not a NATO responsibility, its a European treaty organization, and there is a legitimate concern that NATO wouldn't be any more effective at enforcing the 'peace' than those UN 'troops' who would sit by and let Hexbollah set up rocket pits right next to their observation posts, and then turn around and snivel about 'collateral damage' when the IDF would take out the vermin. Israel is right to tell them to FXXX off.

And I've yet to read a single post anywhere 'palestinian' squatters in the West Bank and Gaza should also return land and 'private property' to Jews uprooted from Arab invasions by Israeli haters; that old double standard again.

Great Britain never 'encouraged' European migration after WW II or before, the Ottomans before WW I did. The British heavily restricted Jewish immigration while ignoring illegal Arab immigration the entire period between WW I and 1947; they blockaded refugee ships and rammed a few in the aftermath of WW II. And, those refugees who did manage to get there didn't dislocate a single Arab, nor did they 'confiscate' a single square inch of Arab 'property'. The Arab invasions of 1947-48 made a separate Jewish state necessary.

So instead of a double standard you can also support the removal of Arab squatters as well, and I'm still waiting to see all those IC case rulings on Israeli violations of 'International Law'.

 

Whether NATO would choose to provide the necessary military forces is up to NATO but it is a "Third Party" that could be called upon if it was willing to accept the mission. As we can note NATO seems to be better suited than UN Security forces but the point remains that it should be a third party. If Israel has a problem with NATO accepting this mission then what third party (parties) would it recommend and be willing to accept? One thing is certian and that is that Israel cannot and would not ensure the territorial integrity or right of peace for any Arab nations based upon its historical offensive military actions against it's neighbors including the 1967 Six-Day War.

In fact, under the provisions of UN Security Council Resolution 242 it's ultimately the responsibility of the UN Security Council to ensure the following:

[qoute=]For guaranteeing the territorial inviolability and political independence of every State in the area, through measures including the establishment of demilitarized zones; [/quote]

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/un/un242.htm

Apparently you're unfamiliar with my posts on this issue as I've long called for an unbiased court, preferrable comprised of international representatives, that would review claims of property by individuals that would resolve these cases. This court would have jurisdiction in all cases as necessary related to these claims including any claims of land ownership of Jews in Palestinian territories and Palestinian claims in Israeli territories and should also extended by treaty to countries like Jordan where I understand that there are Jews that have claims of land being confiscated without compensation there. Of course the Palestinians can only agree to such a court related to lands under their jurisdiction but I'm quite confident they sign a mutural treaty related to this with Israel as lands confiscated from Arabs in 1948 by Israel has long been one of their issues that they seek resolution to.

Would Israel agree to allow an international court to resolve issues of the Right of Property related to confiscated land with the Palestinians so long as it covered both claims from both sides? It would be fair to both sides to allow this and I can see no logical reason to oppose it by either side.

The fact remains that the British never had any authority to allow any immigration to Palestine by anyone without the consent of those living in Palestine. Palestine never "belonged" to Great Britain and it was only granted "Mandatory" authority over the internal affairs of the former Turkish territories under it's designated control related to developing the self-governance of that land by it's native population. (Ref Article 22 of the Covenent of the League of Nations).

We can note that the Arab-Israeli War of 1948 (15 May 1948 – 10 March 1949) was in response to the Israeli Declaration of Independence (May 14, 194 which was only passed after European immigrant Jews had used terrorism and coercion to force as many as 750,000 Arabs from the territory they claimed. A declaration of independence is always, be defaut, a declaration of war and the Arab nations responded to that declaration of war by coming to the aid of the existing Arab population that were having their Right of Sovereinty violated by the immigrant Jewish population.

The "civil war" that predated the Israeli Declaration of Independence was fundamentally between the European immigrant Jews that were allowed to immigrate, both legally and illegally, into Palestine by the British authority against the will of the vast majority of the existing residents of Palestine. The "Palestinians" (predominately Arab) were attempting to defend their Right of Sovereignty against a flood of European immigrants that came with the express purpose of taking their homeland away from them.

Anyone that claims the European immigrant Jews were coming to Palestine to share it as a homeland with the existing predominately Arab population following WW I is a blatant liar as that was never the intent of those immigrants. The sole purpose of that immigration was to take away the territory from the people already living in Palestine and they had no "Right" to do so, The civil war before 1948 was solely caused by the European Jewish immigrants that came to Palestine to violate the Right of Sovereignty of the existing population.

No double standard at all. If there are squatters in Israel then Israel has a right to determine that just as the Palestinians have the right to determine that related to squatters in the Palestinian territories or, as noted above, this could be resolved by an unbiased international court based upon the mutual agreement between the Palestinians and the Israelis. Personally I believe that an unbiased international court granted jurisdiction and authority by the Palestinians and the Israelis is the best way to move forward on this issue.

As we are both aware the International Court operates under the authority of the United Nations and more specifically under the authority of the United Nations Security Council. The reason this matter has not been heard before the court is because the United States, as a premanant member of the Security Council has blocked any case being brought before it related to the Israeli civilian immigration to the territories under the occupation of the Israeli military since 1967.

I would like to see that case go before the International Court.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_law_and_Israeli_settlements

Do you advocate the IC hearing the case where Israel would be required to comply with the decision of the International Court?

......or do you advocate violations of international law by nations?

 

The world is fed up with Palestinian moanings.

 

the world supports Palestine much more than Israel.

 

European members would refuse that mission, and in any case European countries are hardly neutral parties, nor would they respond to Arab violence militarily nay more than the UN 'peacekeepers ever did.

India would be the only moderately trustworthy military, and of course they would be stupid to allow themselves to be roped into doing that sort of thing.

One thing is certain is that this is nonsense. The Arabs massed armies on Israel's border and announced their intentions and sitting around waiting for the other armies to shoot first has been abandoned by every military in the world for a long time now. It's a red herring.

And of course the UN has abandoned any claim to have a say, since they have never taken on that responsibility. Their 'Resolutions' are meaningless. We're talking about a UN who not long ago elected Momar KaddaffiDuck's UN ambassador to lead its Human Rights Commission, so why should anybody take the UN seriously on anything in the first place?

I'm familiar with your posts in this thread, and you didn't bring the issue up, I did. No one on the anti-Israeli side ever brings it up in the vast majority of threads, either. That's because they're invariably using a double standard, which of course Israel would be stupid to comply with.

Land abandoned by Arab sympathizers in the 1947-48 war isn't an issue, since so little of it was ever privately owned in the first place. You're not familiar with land laws in either the Ottoman Empire, under the British Mandate, in modern Israel , or under the PA. The PA makes it a crime to sell private land to Jews; formerly a death sentence was the penalty, now it's just a life sentence. Hamas of course would impose a death sentence. In Israel private land ownership is pretty much proportionately divided among Jews and Arabs. There would be no valid legal or moral reason for Israel to pretend non-Israeli Arabs have a claim to private property in Israel proper, since they never owned any.

The PA and Hama's agreeing to 'peace' is nil; they make too much money being 'victims' and if they ever quit launching murder sprees against Jews the UN, Europe, and the Saudis would drop them like last week's smelly leftovers. They're the best fed, clothed, and fawned over 'refugees' in world history. Why would they agree to anything? They have no incentives to do so; just the opposite.

If you want to go back in time and cherry pick stuff, fine; I can do it as well. I can easily understand why you want to get away from discussing the modern realities and avoiding the obvious, though.

You would have to ask them. The problem would obviously be finding neutral judges; the IC doesn't meet that requirement. There is also almost no evidence for Arab private ownership, since little land was private, even the tax rolls of the Ottoman Empire show this, and few Arabs owned any in the first place. Most of the 'indigenous' Arab population lived in the hill country, to avoid Ottoman tax collectors anyway. They were mostly illegal squatters even in the 19th century, or migrant labor working for effendis who rented their land from the Ottoman state. The civil war with Egypt in the 1840's depopulated the region, which was why the Ottomans encouraged Jewish immigration and foreign investment in the first place. Arabs were paying little or no taxes.

Yet you think Arabs that illegally migrated there are 'refugees', and have claims on land and legal status. And of course only Jews were there 'illegally'.

Since you claim the British and French had no 'legal authority' then they had no right to create Jordan or any of the other Arab states and none of the Arab states are legitimate, either, by your own argument, especially having rights to ban Jews from owning land anywhere in the ME.

Since the entire Arab population of the entire Mandate was at best around 1 million, around two thirds of those are illegal Arab immigrants, by your own claims that the British had no authority to allow into the Mandate in the first place.

And, claiming '750,000' of them lived inside what became the borders of Israel is ridiculous. Even if that preposterous claim were valid, the fact that almost 90% of them supported Nazi Germany during the war, and their leader was a Nazi collaborator and recruited Muslim troops for the Nazis in the Balkans makes them far far less than sympathetic victims of evil Jewish imperialism. It sucks to back the wrong side during a war, especially the Nazi side of one.

And of course, we should pay no attention to the elephant in the room, the public declarations of the Arab states to wipe the Jews of Palestine off the face of the Earth and massing armies in preparation of invading and committing genocide.

The 'civil war' was a result of the standard Islamist hatred and bigotry, fed by their Nazi collaborator leader Husseini. Just because the Nazi loving bigots lost doesn't give them some sort of higher moral gravitas and worthy of sympathy.

And again, the British heavily restricted Jewish immigration while passively allowing illegal Arab immigration throughout their entire administration. This claim is false and merely propaganda with no basis in fact.

This claim has already made and answered several times here. Repeating it over and over again doesn't make it more true than the last time you've claimed it. It means it's just filler.

Israel has Arab landowners, 20% of its population is Arab. There are no 'squatters' inside the borders of Israel, and Arab 'refugees' who abandoned their property to go join the invading armies have no legitimate claims, since they refuse to acknowledge Israel exists in the first place, not to mention their Nazi heroes lost the war. It's a non-issue.

And there is an International Court already operating, and there were International Court in existence going back years before the current IC was formed. There are clearly no legitimate claims, or there would be Court cases filed and ruled on. There are none, after some 60 years of this hyperbole and propaganda. It's obvious they know they have no real case for these claims in the first place.

Claiming the 'U.S. Blocks them from filing cases' is nonsense; the U.S. has no such authority over the IC to do so, they can't even block cases filed against the U.S. The U.S. Has no veto in the IC decisions as to what cases are brought before it. They have some veto power on the Security Council, in some cases after a ruling. That's it.

Let's see a list of these cases that were blocked from being filed in the IC re Israel versus anybody at all. It must be huge ….

There is no unilateral U.S. veto power to prevent cases from being filed, argued, and ruled on by the IC. You've been misinformed and are relying on propaganda narratives. The Security Council can't do any such thing. They can decide a few things after the fact, not before, and they rarely do, not to mention the other members of the Security Council can do the same.

Why? There is no legal case, or one would have been filed.

I'm not the one claiming the UN and the IC have any credibility; you are. Given the way the justices are selected, they will never hand down unbiased decisions, so no, they're as much of a joke as the UN and it's ridiculously biased 'Resolutions'.

Do you advocate corrupt kangaroo courts with sitting judges chosen by some lottery or whatever from assorted dictatorships, narco states, and medievalIslamic sharia law cesspools making binding 'international laws' that only the insane would take seriously?

Don't what the size limit is for posts here; let's see if this fits ...

 

http://www.icj-cij.org/court/index.php?p1=1&p2=2&p3=1

Current Members:

President

Peter Tomka (Slovakia)

Vice-President

Bernardo Sepúlveda-Amor (Mexico)

Judges

Hisashi Owada (Japan)
Ronny Abraham (France)
Kenneth Keith (New Zealand)
Mohamed Bennouna (Morocco)
Leonid Skotnikov (Russian Federation)
Antônio Augusto Cançado Trindade (Brazil)
Abdulqawi Ahmed Yusuf (Somalia)
Christopher Greenwood (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland)
Xue Hanqin (China)
Joan E. Donoghue (United States of America)
Giorgio Gaja (Italy)
Julia Sebutinde (Uganda)
Dalveer Bhandari (India)

Registrar

Philippe Couvreur (Belgium)

Current members who wouldn't be 'objective and unbiased':

Vice-President

Bernardo Sepúlveda-Amor (Mexico)

Giorgio Gaja (Italy)
Julia Sebutinde (Uganda)
Kenneth Keith (New Zealand)
Mohamed Bennouna (Morocco)
Leonid Skotnikov (Russian Federation)
Antônio Augusto Cançado Trindade (Brazil)
Abdulqawi Ahmed Yusuf (Somalia)
Christopher Greenwood (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland)
Xue Hanqin (China)
Registrar

Philippe Couvreur (Belgium)

Yes, Israel should really trust an IC ruling to be 'fair and balanced'.

And yet, no cases filed even with the Court heavily tilted in the 'Palestinian's' favor, which has been the norm since its creation. I.e., there is no credible case, not even one that can be spun to be a case.

 

Its funny how Neo-Zionists love to talk about how the promises of the Palestine Mandate for Jewish settlement in Palestine are eternal, and yet they conveniently ignore the fact that the Palestine Mandate made Jewish settlement in Palestine and the creation of a Jewish homeland in Palestine, conditional upon full and total respect for non-Jewish civil and religious rights in Palestine.

 

Are you against Zionism and against Islam ?