Question

[Palestinian]

It looks like our Palestinian is posting duplicate messages. I found at least one instance of it but I would not be surprised if there are more. The ones I found are messages #90 and#101. If they are not identical then they are nearly identical.

I suggest that some culling is in order.

Haha, now your trying to get me in trouble? I EXPLICITY SAID IN ONE OF MY POSTS I WAS GOING TO DO THIS. Simpily for the sake of argument so I don't have to keep repeating myself to you. And secondly because those posts reguard certain issues that we are discussing, and you not reading.

Oh ... OK I get it. If you don't disagree with something then that means you are saying it? Let me see then. Abbas never disagrees with Hamas about saying that America is evil. Does that mean that Abbas is saying that too ... ?

Well, Rostow never puts any detail on it. I don't think him agreeing/disagreeing with it is much an argument, or relavant to any real issue. From what he says, one would assume that he is agreeing to the law. I don't want to discuss this further, because I really don't care if Rostow agrees/disagrees with it. We will never know either, unless we find more of his writing reguarding it.

The Arab land owners did NOT own 88% of the land. You just made that up. I bet you can't back up your claim by giving a link to a reputable site.

I'm sorry I don't use random 3rd party links for my information. This information was found in the Jewish National Fund, Jewish villages in Israel, p. xxi. The doings of the Jewish National Fund and the land are well documented.

I am glad that you are so pleased with yourself. Me, I'll let others judge. I won't big note myself.

And yes, it IS about being fair.

Alright. Well, I don't think expelling people is about being "fair". I think its just wrong no matter who it is.

I was talking about lands that the Arabs took from Jews in Palestine. Places like the Jewish quarter of East Jerusalem and Gush Etzion. Why do you say that after the 1967 war, Jews were not allowed to return there and rebuild their homes?

I told you this numerous times. The occupier can not deport its citezens into the territory it occupies. So, these people are allowed to go back to their homes if it was not occupied. Although, if the citezen was to go back to their land BEFORE the Israeli occupation, then by law they should be allowed to return. Otherwise the occupation restricts this privilege. Please correct me if I'm wrong on this.



Again, your just taking out little pieces of what I say, but you seem to disagree on everything.

Anyway, I'm waiting for curlyg's response about international law. I could learn a thing or two.

[Reffo]

Haha, now your trying to get me in trouble? I EXPLICITY SAID IN ONE OF MY POSTS I WAS GOING TO DO THIS. Simpily for the sake of argument so I don't have to keep repeating myself to you. And secondly because those posts reguard certain issues that we are discussing, and you not reading

Only if you'll deliberately go out of your way to swamp this forum with duplicate messages. That's the behavior of a troll.

The Arab land owners did NOT own 88% of the land. You just made that up. I bet you can't back up your claim by giving a link to a reputable site.

I'm sorry I don't use random 3rd party links for my information. This information was found in the Jewish National Fund, Jewish villages in Israel, p. xxi. The doings of the Jewish National Fund and the land are well documented

No you didn't. You just made that up. I'll only believe you if you'll provide a link. You are behaving like a troll!

Alright. Well, I don't think expelling people is about being "fair". I think its just wrong no matter who it is

At last, we agree on something.

I was talking about lands that the Arabs took from Jews in Palestine. Places like the Jewish quarter of East Jerusalem and Gush Etzion. Why do you say that after the 1967 war, Jews were not allowed to return there and rebuild their homes?

I told you this numerous times. The occupier can not deport its citezens into the territory it occupies. So, these people are allowed to go back to their homes if it was not occupied. Although, if the citezen was to go back to their land BEFORE the Israeli occupation, then by law they should be allowed to return. Otherwise the occupation restricts this privilege. Please correct me if I'm wrong on this

But the Jordanians too were occupiers when they held Judea and Samaria between 1948 and 1967. During that time, the Jews were not allowed to live in their homes in East Jerusalem and Gush Etzion. But Arabs were living there. So are you saying that after Israel won a defensive war in 1967, they should stop their own people from returning to their homes? Do you think that would be fair? Do you think Israel should be that stupid? Wait a minute, don't answer that ... Some of us ARE that stupid. But not all of us ... So on second thought please answer us, the non stupid ones

Again, your just taking out little pieces of what I say, but you seem to disagree on everything.

Actually I agreed with you about something. See above.

Maybe if you break up your posts into logical bite sized bits instead of lumping everything together, I'll be able to answer more of your points. As you can see, whenever you do that, I do answer.

Anyway, I'm waiting for curlyg's response about international law. I could learn a thing or two

Yes, you do that. I am sure you could learn a thing or two from him.

[Reffo]

Palestinian

I'll tell you how I know that your figure of 88% ownership of the land by Arabs is a made up figure. I know it because most of the Negev desert was crown land and not owned by either Jews or Arabs. I also know that the Negev made up 55% of the Area of Israel. So your claim that 88% of the land that Israel was allocated was Arab owned cannot possibly be correct.

Do you want to try again?

[farmboy]

Quite simply, You wage war, you lose, you pay. That's how the British got the mandate in the first place.
The arabs declared war on Israel and it lost so it has to pay. It's no good moaning about how hard done by the arabs are because they started all the agro in the first place.
If they had just accepted the Jews and got on with life it would have been a totally different situation and they would be reaping the rewards today.
As Israels PM I would give the 'Palestinians" nothing untill they show that they deserve it. Any resolutions or recomendations by the UN are not worth anything because that hate infested organisation is on the way out anyway.

[Palestinian]

I'll tell you how I know that your figure of 88% ownership of the land by Arabs is a made up figure. I know it because most of the Negev desert was crown land and not owned by either Jews or Arabs. I also know that the Negev made up 55% of the Area of Israel. So your claim that 88% of the land that Israel was allocated was Arab owned cannot possibly be correct.

OH! I think I know why your not understanding!!!!

I'm talking about the State of Israel when it was first established! Not all of Palestine overall.

[Reffo]

OH! I think I know why your not understanding!!!!

I'm talking about the State of Israel when it was first established! Not all of Palestine overall

What do you mean by the "Israel which was first established? Do you mean the area that was allocated to Israel by UN resolution 181? Or do you mean the actual Israel that existed between 1949 and 1967?

[Palestinian]

What do you mean by the "Israel which was first established?

I'm talking about Israel after the 1947-49 war. Since, Resolution 181 was never actually implemented.

Only if you'll deliberately go out of your way to swamp this forum with duplicate messages. That's the behavior of a troll.

Whats a troll? I was just putting out posts that are relavant to our discussion which you may have missed. I wasn't trying to anything wrong. In the top of one of those posts I even put in bold that I'm going to do that.

But the Jordanians too were occupiers when they held Judea and Samaria between 1948 and 1967. During that time, the Jews were not allowed to live in their homes in East Jerusalem and Gush Etzion. But Arabs were living there. So are you saying that after Israel won a defensive war in 1967, they should stop their own people from returning to their homes? Do you think that would be fair? Do you think Israel should be that stupid? Wait a minute, don't answer that ... Some of us ARE that stupid. But not all of us ... So on second thought please answer us, the non stupid ones

So, from what I KNOW, Israel is not allowed to deport citezens into land that it occupies. So, if those people were to return after 1967, I don't think they are allowed to. Otherwise, I'm sure they are allowed to.




EDIT: This discussion is starting to get way off topic...


EDIT2: I just realized that we wouldn't be having certain parts of this "already off-topic discussion" if you would stop taking what I say out of context...

[calev dan]

The question of legality of Jewish settlements in the Jewish Land is the most ridiculous one.
The question should be: are the Arabs legally in Judea and Samaria?
The answer is a decisive NO!
The Arabs are occupants and thieves of land that does not belong to them. Their presence here is the result of a couple of centuries of moslem conquest and robbery of foreign territories: Middle East, North Africa, parts of Europe. Since when is Egypt an Arab country? or Constantinople - Istanbul? What is Jordan, or Syria?
The Arabs were kicked out of Spain, the Turks were expelled from Bulgaria, Greece, most of Balkans, they still keep a lot of Africa and Asia.
The main problem of the Arabs is overpopulation: they punch out much more babies than their lands can support. They look for expansion: todays flooding of Europe is a latent conquest, a continuation of the same old moslem policy: grab and destroy. The little Israel with her treacherous leftist democracy is an easy target.
"Palestinians(?!)" - are an artificial mythical entity invented by the Arabs to justify their illegal conquest of the Land of Israel.

[Palestinian]

@calev dan

That is the worst argument I have ever heard....

[Reffo]

I'm talking about Israel after the 1947-49 war. Since, Resolution 181 was never actually implemented

In that case, you are back where you started from, you are dead WRONG!

How could the Arabs privately own 88% of the land if the Negev desert by itself represented over half the land? Given that the Negev desert was state owned -British - crown land.

@calev dan

That is the worst argument I have ever heard....

Ok now you can't deny it. You ARE the "Palestinian" who posts on +972. I am ok with that. Aliyah and I were just curious. But I have to say that the views that you express over there are much more extreme ...

[johnvonneumann]

I will leave the strictly legal argument to those (like curlyg I suppose) who have the time and the interest to study such matters. I don’t believe that any conclusion that would be acceptable to all reasonable and unbiased and legally trained person could be reached and the reason for that is that, I believe, international law was never created with this sort of case in mind.

It seems to me that the Jewish-Arab conflict over Palestine is in its most important aspects “sui generis” because it concerns a dispute between two groups (whose nature is itself quite complicated) neither of which has exercised sovereignty over the disputed land for a huge length of time. International Law is, I believe, primarily intended for resolving disputes between states, or between states and national minorities, or some other groups that have at least some claims to sovereignty.

Even if we ignore the basic Jewish-Arab dispute over the existence of Israel (which I also think is essentially sui-generis) and consider only the question of the West Bank, it seems clear to me that the usual definitions used in international law, such as “occupied territories” do not strictly apply. For example, the West Bank was occupied by Israel as a result of a (defensive) war with Jordan (if King Hussein had not joined Nasser in 1967 Jerusalem would still be divided) - but the same Jordan has since renounced claims to sovereignty over the “occupied territory” (claims which themselves had a weak basis to start with).

Obviously not being a lawyer and having ever spent any time on such matters, I can’t be sure, but it seems to me reasonable that the purpose of any international law in cases of occupation resulting from war etc, would be to deal with two basic issues: the treatment of the inhabitants of occupied territories and not prejudicing eventual settlement between the original belligerent parties. I do not see any evidence that Israeli treatment of the inhabitants of theWest Bank violates any international laws and in fact, I think it compares favourably with almost every known occupation. As for the other part, however, the original belligerent powers, Egypt and Jordan are no longer parties to the dispute and therefore Jewish settlements do not affect them. I don’t see also how they cause any direct harm to the Arab inhabitants of the West Bank, provided they are not built on privately owned land.

Obviously one can argue for ever about these matters and I am sure that for any qualified a knowledgeable lawyer who will conclude that the settlements are legal one can find an equally qualified and knowledgeable one who will reach the opposite conclusion.
The real problem will never be resolved in this way - it has to be done by negotiations and both sides making compromises, even when one of them or both believe that these compromises are not in accordance with international law. (This is actually quite normal for example, the post-war borders between Germany and Poland we settled in this way. Germany accepted the loss of territories to which it believed to have the better historical rights and, what is much more, it resettled millions of refugees, expelled from lands to which they had vastly greater historical and other claims than the Arabs ever had to any part of Palestine. Germany did this because it was the only way to achieve permanent peace in this part of Europe. "International law" played no part in any of it.).

However, no negotiations make any sense from the Israeli view point until the great majority of Palestinian Arabs are clearly prepared to accept the Jewish State as a permanent. At this time there every evidence that they are not. This is also something for which “international law” provides not answers.

[Reffo]

So, from what I KNOW, Israel is not allowed to deport citezens into land that it occupies. So, if those people were to return after 1967, I don't think they are allowed to. Otherwise, I'm sure they are allowed to

First of all, let's get the terminology right. Israel did NOT "deport" it's citizens to East Jerusalem's old Jewish quarter. Nor did it "deport" Israelis to Gush Etzion. It just allowed them to return to those places where they used to live before the Arabs deported the Jews from there.

Now, what you and people like you seem to claim, Palestinian, is that if Arabs commit a crime, by ethnically cleansing Jews from their homes in 1948, then from that time onwards such lands turned into Arab lands (by magic?). And that if Israel tries to reverse the original crime then it's somehow acting against the Geneva conventions? That is just a ludicrous argument.

[Palestinian]

Ok now you can't deny it. You ARE the "Palestinian" who posts on +972. I am ok with that. Aliyah and I were just curious. But I have to say that the views that you express over there are much more extreme ...

I already said I am NOT Palestinian who posts on +972. I didn't even know what +972 was until I joined this forum...

I'll give you a reply to your others posts later. I'm busy, I just had to clarify that I'm not from +972, nor do I have an account on it.

[Reffo]

Palestinian

Then what is this @calev dan thingy ... ?

That's the customary way they address each other over there. Using the @ symbol followed by the name of the person you address.

Anyway it's too much a coincidence for me having somene called "palestinian" over there, you using the same name and method of addressing someone ... Too much ....

[Palestinian]

Then what is this @calev dan thingy ... ?

That's the customary way they address each other over there. Using the @ symbol followed by the name of the person you address.

Anyway it's too much a coincidence for me having somene called "palestinian" over there, you using the same name and method of addressing someone ... Too much ....

Using the @ is used almost everywhere online... Many other forums use it, youtube uses it, heck even facebook uses it if you type @[name] in your status... Its not a unique thing.

And it is not strange for the name "Palestinian" to be used on websites that are relavant to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict... The only reason we probably don't use it is because this forum allows BB code.