Can you look at this map and say Israel does not systemically appropriate land?

@oralloy,

I've never disputed and/or negated such.
(The The European Union has an observer member status at the United Nations. [Head of the Delegation of the European Union to the United Nations is the Austrian Thomas Mayr-Harting.] The EU-member states France and the United Kingdom are permanent members of the Security Council.)

Your question was about a decision by the EU-Parliament - the latter today adopting a resolution, recognizing Palestinian statehood in principle.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Yes, I, too, wonder why Israel's breach of International Law--illegal settlements--is ignored by some. Any discussion from the Israel side of the fence (n0 pun intended) never includes the illegal settlements issue.

2 Replies

@Glennn,

What is so disturbing is the simple fact that the US government supports Israel in their crimes of stealing other people's property. "Our country of laws" is an oxymoron in addition to it being illegal under domestic, international, and ethical laws.

0 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Your question was about a decision by the EU-Parliament - the latter today adopting a resolution, recognizing Palestinian statehood in principle.

That is incorrect. My question was about the alternative resolution that the Europeans were talking of putting before the UN Security Council, particularly the German proposal to modify it.

Note:
http://able2know.org/topic/127639-255#post-5840944

oralloy wrote:

Quote:
Move comes as draft resolution on Palestinian statehood expected to be tabled at UN security council in New York

Any news of the European alternative proposal?

Particularly, any news of Germany's efforts to modify the European proposal to include Palestinian acceptance of a Jewish Israel?

-----------------------

The unilateral move to recognize Palestinian statehood is just a bunch of idiots pursuing idiocy for the sake of being idiots. It's sad, but not terribly interesting. About the only thing it'll manage to achieve is perpetual Israeli control over all of Area C. That'll make all the Palestinian lies about Bantustans particularly ironic.

The European move in the Security Council, on the other hand, is actually interesting. I have plenty of misgivings of course (as already explained). But it actually has potential for doing something useful if it could be done right. Thus, my curiosity to find out if it is being done right.

0 Replies

@Glennn,

Glennn wrote:

Yes, I, too, wonder why Israel's breach of International Law--illegal settlements--is ignored by some. Any discussion from the Israel side of the fence (no pun intended) never includes the illegal settlements issue.

That's because it's a non-issue.

Most of the settlers are on land that would stay in Israel due to land swaps, were a peace deal to ever be reached.

Any settlement that is on land which would be transferred to the Palestinians as part of a peace deal, would see the settlement withdrawn and dismantled as part of that peace deal.

Further, the legality argument is a bit one-sided as you've presented it. International law demands something of both sides. The Palestinians are required to accept Israel and make peace with them.

Israel has repeatedly offered the Palestinians a peace deal with no settlements on Palestinian land. It is the Palestinians who reject international law with their refusal to ever make peace with Israel.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

A non-issue? Perhaps if you're the one doing the illegal settling.

And I believe you are unclear as to what International law demands.

While addressing the Security Council on the situation in the Middle East, U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said that Israel’s "illegal" settlement activity in occupied East Jerusalem is threatening the prospects of a two-state solution for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, referring to a U.N.-proposed solution that calls for "two states for two peoples” and envisages an independent state of Palestine alongside the state of Israel.

"International law is clear: Settlement activity is illegal. It runs totally counter to the pursuit of a two-state solution. I urge the Israeli government to reverse these activities," he said.

Washington also voiced concern over Israel’s recent settlement policies, with the State Department saying increased settlement building is incompatible with a two-state solution.

International law views the West Bank and East Jerusalem as "occupied territories," and considers as illegal all Jewish settlement constructed on the land.

http://www.worldbulletin.net/haber/147271/un-security-council-to-convene-on-israeli-settlements

1 Reply

@Glennn,

Glennn wrote:

A non-issue?

Correct.

Glennn wrote:

And I believe you are unclear as to what International law demands.

I am not. The very same UN resolution that demands that Israel cede occupied territory, also demands that the Arabs make peace with Israel.

The problem is not Israel. Israel is not refusing to cede land if they get peace in return. The problem is the Palestinians with their refusal to ever make peace.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

I don't think that International law could be more clear about this issue.

If you build an illegal settlement on my property, you can't say that you'll leave as soon as I stop treating you as an invader. First and foremost, you are illegally settled on my property. In what world is your obligation to leave my property contingent upon my making peace with you?

1 Reply

@Glennn,

Glennn wrote:

I don't think that International law could be more clear about this issue.

Indeed. International law is very clear on the requirement that the Arabs make peace with Israel.

Glennn wrote:

If you build an illegal settlement on my property, you can't say that you'll leave as soon as I stop treating you as an invader. First and foremost, you are illegally settled on my property.

This is not Palestinian property that we are talking about. This is Israel's ancient homeland and the Palestinians are the only invaders here. It might one day become Palestinian property if there is ever a peace deal, but that has yet to happen.

Also, Israel did not simply wake up one day and invade the West Bank. It was the Arabs who invaded Israel (repeatedly). Israel gained control over the West Bank as part of a just war of self defense.

Glennn wrote:

In what world is your obligation to leave my property contingent upon my making peace with you?

In this world. Land for peace means you get the land when you make peace.

If there is no willingness to make peace with Israel, then don't waste anyone's time, because Israel is going to keep full ownership over Area C (settlements and all) until such time as the Palestinians agree to make peace with them.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

By your reasoning, the native American indians can build settlements in the middle of any city.

On whose property was the Palestinians houses/homes that Israel demolished?

There comes a point when you have to admit that you've fallen into the "I'm right, and the world's wrong" mindset trap. Everyone but Israel believes that they are building illegal settlements. This is denial on Israel's and your part.

5 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

I would bet on the cat learning the violin before oral boy displays any signs of good sense.

0 Replies

@Glennn,

Netenheu, or however you spell his name is playing the 9/10 game. Keep bringing in settlers and stealing Palistanian land until it is an accomplished fact that Israel has killed off 90% of the population and, what do you know!! Israel is the only viable state and only Isralies populate the region. At the rate of 3000 pals to 70 solders this may not take as long as one thinks. He knows no one is going to bother him with daddy Sam at his back.

1 Reply

@Glennn,

Glennn wrote:

By your reasoning, the native American indians can build settlements in the middle of any city.

Simply because I truthfully stated who the legitimate owners are?

Glennn wrote:

On whose property was the Palestinians houses/homes that Israel demolished?

On Israel's property.

Glennn wrote:

There comes a point when you have to admit that you've fallen into the "I'm right, and the world's wrong" mindset trap.

If it were ever me against the world, there would be significant odds that the world would be in the wrong, so I don't see how it would be a trap.

However, I'll worry about "being against the world" if it ever actually happens. Currently, the world demands that the Palestinians make peace with Israel in order to receive any land. This is well inline with my own views.

Glennn wrote:

Everyone but Israel believes that they are building illegal settlements. This is denial on Israel's and your part.

No denial on my part. I merely said that the settlements were no big deal and listed a number of reasons why that is so.

I'm thinking that Israel will ultimately get to keep all the settlements. Unless the Palestinians shift course and actually make peace, there will be no requirement for Israel to give up any more land. If the Europeans recognize the Palestinians as a sovereign state absent a peace agreement, that Palestinian state will de facto be composed of a bunch of isolated Bantustans.

0 Replies

@Glennn,

If you truly believe that nonsense, you're an idiot. All countries have laws about property ownership. Taking property without compensation is called stealing; it's a crime against humanity. Native Americans? Under which laws?

Try living in the 21st century.

1 Reply

@RABEL222,

That's spelled "Nuttin but yahoo."

0 Replies

@Glennn,

Oralboy is a sad pathetic middle aged virgin still living with his parents. Such a creature is incapable of feeling anything but hate. He has openly fantasised about killing Italian babies, nuking Italy, nuking Russia, and exterminating the entire Palestinian population. Don't expect to get a reasonable response from him.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

You misunderstand me. I was comparing his idea of Israel's alleged ancient ownership rights to other people's land with the idea that native American indians can settle on your land today because they used to inhabit it.

2 Replies

@Glennn,

It's not the first nor last mistake I've made on a2k. My deepest apologies.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

We've all done it, at least you've got the good grace, (and cajones) to admit as much.

0 Replies

@Glennn,

Glennn wrote:

You misunderstand me. I was comparing his idea of Israel's alleged ancient ownership rights to other people's land with the idea that native American indians can settle on your land today because they used to inhabit it.

That's kind of an odd "apples to oranges" comparison.

On one hand, we have my simple factual statement about land ownership. On the other, we have your comment about justifying settlements.

"Acknowledging land ownership" and "justifying settlements" are not really the same thing.

0 Replies

Can you look at this map and say Israel does not systemically appropriate land?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know