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

the right of retkurn is in fact part iof internationmal law, as has been documented. simply because you refuse to recoignize realityi does not make reality unreal.. Simply because israel refukses to recognize what a disaster their refusal to recognize it means for their illegal refusal to recognize it does nott in any way negate it.

The Right of Return is not imaginary.

Israel's intransigence is the crux of the matter in the conflict with the Palestinians.

Your failure to provide evidence shows that the right of return is entirely imaginary.

No such right. No such documentation.

Your refusal to accept Israel's existence means that Israel gets to keep East Jerusalem at a minimum, and maybe even the entire West Bank.

Israel says to tell you thanks for the extra land!

That is the same four map fallacy that started off this very thread.

The four map fallacy is wrong because it rewrites history and makes "Israel giving land to the Palestinians" look like Israel is taking land from them.



Frames one, two, and three of the graphic are reasonably accurate representations of: the area before Israelis returned to their homeland, the UN partition proposal, and Israel as it came into existence after the 1948 war.

But the last frame should be number six and not number four. They are skipping a couple steps.

The real frame number four should show Israel after the 1967 war, not only in control of current Israel and the West Bank, but also in control of the Sinai Peninsula.

Frame number five should show Israel giving up the Sinai Peninsula in exchange for peace with Egypt.

Then should come frame number six, depicting the land that Israel has given to the Palestinians as part of the peace process.



The peace process has of course been halted by Palestinian violence. The current status of Palestinian territory was supposed to just be a temporary transition, with the Palestinians receiving even more land in the end. So there should also be a seventh slide, a repeat of slide number three, showing the land that the Palestinians would have been given if only they had agreed to make peace.

Israelis are indigenous to the West Bank area. They have every right to return to their ancient homeland.



Time will provide the solution.

The Security Fence will over time become Israel's de facto border.

That's why it is so critical that Israel rethink the Security Fence in the Gush Etzion settlement block. Much as it would be nice to include Efrata on the Israeli side of the Fence, it is clear by now that it isn't going to happen. They should just run the Fence along Route 60 so they can secure the rest of the settlement block.

Not imaginary. I produced it. As usualypu pretend there's no evidence right after someone produces the evidence. You'rer a fraukd. always have been.

yhis is absolute bull crap. The law gives israel no such title. You're a fraud.

Wrong again. The world asks Israel to give the Palestinians land ONLY if Israel gets peace in return.

Your denial of peace to Israel under any circumstances means that Israel does not have to give up any more land.

So like I said, Israel says to tell you thanks for all the land. They couldn't have kept it without your help.

That's a lie. You're produced nothing at all.



I'm not pretending. You have not produced any evidence of this imaginary right.



Wrong. I've always provided cites whenever people have asked me to back up my facts.

You are the phony who never backs up anything that he says.

Typo:
You're = You've

You are a fraud yu rarely cite anythig. You state your opinion as fact and don't back it up, because you can''t. You ig nore the fact that the right of return is an accepted part of international accords and laws. You ignore the rproofs of [eop[e wjho make c;ear your baseless claims. You've done it for years, which is why you have zero credibility, in spite of your rampant arcisisism, much like the failed ex-president.

I take it your plan is to derail the thread with dozens of pages of lies about me.

I guess you want to obfuscate the fact that you are actually helping Israel to keep the West Bank for themselves?

I think I'm going to try a new tactic. I'm going to try disregarding all personal attacks, and instead reply only to the parts of a post that are on-topic.

My lack of response to a personal attack does NOT mean that the personal attack is in any way true.

That's not a fact. There is no such thing as a right of return. It is proper that imaginary things are ignored.

Since it's an accepted right principle in international law, thought to be even binding on non-signatories to the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the 1948 Fourth Geneva Convention - what are your legal arguments that these ("imaginary") conventions can be ignored?

Do you have any evidence to support this claim?



No one is required to obey imaginary laws.

Look at any (law faculty) library for "The Right to Return Under International Law".

What makes the1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the 1948 Fourth Geneva Convention imaginary laws?

Nothing.

Note that I did not claim that any of those were imaginary.