ISRAEL - IRAN - SYRIA - HAMAS - HEZBOLLAH - WWWIII?

I am not Advocate , but I was not referring to a two-state solution in my recent posts as I see that as a different subject than the issue of the West Bank. In my opinion there has never been a Palestinian state--they made no attempt to establish one during all those years that Israel left the non Israeli Palestinians strictly alone and didn't set foot on Gaza, the West Bank, or the Golan Heights.

My bad: though I know it, I often translate the term "study" like it is done in German (and British English), meaning studying a certain subject at a university.

(Well, Foofie doesn't think history to be of any interest before about the end of the Middle Ages.)

Israel's critics on this thread seem to want to use the Palestinian history for the right of the Palestinians to have a stake in the land, but ignore the Israeli history for their right to a stake in the land.

Further, Israel's critics ignore that it was a UN resolution that created the State of Israel and they continue to criticize or even condemn the Jews for accepting and then defending what the UN offered.

While I think the USA must efficiently regulate immigration to ensure that our infrastructure and society can effectively and productively integrate newcomers, I think it should be Israel's prerogative, without criticism, to enforce its own immigration policies for whatever reason Israel should choose to do so. And I think it should be the Israelis prerogative to decide whether they are or are viable.

Foxfyre wrote:

I am not Advocate , but I was not referring to a two-state solution in my recent posts as I see that as a different subject than the issue of the West Bank. In my opinion there has never been a Palestinian state--they made no attempt to establish one during all those years that Israel left the non Israeli Palestinians strictly alone and didn't set foot on Gaza, the West Bank, or the Golan Heights.

Which years would "all those years" be when the Palestinians were free to form their own state?

If you do not support a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, what solution do you support?

Israel's critics on this thread seem to want to use the Palestinian history for the right of the Palestinians to have a stake in the land, but ignore the Israeli history for their right to a stake in the land.

Not true, at least not if you're referring to me as one of Israel's critics on this thread. I'm using law and property rights to defend the claim of Palestinians to their land. I don't think it should be taken without compensation. History has nothing to do with it.

I don't know that your opinion of Foofie's interest in modern history is accurate. Seems to me that she is pretty up on things.

As an American, which is a comparatively young country, history began in 1776, and in Europe began with the Renaissance. Prior to that it is all a misty haze, in my opinion, that does not interest me. That prejudiced thought is exacerbated, I believe, by my being Jewish, in that more religious Jews are aware of a Jewish history that goes back to biblical times, and we know that so many people could care less about what happened four thousand, or 3,500 years ago. My point is that one's interest in historical eras might just correlate to one's identity. So, for example, Germans might find their history, going back to what others called a barbaric era, still of interest to them. Others would trivialize it.

(Some of those same folks think the USA should open its borders and let in anybody who wants to be here too.)

The Legal Status of Land Taken in 1967

1) Israel's Legitimate Claims:

Some parts of the West Bank would have been part of Israel as defined by the UN Partition Plan, but were overrun in 1948. There were Jewish communities such as Kfar Etzion, not to mention the Old City of Jerusalem, that fell in the fighting of 1948. Jews were either killed or expelled from these areas conquered by invading Arab armies.

The League of Nations Mandate explicitly recognized the right of Jewish settlement in all territory allocated to the Jewish national home in the context of the British Mandate. The British Mandate covered the area that is currently Israel, all the disputed territories (and even what is now Jordan). These rights under the British Mandate were preserved by the United Nations, under Article 49 of the UN Charter.

2) Defensive War:

Military control of the West Bank was clearly the result of a defensive war. According to Dr. Dore Gold, Director of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs:

International jurists generally draw a distinction between situations of "aggressive conquest" and territorial disputes that arise after a war of self-defense. Former State Department Legal Advisor Stephen Schwebel, who later headed the International Court of Justice in the Hague, wrote in 1970 regarding Israel's case: "Where the prior holder of territory had seized that territory unlawfully, the state which subsequently takes that territory in the lawful exercise of self-defense has, against that prior holder, better title."

3) Forced Transfer of Civilian Populations:

There are mistaken claims that Israel's control of these territories violates the Fourth Geneva Convention. The Fourth Geneva Convention was adopted August 12, 1949 by the international community in response to Nazi atrocities during World War II. It outlaws the resettlement by an occupying power of its own civilians on territory under its military control, specifically "individual or mass forcible transfers."

The only forced mass transfers were against Jewish communities in 1948. After the Six Day War, Israel did not expel a single Arab community from land it now controlled.

The "Occupying Power" may also not "deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population" to territories taken in conflict. Israel has never forced Jews to move to the territories. However, there is no obligation for Israel to prevent voluntary settlement by its civilian population.

4) United Nations Security Council Resolution 242

After the war, there were many opinions as to what a peace agreement should require of the parties. The view of the Soviet Union and Arab bloc was that Israel should be forced to withdraw from all lands taken in the war. However, this view did not prevail in the United Nations.

According to the American Israel Cooperative Enterprise:

The most controversial clause in Resolution 242 is the call for the "Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict." This is linked to the second unambiguous clause calling for "termination of all claims or states of belligerency" and the recognition that "every State in the area" has the "right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force."

The resolution does not make Israeli withdrawal a prerequisite for Arab action. Moreover, it does not specify how much territory Israel is required to give up. The Security Council did not say Israel must withdraw from "all the" territories occupied after the Six-Day war. This was quite deliberate. The Soviet delegate wanted the inclusion of those words and said that their exclusion meant "that part of these territories can remain in Israeli hands." The Arab states pushed for the word "all" to be included, but this was rejected. The Arab League then rejected the entire resolution. Nonetheless, it was approved by the Security Council.

The resolutions clearly call on the Arab states to make peace with Israel. The principal condition is that Israel withdraw from "territories occupied" in 1967, which means that Israel must withdraw from some, all, or none of the territories still occupied. Israel withdrew from 95% of the territories when it gave up the Sinai and then Gaza. It has already partially, if not wholly, fulfilled its obligation under 242.

In addition, the Arab reaction to the resolution was not to make peace but instead the "Three No's" of the Khartoum Conference of August 1967:

Khartoum Conference of August 1967:
No peace with Israel
No recognition of Israel
No negotiation with Israel

http://www.honestreporting.com/articles/45884734/critiques/The_Six_Day_War_Forty_Years_On.asp

Foxfyre wrote:

(Some of those same folks think the USA should open its borders and let in anybody who wants to be here too.)

That would be Classical Libertarians.

House of Lords
Israel and Palestine: UN Resolution 442

All Written Answers on 2 May 2006 « Previous answer Next answer »

Lord Dykes (Spokesperson in the Lords (Europe), Foreign & Commonwealth Affairs; Liberal Democrat) | Hansard source

asked Her Majesty's Government:

Whether they will propose at the next General Affairs and External Relations Council on 15 May an approach by the European Union to the Government of the United States concerning the commencement of Israel's military withdrawal from the Palestinian West Bank, as required by United Nations Resolution 442.
Click on the platypus!

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Baronesses in Waiting, HM Household; Labour) | Hansard source

We, along with our EU and other international partners, continue to press for Israeli compliance with UN Security Council Resolution 242. But we have no plans to propose this at the next General Affairs and External Relations Council.

They had a lot of centuries between the breakdown of the Roman Empire and the European re-occupation in the 20th Century.

No attempt was made to establish an Arab Palestinian state in that area. Israel did not bother the Palestinians in the least beween1948, when Israel beat off the first organized Arab full scale attack, and 1967 when militant Palestinians, aided and abetted by several of Israel's neighbors presumed to drive the Israelis out and Israel captured Gaza, the West Bank, and the Golan Heights and no effort was made to establish a Palestinian state.

No efforts since 1967 to encourage the Palestinian leadership to agree to establishment of a Palestinian state has been successful.

Okay I should have qualified my comment to mention some (most) of Israel's critics on this thread. Why should Israel have to compensate for land seized from a much larger force that was attempting to drive Israel off their legally acquired land?

In lieu of other compensation, our modern laws allow seizure of property from law breakers who would do economic or physical violence to law abiding citizens and this is even when such enforcement will create hardship for those who were innocent bystanders.

But are you convinced that you are more right than they are?