Israel rightfully own the West Bank . - Page 13




 
--
 
October 2nd, 2011  
senojekips
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by VDKMS
I once again try to explain my point of view (see also my post 2 days ago).
There is a difference between living somewhere and owning it.
Once again you are just quoting what you "think" whereas we are discussing the facts, and that is that under the ruling of Terra Nullius the Palestinians are the owners, regardless of what you and the Israelis would "think" They both live(d) there and are regarded as the "owners".

Why are you dragging your "wish list" out again as it was virtually all shown to be totally irrelevant in my previous post #117
October 2nd, 2011  
LeEnfield
 
 
If we follow a lot of peoples logic then Texas, Arizona and California were stolen from the Mexicans, now what would happen if they started a campaign for the return of the lands stolen by the Americans.
October 2nd, 2011  
senojekips
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by LeEnfield
If we follow a lot of peoples logic then Texas, Arizona and California were stolen from the Mexicans, now what would happen if they started a campaign for the return of the lands stolen by the Americans.
This was done at a time when colonisation (by force if necessary) was acceptable in the eyes of the "civilised" world and there were no recognised International Laws, or such things such as the Hague/Geneva Conventions.
--
October 2nd, 2011  
MontyB
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by VDKMS
The situation is different. I'm not going to argue if its wright or wrong. But the Jews always believed that Palestine is the land promised by god to them. I think it is in the bible (I'm not religious so I'm not 100% sure), so they went to their "promised land".
The first "settlers" of America went over there because they were persecuted because of their religion. Thereafter came the ones that colonised it and fought the native indians. Most Americans have european ancesters. Custer's troops at the battle of the Little Bighorn were most Germans.
Congo was "found" by Stanley on a mission from King Leopold II. So the king "owned" the congo before giving it to Belgium. The Belgians then send missionaries to convert the "savages" and bussinessmen to colonise (plunder) the land. As did the French , Germans and English in Africa. The Dutch in Indonesia and so on.
I would at this point say that for anyone to use the "God promised me" argument as a binding contract of ownership they would first have to prove the existence of God.

As for the rest well unfortunately for the "Israeli's" they have shown up about 100 years to late to take part in colonial expansions and even worse for them is that there are international laws and conventions that are designed to stop it from happening again, this is like arguing that the Holocaust was acceptable because there were no laws to prevent it and besides Genghis Khan did it.
October 3rd, 2011  
MontyB
 
 
I found this rather interesting although it is something I had noticed among friends in the US, some of the strongest supporters of Palestinian statehood I have met in the US are Jewish although I suspect there is a difference between the East and West coast on this issue...

Why Fewer Young American Jews Share Their Parents' View of Israel

By DANA GOLDSTEIN
Thu Sep 29, 7:15 am ET

"I'm trembling," my mother says, when I tell her I'm working on an article about how younger and older American Jews are reacting differently to the Palestinians' bid for statehood at the United Nations. I understand the frustrations of the Palestinians dealing with ongoing settlements construction and sympathize with their decision to approach the U.N., but my mom supports President Obama's promise to wield the U.S. veto, sharing his view that a two-state solution can be achieved only through negotiations with Israel.
"This is so emotional," she says as we cautiously discuss our difference of opinion. "It makes me feel absolutely terrible when you stridently voice criticisms of Israel." (See photos inside the West Bank settlements.)
A lump of guilt and sadness rises in my throat. I've written harshly of Israel's invasion of Lebanon in 2006 and its assault on Gaza in 2009, and on civil rights issues in Israel. But speaking my mind on these topics - a very Jewish thing to do - has never been easy. During my childhood in the New York suburbs, support for Israel was as fundamental a family tradition as voting Democratic or lighting the Shabbos candles on Friday night.
My mom has a masters degree in Jewish history and is the program director of a large synagogue. Her youthful Israel experiences, volunteering on a kibbutz and meeting descendants of my great-grandmother's siblings, were part of my own mythology. Raised within the Conservative movement, I learned at Hebrew school that Israel was the "land of milk and honey" where Holocaust survivors had irrigated the deserts and made flowers bloom.
What I didn't hear much about was the lives of Palestinians. It was only after I went to college, met Muslim friends, and enrolled in a Middle Eastern history and politics course that I was challenged to reconcile my liberal, humanist worldview with the fact that the Jewish state of which I was so proud was occupying the land of 4.4 million stateless Palestinians, many of them refugees displaced by Israel's creation. (See TIME's photoessay on growing up Arab in Israel.)
Like many young American Jews, during my senior year of college I took the free trip to Israel offered by the Taglit-Birthright program. The bliss I felt floating in the Dead Sea, sampling succulent fruits grown by Jewish farmers, and roaming the medieval city of Safed, historic center of Kabbalah mysticism, was tempered by other experiences: Watching the construction of the imposing "security fence," which not only tamped down on terrorist attacks, but also separated Palestinian villagers from their lands and water supplies. I spent hours in hushed conversation with a young Israeli soldier who was horrified by what he said was the routinely rough and contemptuous treatment of Palestinian civilians at Israeli military checkpoints.
That trip deepened my conviction that as an American Jew, I could no longer in good conscience offer Israel unquestioning support. I'm not alone. Polling of young American Jews shows that with the exception of the Orthodox, many of us feel less attached to Israel than do our Baby Boomer parents, who came of age during the era of the 1967 and 1973 wars, when Israel was less of an aggressor and more a victim. A 2007 poll by Steven Cohen of Hebrew Union College and Ari Kelman of UC Davis found that although the majority of American Jews of all ages continue to identify as "Pro-Israel," those under 35 are less likely to identify as "Zionist." Over 40 percent of American Jews under 35 believe that "Israel occupies land belonging to someone else," and over 30 percent report sometimes feeling "ashamed" of Israel's actions.
Read about America's first female black rabbi.
Hanna King, an 18-year old sophomore at Swarthmore College, epitomizes the generational shift. Raised in Seattle as a Conservative Jew, last November King was part of a group of activists who heckled Netanyahu with slogans against the occupation at a New Orleans meeting of the Jewish Federations General Assembly.
"Netanyahu repeatedly claims himself as a representative of all Jews," King says. "The protest was an outlet for me to make a clear statement, and make it clear that those injustices don't occur in my name. It served as a vehicle for reclaiming my own Judaism." (Read more about the debate on a Palestinian state.)
A more moderate critique is expressed by J Street, the political action committee launched in 2008 as a "pro-Israel, pro-Peace" counterweight to the influence in Washington of the more hawkish American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). Simone Zimmerman heads J-Street's campus affiliate at the University of California-Berkeley. A graduate of Jewish private schools, she lived in Tel Aviv as an exchange student during high school, but never heard the word occupation spoken in relation to Israel until she got to college.
During Zimmerman's freshman year, Berkeley became embroiled in a contentious debate over whether the university should divest from corporations that do business with the Israeli army. Although Zimmerman opposed divestment, she was profoundly affected by the stories she heard from Palestinian-American activists on campus.
"They were sharing their families' experiences of life under occupation and life during the war in Gaza," she remembers. "So much of what they were talking about related to things that I had always been taught to defend, like human rights and social justice, and the value of each individual's life." (Read the top 10 religion stories of 2010.)
Even young rabbis are, as a cohort, more likely to be critical of Israel than are older rabbis. Last week, Cohen, the Hebrew Union College researcher, released a survey of rabbinical students at New York's Jewish Theological Seminary, the premier institution for training Conservative rabbis. Though current students are just as likely as their elders to have studied and lived in Israel and to believe Israel is "very important" to their Judaism, about 70 percent of the young, prospective rabbis report feeling "disturbed" by Israel's treatment of Arab Israelis and Palestinians, compared to only about half of those ordained between 1980 and 1994.
Ben Resnick, 27, is one of the rabbinical students who took the survey. In July, he published an op-ed pointing out the ideological inconsistencies between Zionism, which upholds the principle of Israel as a Jewish state, and American liberal democracy, which emphasizes individual rights regardless of race, ethnicity, or religion. "The tragedy," Resnick says, is that the two worldviews may be "irreconcilable."
Still, after living in Jerusalem for 10 months and then returning to New York, Resnick continues to consider himself a Zionist. He quotes the Torah in support of his view that American Jews should press Israel to end settlement expansion and help facilitate a Palestinian state: "Love without rebuke," he says, "is not love."
Dana Goldstein is a fellow at the New America Foundation and the Nation Institute.

http://old.news.yahoo.com/s/time/201...08599209550500
October 3rd, 2011  
VDKMS
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by senojekips
Once again you are just quoting what you "think" whereas we are discussing the facts, and that is that under the ruling of Terra Nullius the Palestinians are the owners, regardless of what you and the Israelis would "think" They both live(d) there and are regarded as the "owners".
Fact :Terra nullius is a Latin expression deriving from Roman law meaning "land belonging to no one" (or "no man's land"), which is used in international law to describe territory which has never been subject to the sovereignty of any state
Fact : The West Bank has been a part of Jordan and Jordan is a sovereign state.
October 3rd, 2011  
VDKMS
 
I liked MontyB's last post, and after some internet search I found two interesting articles to complement them. The first is an interview with Richard Goldstone after he wrote his report about the Israeli retaliation on Hamas , the second after he changed his mind about that report detriment to Hamas.
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/10...anscript3.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...-israel-report
October 3rd, 2011  
senojekips
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by VDKMS
Fact :Terra nullius is a Latin expression deriving from Roman law meaning "land belonging to no one" (or "no man's land"), which is used in international law to describe territory which has never been subject to the sovereignty of any state
Fact : The West Bank has been a part of Jordan and Jordan is a sovereign state.
You still miss the point completely, don't you, you very neatly recognise only one part of the ruling you have ignored the other conditions the most important being that at the time it is claimed it must be both uninhabited and unclaimed. Terra Nullius only supports the "Finder's keepers" principal in the case of land that meets all of these conditions and Palestine was neither.

Quote:
'Terra Nullius'! Translate it into English and you have a 'Land that belongs to no-one'.

In International Law 'terra nullius' describes territory that nobody owns so that the first nation to discover it is entitled to take it over, as "finders keepers". But how did this latin phrase, and the right of takeover, make such an impact on places that weren't deserted; particularly across large land masses like Australia?

To search for an answer to this question we must go back in time, long before Eddie Mabo and others began their land rights action in the High Court of Australia.

And to begin the search, we start a long way from the Australian legal system and even the laws of the Torres Strait's 'Meriam' people. We must go back to the beginnings of International Law itself. Source: http://www.mabonativetitle.com/tn_01.shtml
It was found that the land was owned by the "Native People" occupying that land at the time of White Settlement.

The fact that Australia is a Sovereign state having absolutely no bearing on the case, other than, as a sovereign state we must abide by International Law.
October 3rd, 2011  
Panzercracker
 
The problem here is that VDKM is not here to discuss, he's here to reinforce the notion that Israel is in the right.

He does not give a broken penny about thousands of murdered and milions of exiled Palestinians and he will continue to ignore any and all of your points, thats deliberation at work, not a misunderstanding.
October 4th, 2011  
MontyB
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by VDKMS
I liked MontyB's last post, and after some internet search I found two interesting articles to complement them. The first is an interview with Richard Goldstone after he wrote his report about the Israeli retaliation on Hamas , the second after he changed his mind about that report detriment to Hamas.
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/10...anscript3.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...-israel-report
The thing about that information is that it should be giving Israeli politicians cause for concern because in a couple of generations they will be running the risk of losing US support.

The Pro-Israeli lobby in the US has done a great job of keeping the US government compliant and complicit but that lobby is beginning to lose its power which will isolate Israel further and as has been pointed out without US protection 150 million to 5 million are not great odds.
 


Similar Topics
Don't fault Israel for Palestinians' intransigence
Israel launches new Gaza strike, raids West Bank
Bush to Pressure Israel Over West Bank Settlement Plan (Reu
Israel Plans to Hand Over Second West Bank City (Reuters)
Israel Agrees to Start Delayed West Bank Pullback (Reuters)