[goMac]

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/21/wo...mp;oref=slogin

According to Israel's own internal documents, %39 of the land they have settlements on is known to have been privately owned by Arabs before it was "repurposed".

You know, quite often I hear the "Israel bought the land" argument, but this is straight from the Israeli government itself.

[vmarks]

Actually, it's straight from the NYTimes, via Peace Now!, a radical activist group, who claims they got it from the government.

But don't let little things like facts get in the way of good hyperbole.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

Actually, it's straight from the NYTimes, via Peace Now!, a radical activist group, who claims they got it from the government.

But don't let little things like facts get in the way of good hyperbole.

Well, then we can wait and see what the government has to say about it. So far Israel has just taken the "no comment" route.

[marden]

Originally Posted by goMac 

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/21/wo...mp;oref=slogin

According to Israel's own internal documents, %39 of the land they have settlements on is known to have been privately owned by Arabs before it was "repurposed".

You know, quite often I hear the "Israel bought the land" argument, but this is straight from the Israeli government itself.

Which part of Israel should the Israelis be allowed to have?

[goMac]

Originally Posted by marden 

Which part of Israel should the Israelis be allowed to have?

Parts they legitimately acquire?

I dunno, I started this thread because often I hear excuses like "The Arabs signed away their land!" or "Israeli's bought that land!" Of course if this is true, all those excuses are bunk.

[marden]

Originally Posted by goMac 

Parts they legitimately acquire?

I dunno, I started this thread because often I hear excuses like "The Arabs signed away their land!" or "Israeli's bought that land!" Of course if this is true, all those excuses are bunk.

The victors of WWI legitimately granted them the land. The UN legitimately granted them statehood. As victors in wars started against them they legitimately occupied lands they took in battle.

[SSharon]

Originally Posted by marden 

The victors of WWI legitimately granted them the land. The UN legitimately granted them statehood. As victors in wars started against them they legitimately occupied lands they took in battle.

I agree.

If you think Israel needs a receipt to have legal claim to the land we better give back half of our country to the indians. For thousands of years the phrase to the victor goes the spoils held true. I am not debating whether this is right or wrong only that it is impractical to have every country return land that it got without buying it.

[Taliesin]

Please try all to be more specific, it might help everyone involved: This new report talks about the settlements in the Westbank, which are all internationally illegal anyway and have therefore in the course of a peace-agreement to be withdrawn from by Israel.

The report finds that about 40% of the settlements in the Westbank are even illegal according to israeli law, as they have been constructed on privately owned palestinian land, ie. Israel stole the land from private palestinians and not just from the palestinian people as a whole, like the rest of the settlements.

The report further claims that over 80% of the Maale Adumim settlement block, the largest in the West Bank, is built on private Palestinian land.

Additionaly Peace Now! claims that Israel's government has kept the report secret for many years, because of the consequences it would have for Israel's international prestige.

If confirmed this would be a major revelation for the international community, but not so much for the palestinians as they already know that Israel is stealing land from them.


Taliesin

[Troll]

Originally Posted by marden 

The victors of WWI legitimately granted them the land.

Which land? Not the land they occupy today and not the settlements being referred to.

[Nicko]

Originally Posted by Taliesin 

Please try all to be more specific, it might help everyone involved: This new report talks about the settlements in the Westbank, which are all internationally illegal anyway and have therefore in the course of a peace-agreement to be withdrawn from by Israel.

The report finds that about 40% of the settlements in the Westbank are even illegal according to israeli law, as they have been constructed on privately owned palestinian land, ie. Israel stole the land from private palestinians and not just from the palestinian people as a whole, like the rest of the settlements.

The report further claims that over 80% of the Maale Adumim settlement block, the largest in the West Bank, is built on private Palestinian land.

Additionaly Peace Now! claims that Israel's government has kept the report secret for many years, because of the consequences it would have for Israel's international prestige.

If confirmed this would be a major revelation for the international community, but not so much for the palestinians as they already know that Israel is stealing land from them.


Taliesin

This looks like simple land grabbing. Is this really surprising though? Money and real estate trump politics and religion every time.

[Hawkeye_a]

Originally Posted by Taliesin 

is built on private Palestinian land.

There is no place on the map of this galaxy called "Palestine", there are no such things as "Palestineans", and therefore, there is no such thing as "private Palestinean land".

Call them Arabs if you must, i dont have a problem with that, cause thats what they are. The fact that they choose to becalled "palestineans" in no mans land, didnt give them a state in the past, doesnt make them a state today, and hopefully (and probably) will never give them a state in the future. why ? simple.... they havent earned it and they do not deserve it.

To all the Israel vs Arab discussions, just so most of you folks know....there is no such state/country called "Palestine"... ask the U.N.

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

There is no place on the map of this galaxy called "Palestine", there are no such things as "Palestineans", and therefore, there is no such thing as "private Palestinean land".

Call them Arabs if you must, i dont have a problem with that, cause thats what they are. The fact that they choose to becalled "palestineans" in no mans land, didnt give them a state in the past, doesnt make them a state today, and hopefully (and probably) will never give them a state in the future. why ? simple.... they havent earned it and they do not deserve it.

To all the Israel vs Arab discussions, just so most of you folks know....there is no such state/country called "Palestine"... ask the U.N.

Comeon, if you don't have something sensible to contribute, why don't you go trolling elsewhere?

Taliesin

[Sky Captain]

Didn't Israel just forceably remove thousands of Israelis from occupied territory?
No matter how much the Israelis give, it's never be enough.
Not until every Jew is removed from the planet.
Then the Pelestinians and the rest of the world will be satisfied.

[Hawkeye_a]

Originally Posted by Taliesin 

Comeon, if you don't have something sensible to contribute, why don't you go trolling elsewhere?

Taliesin

Sensible ? it's like you arguing the rights of unicorns and gargoyles, when any "sensible" person, knows they dont exist in the known universe....just like Palestineans.

Argue within the boundaries of reason, on the accepted basis/laws of the collective(U.N), not just your own, or your communty's. Continuously using the word "palestinean" as if they were a real state/country doesnt make it any more so or give it any more legitimace than it has....which is none what-so-ever.

Is Palestine a "country" ? the answer isnt "not yet", "maybe" or "possibly"...it's a "no" as voted by the UNITED NATIONS of the world.

And Sky Captain.... it's not about Muslims vs Jews.... it's about Muslim vs everyone else. And no they wont be happy once Israel is destroyed, cause Cyprus, Albania, Kashmir, Chechnya, E.Timor, Phillipines, etc...will come next.....and so on and so forth. Slipper slope, i know....but i beleive the past is a good indication of what will possibly happen i nthe future.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

Argue within the boundaries of reason, on the accepted basis/laws of the collective(U.N)

That's what he did. Why don't you tell us what the UN says about the West Bank and Gaza if you're so smart?

[vmarks]

Much of the land within the pre-1967 boundaries of Israel was in fact purchased from their landowners, although Hajj Amin Al-Husseini, Grand Mufti of Jerusalem did his best pre 1947 to dissuade Arabs from selling their land to Jews.

The West Bank and Gaza are disputed territories. Some say occupied illegally by Israel, some say occupied illegally by Arabs.

They were in fact both offered back to their rightful owners, Jordan and Egypt, who both declined. So by default, they are Israel's. Israel then gave authority over them to a Palestinian Authority under Oslo, and that Authority proceeded to violate every point agreed to in Oslo.

So as I say, the status is disputed.

Trusting Peace Now! for news and suggesting that the history of land purchases is invalid based on this report is foolishness.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

They were in fact both offered back to their rightful owners, Jordan and Egypt, who both declined. So by default, they are Israel's.

LOL - and what international law are you relying on for your statement? The UN never said the land belonged rightfully to Jordan and Egypt so who "offered it to them"? Israel? It wasn't Israel's to give away. And even if it had, what international law or principle says that the lad defaults to the occupier in that context? Israel is in occupation of those territories. That is clear from international law and UN resolutions. As are Israel's obligations as the occupying power.

Besides, if the OT's are part of Israel, how come the people who live there aren't Israeli?

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

Much of the land within the pre-1967 boundaries of Israel was in fact purchased from their landowners, although Hajj Amin Al-Husseini, Grand Mufti of Jerusalem did his best pre 1947 to dissuade Arabs from selling their land to Jews.

The West Bank and Gaza are disputed territories. Some say occupied illegally by Israel, some say occupied illegally by Arabs.

They were in fact both offered back to their rightful owners, Jordan and Egypt, who both declined. So by default, they are Israel's. Israel then gave authority over them to a Palestinian Authority under Oslo, and that Authority proceeded to violate every point agreed to in Oslo.

So as I say, the status is disputed.

Trusting Peace Now! for news and suggesting that the history of land purchases is invalid based on this report is foolishness.

You are propagating halftruths, to say the least:

1. This report is not talking about land in Israel within the pre67-borders, but specifically about the land in the Westbank.

2. The land that was rightfully bought by jews within pre67-Israel amounts to about 7% of the land there.

3. Israel never offered the Westbank and Gaza to Egypt and Jordan, and Egypt and Jordan certainly did not refuse to take them back. There was a time when Israel asked the US to offer Sinai back to Egypt shortly after the 67-war, as well as Golan to Syria, as a mediator but the US did not do it! The Westbank was never offered for anything.

4. Egypt and Jordan eventually gave their claims to Gaza and Westbank into the hands of the palestinian people after the PA got founded during the Oslo-peace-process. The PA violated the Oslo-accords, and Israel violated the Oslo-accords, too.

5. Regardless of all that nice history about territory, it doesn't even tangle the topic of this thread and of the report released by peace Now! The report based on a survey done by Israel's government in 2004, reveals that Israel stole 40% of the land israeli settlements were built on in the Westbank from private palestinian owners, which is and was illegal even according to israeli law!

Given that, what remains to be seen, is if the report is genuine, or if the Israel-government-2004-survey was faked.

If genuine though, this would be quite condemning for Israel, and Israel would have to dismantle all settlements that were built on private palestinian land, or pay a rent at a monthly rate the owners would deem fit.

Taliesin

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by Taliesin 

You are propagating halftruths, to say the least:

1. This report is not talking about land in Israel within the pre67-borders, but specifically about the land in the Westbank.

2. The land that was rightfully bought by jews within pre67-Israel amounts to about 7% of the land there.

I was responding to the fellow above who said that if this report were true, the claim that Israel had ever purchased land was false. Obviously you and I agree that he is mistaken.

3. Israel never offered the Westbank and Gaza to Egypt and Jordan, and Egypt and Jordan certainly did not refuse to take them back. There was a time when Israel asked the US to offer Sinai back to Egypt shortly after the 67-war, as well as Golan to Syria, as a mediator but the US did not do it! The Westbank was never offered for anything.

Incorrect.

In exchange for peace with Jordan, the West Bank was offered back to Jordan under the aegis of UN242.

After the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire, this territory was part of the British Mandate of Palestine. The 1948 Arab-Israeli War brought an end to the Mandate. The West Bank was captured and annexed by Jordan, and the 1949 Armistice Agreements defined its interim boundary. From 1948 until 1967 the area was under Jordanian rule, though Jordan did not relinquish its claim to the area until 1988. The area was captured by Israel in the 1967 Six-Day War, although, with the exception of East Jerusalem (and unlike the Golan Heights), it was not annexed by Israel.

Israel did annex Jerusalem, and Arabs there can claim Israeli citizenship, or permanent residency. Because Israel did not annex the West Bank, no such status can be conferred there. Israel has never officially confirmed why it has not annexed the territority, but some speculate it was in order to have it ready to trade for peace.

In 1988, Jordan ceded its claims to the West Bank to the Palestine Liberation Organization, as "the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people."

That's right. Israel offered Jordan the West Bank, and Jordan instead gave it to the PLO.

In 1978, Israel and Egypt signed the historic Camp David Accords (1978) which brought an official end to the strife between them. The second part of the accords was a framework for the establishment of an autonomous regime in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Egypt thus signaled an end to any ambitions to control the Gaza Strip itself.

That's right, Gaza was on the table in 1978 and Egypt declined.

4. Egypt and Jordan eventually gave their claims to Gaza and Westbank into the hands of the palestinian people after the PA got founded during the Oslo-peace-process. The PA violated the Oslo-accords, and Israel violated the Oslo-accords, too.

So in your mind, when one party has broken all agreements, the other party should still be upholding them? Israel continued to uphold the Oslo agreements after they had been trashed by the PA into Netanyahu's term as PM.

5. Regardless of all that nice history about territory, it doesn't even tangle the topic of this thread and of the report released by peace Now! The report based on a survey done by Israel's government in 2004, reveals that Israel stole 40% of the land israeli settlements were built on in the Westbank from private palestinian owners, which is and was illegal even according to israeli law!

Given that, what remains to be seen, is if the report is genuine, or if the Israel-government-2004-survey was faked.

If genuine though, this would be quite condemning for Israel, and Israel would have to dismantle all settlements that were built on private palestinian land, or pay a rent at a monthly rate the owners would deem fit.

Taliesin

This is Peace Now!'s attempt to keep themselves in the headlines and to undermine Israel.

It is likely that Peace Now used strange definitions of the term 'privately-owned.' For instance, the Turks [who ruled the Holy Land up until 1917] would sometimes tax someone for a plot of land because he planted a tree on it - and then left-wing groups come along and say that his great-great-grandson, who no longer lives in the area, is the owner of the plot.

The late Pliah Albeck, as head of the Civil Department in the Justice Ministry, was responsible for locating lands in Judea and Samaria for Jewish communities. "She was extraordinarily careful to make sure that no land that could be considered privately-owned was used," the IDF lawyer said. "She was extra stringent, and many communities were not even built because of her findings. She would go out to the area and check to see if land that was not registered was used for grazing; she didn't want anyone's sustenance to suffer because of a new community..."

"One community on the east side of Highway 60 had actually been planned to be on the west," the lawyer said, "but was moved because of what she found... There were dozens of court suits against new communities, but the Supreme Court always accepted her opinions."

[Troll]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

Israel offered Jordan the West Bank, and Jordan instead gave it to the PLO.

You yourself said that it didn't belong to Israel. What's it called when you give away something that doesn't belong to you?

Besides, you make out as if land becomes yours by annexation. That concept is completely antiquated.

The status of the West Bank and Gaza is settled under international law.

The West Bank, Gaza and Golan Heights are territories occupied by Israel under the terms of the Fourth Geneva Convention (UNSC Resolution 446, Resolution 465 and Resolution 484, among others).

The Red Cross considers these territories to be occupied under the terms of the Fourth Geneva Convention.

The International Court of Justice ruled that the West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem are occupied territories under the Fourth Geneva Convention

Israel itself recognised that it was in occupation. Soon after the 1967 war, Israel issued a military order stating that the Geneva Conventions applied to the recently-occupied territories and then rescinded the order a few months later.

Then there are other UN Resolutions dealing with the topic:

Palestinian Refugees have the right to return to their homes in Israel.
General Assembly Resolution 194, Dec. 11, 1948

Israel's occupation of Palestine is Illegal.
Security Council Resolution 242, Nov. 22, 1967

Palestinian have the right to Self-Determination.
General Assembly Resolution 3236, November 22, 1974

Israel's settlements in Palestine are Illegal.
Security Council Resolution 446, March 22, 1979

Reaffirmation of a Palestinian State
Security Council Resolution 1397, March 12, 2002

The United States holds the view that Israel is in occupation of the Occupied Territories. Only Israel thinks that they are not in occupation. Rather Israel calls the territories "disputed" and for 50 years has refused self-determination to the people of these territories and refused to make them Israeli citizens. Don't play dumb about why Israel hasn't annexed the territories. You know as well as I do that Israel would only claim the territories when a sufficient number of Palestinians had either died or moved away that the demographics of the Jewish state would not be screwed. With the current demographics, if Israel incorporated the Occupied Territories into Israel, Israel would become an Arab state.

The position is clear under international law. Israel occupies those territories under the Fourth Geneva Convention. Israel's obligations under that Convention are clear.

[Hawkeye_a]

If there is no "Palestine" as a state/country. how on earth can there be "private palestinean land". the land would either have to be classified as:
-Israeli
-Jordanian
-Syrian
-Egyptian
-Lebanese

And the people who live on it would either be citizens of any of the above(and thus under the apropriate jurisdiction and law) and if not...they would be trespasser/illegal immigrants/rebels/whatever.

I dont know the specifics of the different treaties, etc.... but can someone explain to me how there can be land classified as "Palestinean" when there is no state/country called "Palestine". And if there is such a plane, what it's status is ? cause last i checked it's not a state/country.

If it is "disputed territories" which states are the "disputors ?

[Hawkeye_a]

Originally Posted by Troll 

The United States holds the view that Israel is in occupation of the Occupied Territories. Only Israel thinks that they are not in occupation. Rather Israel calls the territories "disputed" and for 50 years has refused self-determination to the people of these territories and refused to make them Israeli citizens. Don't play dumb about why Israel hasn't annexed the territories. You know as well as I do that Israel would only claim the territories when a sufficient number of Palestinians had either died or moved away that the demographics of the Jewish state would not be screwed. With the current demographics, if Israel incorporated the Occupied Territories into Israel, Israel would become an Arab state.

Ahhhhhh....so it's similar to what Saudi Arabia, Iran, United Arab Emirates, Quatar, Bahrain, Syria, Lebanon, Turkey, Jordan,etc.... have been doing to non-muslims in that region for hundreds of years.... So it does come down to religion..... and why should Israel be forefit to the group that drove away every other religious group within it's midsts and is at war with practically every other religious group on a global scale ?

[Troll]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

Ahhhhhh....so it's similar to what Saudi Arabia, Iran, United Arab Emirates, Quatar, Bahrain, Syria, Lebanon, Turkey, Jordan,etc.... have been doing to non-muslims in that region for hundreds of years.... So it does come down to religion..... and why should Israel be forefit to the group that drove away every other religious group within it's midsts and is at war with practically every other religious group on a global scale ?

WTF are you on about? That makes no sense. First of all, it has nothing to do with religion. Second of all, Israel has nothing to forfeit. It doesn't own the Occupied Territories and doesn't claim to own them!

[Troll]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

If there is no "Palestine" as a state/country. how on earth can there be "private palestinean land". the land would either have to be classified as:
-Israeli
-Jordanian
-Syrian
-Egyptian
-Lebanese

None of them claim it so it isn't classified as belonging to any of them. The land is being held on trust for the Palestinian people. You can find info on Google about what a trust is and the same principles apply here.

In the interim, as to your question about how it can be privately owned land if no state exists, you seem to be assuming that you need a state in order to have a private claim to land. Not true. People have been living on that land for thousands of years and their private ownership of the land has been recognised for thousands of years. Governments come and go, mandates come and go, occupying powers come and go. Their claims to their home and the land they are on didn't disappear when the Brits upped and left, or when the Jordanians upped and left or when the Israelis arrived.

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by Troll 

You yourself said that it didn't belong to Israel. What's it called when you give away something that doesn't belong to you?

I said that they are disputed.

They are.

Besides, you make out as if land becomes yours by annexation. That concept is completely antiquated.

The status of the West Bank and Gaza is settled under international law.

Then so is Sheba Farms. Tell it to Lebanon and Syria. See how seriously they take you.

Israel itself recognised that it was in occupation. Soon after the 1967 war, Israel issued a military order stating that the Geneva Conventions applied to the recently-occupied territories and then rescinded the order a few months later.

rescinded is key. You mention it, but it doesn't fit in your world view.

Then there are other UN Resolutions dealing with the topic:

Palestinian Refugees have the right to return to their homes in Israel.
General Assembly Resolution 194, Dec. 11, 1948

Which they chose not to do, and instead made war repeatedly. In conjunction with this, consider the UNRWA's fraudulent inflation and perpetuation of refugees.

Israel's occupation of Palestine is Illegal.
Security Council Resolution 242, Nov. 22, 1967

We have been over UN242. It does not say that. Let me know when Palestinians stop using the disputed territories for war and terrorism, and then we can talk about a secure border under 242. Israel already offered those territories to Egypt and Jordan under 242 in exchange for peace and those offers were declined.

The United States holds the view that Israel is in occupation of the Occupied Territories. Only Israel thinks that they are not in occupation.

Which US administration? The State Dept., or the Executive branch? You should note that State often disagrees with the Executive.

Rather Israel calls the territories "disputed" and for 50 years has refused self-determination to the people of these territories and refused to make them Israeli citizens.

Nonsense.

The West Bank is disputed. Gaza has been evacuated and is solely Palestinian Authority business except when it attacks Israel. Jerusalem is Israel's, and its status is known. What's that you say? The UN determined it's status to be something different? The UN -disputes- the status Israel has conferred upon it by granting citizenship to the people in Jerusalem and calling it the capital of the state?

Don't play dumb about why Israel hasn't annexed the territories.

Don't make this personal.

You know as well as I do that Israel would only claim the territories when a sufficient number of Palestinians had either died or moved away that the demographics of the Jewish state would not be screwed. With the current demographics, if Israel incorporated the Occupied Territories into Israel, Israel would become an Arab state.

That's one speculation. It is certainly not a declared reason by the State of Israel.

Another reason might be that when Israel first took control of the territory in defense, it presumed that they could be used in exchange for peace under the terms of UN242.

The position is clear under international law. Israel occupies those territories under the Fourth Geneva Convention. Israel's obligations under that Convention are clear.

Except that it's murky - if Israel had these lands under 242 for the purpose of using them in exchange for peace, and that exchange was rejected, then the ownership of the land is disputed.

If as you say, the land had to be returned anyway, then there was no point to even having drafted a UN242. That makes no sense.

[vmarks]

To reiterate, this is just Peace Now!'s attempt to stay in the news.

[Nicko]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

To reiterate, this is just Peace Now!'s attempt to stay in the news.

It's interesting to see your POV.

[Nicko]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

If there is no "Palestine" as a state/country. how on earth can there be "private palestinean land". the land would either have to be classified as:
-Israeli
-Jordanian
-Syrian
-Egyptian
-Lebanese

And the people who live on it would either be citizens of any of the above(and thus under the apropriate jurisdiction and law) and if not...they would be trespasser/illegal immigrants/rebels/whatever.

I dont know the specifics of the different treaties, etc.... but can someone explain to me how there can be land classified as "Palestinean" when there is no state/country called "Palestine". And if there is such a plane, what it's status is ? cause last i checked it's not a state/country.

If it is "disputed territories" which states are the "disputors ?

There was a great series the BBC did about places that don't officially exist. BBC NEWS | Programmes | This World | Places That Don't Exist

Of course, it didn't cover Palestine, but it was facinating nonetheless.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

Except that it's murky - if Israel had these lands under 242 for the purpose of using them in exchange for peace, and that exchange was rejected, then the ownership of the land is disputed.

If as you say, the land had to be returned anyway, then there was no point to even having drafted a UN242. That makes no sense.

Except that it's NOT murky. It's only murky if you're sitting on Israel's side of the fence. Both the Executive and the State Department of the US Government consider Israel to be an occupying force under the Fourth Geneva Convention. Every country I know of considers that to be the case. It's only Israel that thinks the situation is "murky". And that is entirely to be expected. It serves Israel's interests for the situation to be murky because it means that Israel neither has to see a Palestinian state created nor alter the character of the Jewish state by incorporating the Occupied Territories (which would be illegal in any event).

Of course there is a point in having UN242! I know you hate the comparisons with South Africa because you live in denial of Israeli apartheid, but I take it you agree that a legal occupation by South Africa of Namibia became an illegal occupation. South Africa said the situation was "murky" too. South Africa claimed that it had annexed Walvis Bay and that it belonged to South Africa (in the same way that Israel claims the settlements) and it claimed that the situation regarding the rest of Namibia was murky. Countless resolutions were passed condemning the South African occupation just like they have been against Israel. The difference is that the lobby for South Africa wasn't as strong as that for Israel so the situation came to a head much sooner. Sanctions were imposed and South Africa wound up before the International Court of Justice.

The principle of non-annexation is a clearly established principle of international customary law. It was one of the most important bases of the League of Nations which preceded the UN. The principle of annexation was replaced by Art. 22 of the League of Nations which created a mandate principle. That is, in a war, a state that takes over territory belongs to another state does not acquire a right to the territory but gains mandatory control over the territory. As the ICJ has said, "the principle that the well-being and development of the peoples concerned formed a sacred trust of civilisation ... the ultimate objective of the sacred trust was self-determination and independence. The mandatory was to observe a number of obligations, and the Council of the League was to see that they were fulfilled. The rights of the mandatory as such had their foundation in those obligations." Those rights and obligation were eventually recorded in the Fourth Geneva Convention. The principle though is clear. When you take over territory, you become a trustee over the land and its people and the objective of the trust is self-determination for the people.

So, Israel could never ever acquire land by annexation. For over a half century, it simply hasn't been possible under international law to acquire territory through conquest.

The thing is that trusts can be abused. Decades down the line, it became clear that neither South Africa's occupation of Namibia nor Israel's occupation of the territories was being conducted for the "sacred trust of civilisation, self-determination and independence." Both country's denied self-determination to the locals and claimed to have annexed part of the territory located therein. It therefore became necessary for the international community to terminate the mandate; dissolve the trust.

UN Resolution 242 is the equivalent of UN Resolution 276 which applied to Namibia. Israel's occupation WAS legal but it became illegal when the UN terminated Israel's mandate. Resolution 242 was necessary to record the fact that Israel was no longer within its rights. In the same way as UN Resolution 276 recorded the fact that South Africa's occupation of Namibia had become illegal.

Now you might say that the UN had no right to terminate Israel's occupation but you'd be wrong. The ICJ said in the Namibian case that "(a) that, according to a general principle of international law (incorporated in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties), the right to terminate a treaty on account of breach must be presumed to exist in respect of all treaties, even if unexpressed; (b) that the consent of the wrongdoer to such a form of termination cannot be required; (c) that the United Nations ... acting through its competent organ, must be seen above all as the supervisory institution competent to pronounce on the conduct of the Mandatory."

So, the principle under international law is clear. Israel cannot annex the Occupied Territories. It is currently illegally occupying the territories. While it is in occupation, it holds the territories on trust and its duties are set out in the Fourth Geneva Convention.

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

I was responding to the fellow above who said that if this report were true, the claim that Israel had ever purchased land was false. Obviously you and I agree that he is mistaken.

Indeed we agree on that one: 7% of Israel was indeed rightfully bought from mostly absent landlords.

Originally Posted by vmarks 

Incorrect.

In exchange for peace with Jordan, the West Bank was offered back to Jordan under the aegis of UN242.

Sorry, but that's bogus, that's only propagated by israeli websites and pro-israeli commentators. Here's a text from wikipedia summing up the relevant political developments shortly after the 67-war:

According to Chaim Herzog,

On June 19, 1967, the National Unity Government [of Israel] voted unanimously to return the Sinai to Egypt and the Golan Heights to Syria in return for peace agreements. The Golans would have to be demilitarized and special arrangement would be negotiated for the Straits of Tiran. The government also resolved to open negotiations with King Hussein of Jordan regarding the Eastern border.[70]

The Israeli decision was to be conveyed to the Arab nations by the United States. The US was informed of the decision, but not that it was to transmit it. There is no evidence of receipt from Egypt or Syria, and some historians claim that they may have never received the offer.[71]

Later, the Khartoum Arab Summit resolved that there would be "no peace, no recognition and no negotiation with Israel." However, as Avraham Sela notes, the Khartoum conference effectively marked a shift in the perception of the conflict by the Arab states away from one centered on the question of Israel's legitimacy toward one focusing on territories and boundaries and this was underpinned on November 22 when Egypt and Jordan accepted Resolution 242.[72]

The June 19 cabinet decision did not include the Gaza Strip, and left open the possibility of Israel permanently acquiring parts of the West Bank. On June 25-27, Israel incorporated East Jerusalem together with areas of the West Bank to the north and south into Jerusalem's new municipal boundaries.

Source: Six-Day War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So what can be gathered is that Israel wanted to offer land for peace, that is Sinai and Golan, but neither Gaza nor the Westbank. Instead Israel decided to try to open negotiations with Jordan about the eastern border, which meant to negotiate a division of the Westbank between Israel and Jordan.

All of these "offers" to partly withdraw from the occupied territories should have been transmitted and mediated by the US, but the US didn't do it, and so the "offer" never reached the arab states.

But even if, they would have rejected, considering the fact that it was only a partly withdrawal that Israel offered, and because at that time the arab states were not interested in peace with Israel, and decided to not recognize Israel and to not negotiate.

So considering all this, the claim that Israel offered to withdraw from the whole of the Westbank for peace, and that Jordan did not want back the westbank, can be laid to the archives, as "myth, number 67".

After the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire, this territory was part of the British Mandate of Palestine. The 1948 Arab-Israeli War brought an end to the Mandate. The West Bank was captured and annexed by Jordan, and the 1949 Armistice Agreements defined its interim boundary. From 1948 until 1967 the area was under Jordanian rule, though Jordan did not relinquish its claim to the area until 1988. The area was captured by Israel in the 1967 Six-Day War, although, with the exception of East Jerusalem (and unlike the Golan Heights), it was not annexed by Israel.

Israel did annex Jerusalem, and Arabs there can claim Israeli citizenship, or permanent residency. Because Israel did not annex the West Bank, no such status can be conferred there. Israel has never officially confirmed why it has not annexed the territority, but some speculate it was in order to have it ready to trade for peace.

In 1988, Jordan ceded its claims to the West Bank to the Palestine Liberation Organization, as "the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people."

Pretty much correct. I can't say that about the next sentence:

That's right. Israel offered Jordan the West Bank, and Jordan instead gave it to the PLO.

Incorrect.

Israel's labour-party, in the 70's, favoured a settlement with Jordan, in which Jordan and Israel divide the westbank between them. Jordan even favoured the idea, cause the land in the westbank is very good land for agricultural use. But there was a third group that was disturbing such a division, and that were the palestinian people, politically represented by the PLO.
The political goal of the PLO was then to destroy the state of Israel, and to replace it with a secular state for jews, christians and muslims alike, thereby securing the full right of return for the palestinians. Moderate parts of the PLO were also ready to negotiate for a two-state-solution, but they were then not in the majority.

It wasn't until the first intifada, which showed that the palestinians had an identity of their own, with their own political ambitions for independence, that Jordan ceded the claims on the westbank to the PLO.

That all said, even Israel's labour-party in the 70's only pondered about a division of the westbank between Israel and Jordan, but never the complete withdrawal from. The Likud-party that took over in the latter part of the 70's didn't even want to do that, and instead to keep hold of all of the westbank, mostly for religious reasons, which was then followed by a massive support for the settler-movement in the Westbank.

In 1978, Israel and Egypt signed the historic Camp David Accords (1978) which brought an official end to the strife between them. The second part of the accords was a framework for the establishment of an autonomous regime in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Egypt thus signaled an end to any ambitions to control the Gaza Strip itself.

That's right, Gaza was on the table in 1978 and Egypt declined.

Incorrect.

Gaza and westbank were on the table in 1978 for the formation of an independent palestinian state, but Israel refused.

It was never seriously pondered about giving Gaza back to Egypt, and Egypt never declined such a hypothetic proposal.

So in your mind, when one party has broken all agreements, the other party should still be upholding them? Israel continued to uphold the Oslo agreements after they had been trashed by the PA into Netanyahu's term as PM.

That's the point, really, both sides are blamin the other side for having violated the accords first. Fact is Israel used the peace-negotiations to accelerate the settler-activities, in order to build facts on the ground before a peace-agreement could be signed. The PLO's military wing used violence to improve its stand in the negotiations, in order not to be pressed into an agreement that would leave the palestinians with a bantustans-state-system.

This is Peace Now!'s attempt to keep themselves in the headlines and to undermine Israel.

It is likely that Peace Now used strange definitions of the term 'privately-owned.' For instance, the Turks [who ruled the Holy Land up until 1917] would sometimes tax someone for a plot of land because he planted a tree on it - and then left-wing groups come along and say that his great-great-grandson, who no longer lives in the area, is the owner of the plot.

The late Pliah Albeck, as head of the Civil Department in the Justice Ministry, was responsible for locating lands in Judea and Samaria for Jewish communities. "She was extraordinarily careful to make sure that no land that could be considered privately-owned was used," the IDF lawyer said. "She was extra stringent, and many communities were not even built because of her findings. She would go out to the area and check to see if land that was not registered was used for grazing; she didn't want anyone's sustenance to suffer because of a new community..."

"One community on the east side of Highway 60 had actually been planned to be on the west," the lawyer said, "but was moved because of what she found... There were dozens of court suits against new communities, but the Supreme Court always accepted her opinions."

Don't you think that you should always state which source you are using when you copy-paste?

I'll do it for you: Arutz Sheva - Israel National News
Maybe you feel ashamed from which site you copy-paste from, and somehow I can understand it. Here's the map of Israel according to that site:
Home Page

Very nice, and I'm sure, that the site, that wishes Israel to become the Israel of that map, doesn't envision millions of additional palestinians with israeli passports, so they are obviously wishing for ethnic cleansing or worse.

Taliesin

[Sayf-Allah]

Originally Posted by Taliesin 

Don't you think that you should always state which source you are using when you copy-paste?

I'll do it for you: Arutz Sheva - Israel National News
Maybe you feel ashamed from which site you copy-paste from, and somehow I can understand it. Here's the map of Israel according to that site:
Home Page

Very nice, and I'm sure, that the site, that wishes Israel to become the Israel of that map, doesn't envision millions of additional palestinians with israeli passports, so they are obviously wishing for ethnic cleansing or worse.

Taliesin

I doubt he's ashamed of that. That's the future he himself hopes for. He, like most other Zionists, want that or else they will make sure the occupation continues. Peace is not something they gain from. So why should they seek it?

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by Sayf-Allah 

I doubt he's ashamed of that. That's the future he himself hopes for. He, like most other Zionists, want that or else they will make sure the occupation continues. Peace is not something they gain from. So why should they seek it?

1. There is no occupation; 2. "Most Zionists" believe in giving away the land of Israel for false peace promises; 3. Accusing Zionists of not wanting peace is hilarious coming from a guy who wants to see Israel destroyed in its entirety.

[vmarks]

There's nothing wrong with that map- It holds a far brighter future than the map the Palestinian Authority uses:

Ministry of Parlimentery Affairs uses the map to label all the land as Palestine.

So does Al-Fatah. Remeber, they're the so-called 'moderates' who lost to the 'radicals' Hamas.
Fateh Organization Website - they use this one:


The geography of Palestine is Hamas' website, and they describe Palestine there as being all of Israel.

The borders of Palestine start with Lebanon at Ras El-Nakoura at the Mediterranean sea and head in a straight line to the east till it reaches the area beyond the small Lebanese city of Bent Jubayel, where the separating line between the two countries curves to the north at a straight angle. At that point, the border comes around the fountain of the River Jordan, and a narrow passage adjacent to it from the east connects it with the land of Syria and the lakes Al-Hola, Lout and Tabarriyya.

The border with Jordan begins to the south of Tabarriyya Lake at the drainage of Al-Yarmouk River. It continues along the River Jordan. From the fountain of the River Jordan, the border heads south across the geometrical middle of the Dead Sea and the Araba Valley till it reaches the of Aqaba.

The borders with Egypt could be compared to a straight line that separates the semi-island of Seena and Al-Naqab desert. The border begins at Rafah at the Mediterranean Sea till it reaches Taba at the Gulf of Aqaba.

On the west side, Palestine lies next to the international open waters of the Mediterranean Sea at a distance of about 250 km from Ras El-Nakoura in the north to Rafah in the south.

So let's not pretend for a moment that the there is anything wrong from Arutz 7, other than the political inaccuracy, having surrendered Gaza already, creating a de facto Palestinian state.

That's right. The act of granting that land, ceding it to the Palestinian Authority created the state of Palestine. Peace is something everyone can gain from, but it can never come when Hamas, Fatah, and the rest of the Arabs who call themselves Palestinians remain dedicated to destroying all Israel. Peace can come when they lose the hope of succeeding in that effort.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

To reiterate, this is just Peace Now!'s attempt to stay in the news.

The report is that this is the Israeli government's own analysis of the situation.

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

The report is that this is the Israeli government's own analysis of the situation.

No, unless you have any further information, the facts are that Peace Now! -claims- to have a report from the Israeli government.

That's very different from an -actual- report from the Israeli government.

[Sayf-Allah]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

1. There is no occupation; 2. "Most Zionists" believe in giving away the land of Israel for false peace promises; 3. Accusing Zionists of not wanting peace is hilarious coming from a guy who wants to see Israel destroyed in its entirety.

Seek help.

[Sayf-Allah]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

There's nothing wrong with that map- It holds a far brighter future than the map the Palestinian Authority uses:

Ministry of Parlimentery Affairs uses the map to label all the land as Palestine.

So does Al-Fatah. Remeber, they're the so-called 'moderates' who lost to the 'radicals' Hamas.
Fateh Organization Website - they use this one:


The geography of Palestine is Hamas' website, and they describe Palestine there as being all of Israel.



So let's not pretend for a moment that the there is anything wrong from Arutz 7, other than the political inaccuracy, having surrendered Gaza already, creating a de facto Palestinian state.

That's right. The act of granting that land, ceding it to the Palestinian Authority created the state of Palestine. Peace is something everyone can gain from, but it can never come when Hamas, Fatah, and the rest of the Arabs who call themselves Palestinians remain dedicated to destroying all Israel. Peace can come when they lose the hope of succeeding in that effort.

Thanks for proving my point above.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by Sayf-Allah 

Thanks for proving my point above.

Perhaps you have a problem with reading comprehension.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

No, unless you have any further information, the facts are that Peace Now! -claims- to have a report from the Israeli government.

That's very different from an -actual- report from the Israeli government.

Isn't that's exactly what I said?

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

Isn't that's exactly what I said?

No, you said the report was officially from the government of Israel. vmarks is saying that the radically anti-Israel Peace Now only claims to have such a report.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

No, you said the report was officially from the government of Israel. vmarks is saying that the radically anti-Israel Peace Now only claims to have such a report.

I really said that? I think I said "The report is that this is the Israeli government's own analysis of the situation." Maybe I just worded it poorly, but I think it makes sense: The report, or the claim made in the NY Times article, says that this information comes from the Israeli government, specifically the Israeli Civil Administration. Now maybe it's all a lie. But that's what is being reported.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

... the radically anti-Israel Peace Now ...

Shalom Achshav is the largest non-governmental organisation in Israel. It has more Israeli members than any other group. If it's anti-Israel then there are a hell of lot of suicidal Israelis. It organised the largest ever Israeli protest that 400,000 Israelis (of a population of 5 million) supported. Were they all anti-Israel or are you perhaps misrepresenting your more radical agenda as that of the Israeli people?

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by Troll 

Shalom Achshav is the largest non-governmental organisation in Israel. It has more Israeli members than any other group. If it's anti-Israel then there are a hell of lot of suicidal Israelis. It organised the largest ever Israeli protest that 400,000 Israelis (of a population of 5 million) supported. Were they all anti-Israel or are you perhaps misrepresenting your more radical agenda as that of the Israeli people?

Of course there is a huge portion of Israelis who are incredibly stupid when it comes to their own survival. But for the dumb Israelis and their fear of world opinion the conflict would have been settled in 1967, and no one would be talking about the so-called "Palestinians" today. Instead of dictating the terms of surrender, my people chose to plead with their defeated enemies for peace. Instead of allowing Arabs fleeing across the desert to leave the land of Isreal, we had to beg them to stay. Instead of declaring faith in the Almighty, we looked to the White House. We went to Camp Davd. We went to Oslo. And look at all that's done for us.

[Big Mac]

Why do people still popularly refer to Judea and Samaria as the West Bank? The West Bank is the term Trans-Jordan used when it stole the Jewish land west of the Jordan River - that's why they called it the West Bank. But its true name is Judea and Samaria. It's not the West Bank. Get it right.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Of course there is a huge portion of Israelis who are incredibly stupid when it comes to their own survival.

As I thought. You agree that Peace Now isn't anti-Israel; it just doesn't support your radical views. In fact, your views are as anti-Israel as theirs are. Moreso since you don't live there.

I thought you were an American citizen anyway so what is this "my people" stuff?

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by Troll 

I'm glad that we established that Peace Now is not anti-Israel. It is of course pro-peace. That is where you disagree with them. I thought you were an American citizen though so what is this "my people" stuff?

Peace Now is anti-Israel. And I am a Jew. I may not live in Israel, but Israel is my spiritual homeland and Israelis are my family just as the rest of Jewry is. We are all Am Yisrael.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Peace Now is anti-Israel. And I am a Jew. I may not live in Israel, but Israel is my spiritual homeland and Israelis are my family just as the rest of Jewry is. We are all Am Yisrael.

I see, so you want us to believe that the views of Israelis who actually live in Israel are anti-Israel, but your views as a non-resident of Israel are pro-Israel.

It's THEIR country whether it's your "spiritual home" or not. You don't get to vote, you don't get to decide. They want to live in peace with their neighbours and the way this whole democracy thing works, it winds up being their decision to make and their decision to implement as they see fit.

The whole problem with Israel and the Palestinians is that people like you bring religion into what should be a secular decision. Every country has important religious sites in it but that doesn't mean the country itself has to belong to any particular religion. This is especially the case in the region where a number of different faiths claim it as their "spiritual home".

[BRussell]

Cleveland is my spiritual homeland.

[SSharon]

I must be missing something Taliesin. Where in the arutz 7 map does it say Israel?

[Troll]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

Cleveland is my spiritual homeland.

My spiritual home is Uranus.