Who Shot Mohammed al-Dura? (long)

[gsmoove23]

Israel has borders which it has recognized. Otherwise it would not be logically possible to choose to annex East Jerusalem. This is all a strawman since Israel is continually recognizing these borders everyday. Settlements on the palestinian side of the green line border towns within Israel and are given legal distinction. Israel cannot choose to disregard its obvious recognition of its borders only when it is convenient.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap
No, that distinction was made every day, and by the Israleis, since 1950, gievn that they patrol Tel aviv with civil police,and use civil courts, not military ones. What right do any states have to set up embassies in disputed territory? Aren;t they picking sides by doing so? and if Tel aviv is dispted? Obviosuly then, the world must back the Jews, sicne they are willing to open embassies in clearly disputed territory, and side with the Israeli claim...all these notion of an international bias against the Jews must then be crap, given the facts in the ground.......

The green line has become the internationally recognized borders of Israel, the land in which the Israeli goevrnment has full control and authority. This international recognition ends at the green line. The territories (OCCUPIED TERRITORIES) are not accepted as part of Israel, and hence, the Geneva convention applies (which should be obvious by the ery acts of the Israeli, and thier using of the IDF to enforece the laws there).

the israelis acknowledge that the territories are disputed, and that there is a reasonable chance of their becoming part of a palestinian state ( as is not the case for Tel avic) to formally annex them and treat them as part of israel would tend to prejudice that possibilty, and would
in all likelihood result in a war that would burn the entire region. Israels non-annexation is forebearance, and cannot be held to thereby limit here rights.

I would also point out that Israel HAS annexed both the Golan Heights and the entire municilaity of Jerusalem, and treats them legally as parts of israel - applying your de facto standard, then, both of these are de jure parts of israel, and the border is to the east of them.

I dont see how you can use the defacto situation where it works against israel, but not the other way around.

[Ned]

Originally posted by GePap


The Balfour decaration has little if any legal stading. it was a statement of policy at a time Britian did not even have control over the lands It was "giving away". As for the League Mandate, it was imposed upon the local populace. Last time I checked, the Palestinians did not vote to become a mandate. It, and all mandates, were inherently undemocratic, against the very notion of self-determination.

[

GePap, The Balfour Declaration IS binding international law. Here is a snippet from the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine:

"The Mandatory shall be responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home, as laid down in the preamble, and the development of self -governing institutions, and also for safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion."

http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/go.asp?MFAH00pr0

GePap, we are having a legal discussion here, not one of what "should have been."

The Jews, immigrants or not, had a full legal right to be in Palestine. They were citizens of Palestine in 1948. Everyone residing in the borders of Israel, Jew and Arab alike, also became citizens of Israel upon its establishment in 1948. The peoples, Jew and Arab alike, living outside Israel could not become citizens of a new Palestinian state because one was never created.

So the question remains, how did only the Jews lose their Palestinian citizenship in 1948?

If they did not lose their citizenship and remain citizens of Palestine, why is illegal for them to live in Palestine?

[gsmoove23]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
The key is your assertion that the Jews were not an indigenous people to palestine = the essence of the Zionist claim is that they are, and this was recognized by the league of nations, and was effectively reaffirmed by the UNSC in 1948.

The UNSC of 1948 did no such thing. Its purpose was to recognze an Israeli state based on the facts that were currently on the ground.

The question of the justice of that claim is the "ur question" of the dispute. I respectfully suggest that we agree to disagree on that, i see no argument on that here as being fruitful. The achievement of Oslo, such as it was, was to move past historical narratives, the Pal claim that the Jews were foreigner, the claims of some zionists that the Pals were not really a distinct people, and to proceed on the working assumption that both are distinct and indigenous peoples. This implies i think, accepting the league mandate as law, just as much as any recent UNSC resolutions criticizing israel.

Accepting that Israel exists and is there to stay hardly means accepting the ideology of zionism or the methods and means that brought about its existance. This arguement usually arises when zionists fault Palestinians for not simply accepting the zionist philosophy in 48 and actively fighting against it.

Ultimately the Israelis and Palestinians must live in peace together. when that happens, any settlements which remain will be those on that portion of the disputed land that both sides agree should be annexed to israel. all others will be dismantled. Meanwhile it is clear that either expansion of OR dismantlement of settlements is prejudicial to the final boundary. It is therefore appropriate that Israel build no more settlements, and that the Pals make every reasonable effort to limit terrorism. It is not unreasonable, given that a new settlement can yet be dismantled, but that an innocent life cannot be returned, that Israel insist that one action take priority over the other.

It is very unreasonable as by your very arguement you admit how settlements will become permanent. They are an active policy to change the nature of the dispute and the more they grow the more the future Palestinian state is stunted, a state which is already overpopulated. The dismantling of settlements is not as easy as you say, especially since they are placed with the very assumption of being permanent. The land is not leased to prospective buyers but permanently sold.

[Ned]

Originally posted by GePap
This always astounds me: can anyone else think of any people in the world who were forced to accept mass immigration by foreigners seeking not to be part of thier community, but to create seperate and new communities of their own, to th every possible detriment of the local's way of life, and to be happy about it? To say "hey, that's OK with us"?

Yes, the United States throughout its history. Have you ever seen the movie "Gangs of New York?" It portrays the literal invasion of New York by the Irish in the '40s and '50s. They took over whole communities and soon began dominating the politics. The locals resisted, at times violently.

[gsmoove23]

If they did not lose their citizenship and remain citizens of Palestine, why is illegal for them to live in Palestine?

For crying out loud Ned, the Palestinians lost their citizenship in 48. They do not have any citizenship in fact. The Mandate is over, kaput, nada. Whats more, today the Palestinians have no rights to settle in the territories outside of designated PA zones, certainly not within settlements or in the large security zones surrounding settlements, yet Israelis do under the gun of the IDF. WTF, why can't you see that the legal arguements for the settlements are strawmen that have not stood up in any international forum. They do not only violate the spirit of the law but can't stand except in the state of Israel.

[gsmoove23]

Originally posted by Ned


Yes, the United States throughout its history. Have you ever seen the movie "Gangs of New York?" It portrays the literal invasion of New York by the Irish in the '40s and '50s. They took over whole communities and soon began dominating the politics. The locals resisted, at times violently.

The Irish were "part" of the community and did not seek to create a an Irish state in the US.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


the israelis acknowledge that the territories are disputed, and that there is a reasonable chance of their becoming part of a palestinian state ( as is not the case for Tel avic) to formally annex them and treat them as part of israel would tend to prejudice that possibilty, and would
in all likelihood result in a war that would burn the entire region. Israels non-annexation is forebearance, and cannot be held to thereby limit here rights.

I would also point out that Israel HAS annexed both the Golan Heights and the entire municilaity of Jerusalem, and treats them legally as parts of israel - applying your de facto standard, then, both of these are de jure parts of israel, and the border is to the east of them.

I dont see how you can use the defacto situation where it works against israel, but not the other way around.

Only Israel recognizes its annexation of the Golan and Jerusalme, just like only Argentina recognized its annexation of the Falklands.

And you continue to ignore the simple fact than even if the territories were 'only disputed", what is going on here is a military occupation (nothing in the Conventona askf or clearly defined borders for there to be an occupation) and thus fall under its juridsdiction, and hence, settlements are illegal.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ned


Yes, the United States throughout its history. Have you ever seen the movie "Gangs of New York?" It portrays the literal invasion of New York by the Irish in the '40s and '50s. They took over whole communities and soon began dominating the politics. The locals resisted, at times violently.

yes, Ned. As gsmoove shows, the Irissh were there to be part of the US, not to create a different state. BUt I would go along with your correct point and ask: can you be surprised that Palestinains reacted violently to Jewish migration, given what we have seen happen in the US?

[Ned]

Originally posted by gsmoove23

Accepting that Israel exists and is there to stay hardly means accepting the ideology of zionism or the methods and means that brought about its existance. This arguement usually arises when zionists fault Palestinians for not simply accepting the zionist philosophy in 48 and actively fighting against it.

1) The Balfour Declaration became part of the League of Nations Mandate and is international law. Accepting Palestine as a Jewish homeland is not a question of accepting the ideology of zionism. It is the law.

2) Israel was the creation of the United Nations. It is a lawful entity.

3) The people who have been resisting the Mandate and the creation of Israel are fighting against international law as created and sanctioned by the League of Nations and the United Nations.

Their resisitance is unlawful, just as much as Saddam Hussein's defiance of the UN was unlawful.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by gsmoove23


The UNSC of 1948 did no such thing. Its purpose was to recognze an Israeli state based on the facts that were currently on the ground.



Accepting that Israel exists and is there to stay hardly means accepting the ideology of zionism or the methods and means that brought about its existance. This arguement usually arises when zionists fault Palestinians for not simply accepting the zionist philosophy in 48 and actively fighting against it.



It is very unreasonable as by your very arguement you admit how settlements will become permanent. They are an active policy to change the nature of the dispute and the more they grow the more the future Palestinian state is stunted, a state which is already overpopulated. The dismantling of settlements is not as easy as you say, especially since they are placed with the very assumption of being permanent. The land is not leased to prospective buyers but permanently sold.

1. the formal language of the UNSC in 1948 did recognize facts on the ground. I think it was widely understood at the time that was a fulfillment of the original mandate. I dont think the majority of the UNSC at that time renounced the League action of establishing the mandate.

2.Yes one could deny the zionist claim to be an indigenous people, and still accept the fact of israel. Similarly one could deny that the palestinians had any right to be a distinct nation, and still accept israeli withdrawl. The persistence of each side arguing against the other sides historical narrative as part of its claims tended to obstruct peace.

3. The israelis withdrew from several "permanent" settlements in Sinai.

[Ned]

Originally posted by gsmoove23


The Irish were "part" of the community and did not seek to create a an Irish state in the US.

I'm sorry, gsmoove, but they did revolt.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


Only Israel recognizes its annexation of the Golan and Jerusalme, just like only Argentina recognized its annexation of the Falklands.

And you continue to ignore the simple fact than even if the territories were 'only disputed", what is going on here is a military occupation (nothing in the Conventona askf or clearly defined borders for there to be an occupation) and thus fall under its juridsdiction, and hence, settlements are illegal.

Recognition - oh, so now we're back from de facto to de jure.

I dont see how the geneva convention could apply to a state occupying its own territory, simply because of domestic arrangements.

Kurds in iraq had no effective rights of citizenship, the land was controlled by military force, and arabs were settled in their land. Was that a violation of the geneva convention? no arab state said, so, nor did the PA or PLO or anyone else advocating on behalf of the Pals say so. Why? because whatever the nature of the administration, Iraq was not occupying FOREIGN territory. Ditto China in Tibet, USSR in numerous places, and im sure many other examples could easily be found around the world. Im quite sure the Geneva convention has only been applied to cases where one country was occupying FOREIGN territory, eg the US occupation of Iraq.

[Ned]

Originally posted by GePap


yes, Ned. As gsmoove shows, the Irissh were there to be part of the US, not to create a different state. BUt I would go along with your correct point and ask: can you be surprised that Palestinains reacted violently to Jewish migration, given what we have seen happen in the US?

GePap, no I am not surprised at Arab resistance to Jewish immigration. (I use the term Arab, because the Jews were just as much Palestinian as were the Arabs.) There was a clash of cultures, particularly of religion.

As has been mentioned here before, the Jews are somewhat unique in history because they have been able to maintain their identity as a people through two thousand years of exile. That, by itself, is worthy of admiration and respect.

I hope I have demonstrated here that the Jews had and still have a legal right to return to Palestine, live anywhere within its borders and become legal citizens of Palestine -- regardless of the wishes of the Arabs. They also, under Israeli law, have the same right to live in Israel and become Israeli citizens.

The problem, of course, is that the settlers do not want to become part of a new Palestinian State. Thus the settlements "unfairly" expand the potential borders of Israel at the expense of a Palestinian State. This is why the UNSC issued its resolutions in 1979 and 1980 calling for a halt.

[Ned]

Originally posted by gsmoove23


For crying out loud Ned, the Palestinians lost their citizenship in 48. They do not have any citizenship in fact. The Mandate is over, kaput, nada. Whats more, today the Palestinians have no rights to settle in the territories outside of designated PA zones, certainly not within settlements or in the large security zones surrounding settlements, yet Israelis do under the gun of the IDF. WTF, why can't you see that the legal arguements for the settlements are strawmen that have not stood up in any international forum. They do not only violate the spirit of the law but can't stand except in the state of Israel.

I don't buy this for a second. No Palestinian lost his citizenship of Palestine in 1948. In fact, the whole right of return issue critically depends upon recognition of the inherent retention of the people to their citizenship.

Also, as I have pointed out, all Jews throughout the world have a similar right to return to Palestine under international law. They too are exiles.