Is the Israeli Leadership Straying from the Peace Path? - Page 2

Vader · 06-08-08, 05:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by G-Man

The US government has opposed these settlements - are you accusing the white house of pushing a pro-terrorist liberal agenda?

We're not discussing the Whitehouse at this time; however, they have made their fair share of mistakes. Backing down to terrorist assclowns and thier liberal apologist/supporter buddies are not among them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by G-Man

Jerusalem means 'temple of the jews' - is this it?
Is this really all of your argument? Can you not debate your position with anything more than that?

The point I was trying to make is that the arabs are attempting to assert a claim over something that isn't theirs. Jerusalem means "Temple of the Jews" this is a given fact and it is good evidence of the original ownership of the land.

I realize this is difficult of the terrorists and their liberal apologist buddies to accept but it is a fact and it isn't going to change.

Quote:

Originally Posted by G-Man

N.B Doesn't Indiana translate into 'land of Indians' - should we only allow indians to live there?

This is a poor attempt at a comparison, which failed miserably to do ANYTHING but make you look foolish. Good job on that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by G-Man

Your points are too weak to label as arguments.

According to terrorists and their liberal apologist buddies. At least I have points. You post only propaganda and try to defend it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by G-Man

Israeli citizens have a home in Israel - not where these settlements are planned.

The places they're building settlements are part of Israel ... so yes, they do have a right to a home there.

ludahai · 06-08-08, 07:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tashah

Some clarity is necessary here...

Occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem by Jordan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Basically then, as a result of the Six Day War in 1967, Israel occupied and annexed territory (East Jerusalem) that was already illegally occupied and annexed by Transjordan as a result of the 1948 Arab-Israeli War.

On what basis was Jordan's annexation of the West Bank and east Jerusalem illegal? On what basis was Israel's subsequent annexation legal?

ludahai · 06-08-08, 07:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by donsutherland1

Exactly right, Tashah. None of the post-1948 war agreements (basically the armistice agreements) ceded East Jerusalem to Transjordan. Ultimately, the permanent status of East Jerusalem will have to be established in a negotiated agreement. That agreement will respect Jordan's "special role" regarding the Muslim holy sites in Jerusalem as per the Israel-Jordan peace agreement in 1994 that declares, "In this regard, in accordance with the Washington Declaration, Israel respects the present special role of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan in Muslim Holy shrines in Jerusalem. When negotiations on the permanent status will take place, Israel will give high priority to the Jordanian historic role in these shrines."

There is still no basis for Israeli sovereignty over East Jerusalem.

ludahai · 06-08-08, 07:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vader

WRONG. The Israelis defeated the Egyptians in a fight the Egyptians started and those areas were taken as part of that war. Therefore, they are PERFECTLY LEGAL.

Wrong. The only way territory can be legally transferred from one state to another state is through a treaty that is legally executed between two or more parties which specifically mentions a transfer of territory between the two states. Short of that, the occupation is technically belligerant occupation and modern international law does NOT permit settlements or movements of population that would prejudice the final status of the territory.

Quote:

More liberal, pro-terrorist rhetoric. Jerusalem is and always has been the ancestral home of the jews. The land was stolen by the Romans and given to another group. Therefore, it is the "palestinian" settlements that are illegal.

WOW!! All of the sudden, I am liberal and pro-terrorist? I am pro-international law. The Arabs have lived there for more than a thousand years. How is that illegal?

Quote:

He is telling 1/2 the story. That isn't a debate --- it's an attempt at spreading mindless propaganda. If he isn't going to tell the whole story, he should consider finding a new subject matter to discuss.

Sure it is a debate. In a debate, people take sides. One person tells his own side of the issue while the other person tells their own. That is debate. Join a debate society sometime and learn about what debate really is.

ludahai · 06-08-08, 07:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vader

The point I was trying to make is that the arabs are attempting to assert a claim over something that isn't theirs. Jerusalem means "Temple of the Jews" this is a given fact and it is good evidence of the original ownership of the land.

Actually, the Canaanites were there before the Hebrews. Why don't we find them and return the land to the Canaanites?

bhkad · 06-08-08, 07:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ludahai

There is still no basis for Israeli sovereignty over East Jerusalem.

"...Israel recognizes that a unique Palestinian national identity exists today. But given its historical background, it is impossible to show that Palestinian nationalism has a claim to the Land of Israel superior to that of the Jews..."

Answering the New Anti-Zionists

Vader · 06-08-08, 11:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ludahai

Wrong. The only way territory can be legally transferred from one state to another state is through a treaty that is legally executed between two or more parties which specifically mentions a transfer of territory between the two states. Short of that, the occupation is technically belligerant occupation and modern international law does NOT permit settlements or movements of population that would prejudice the final status of the territory.

WRONG!!

Egyptians lost that land in a war they started. Therefore, it is the spoils of war.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ludahai

Sure it is a debate. In a debate, people take sides. One person tells his own side of the issue while the other person tells their own. That is debate. Join a debate society sometime and learn about what debate really is.

[/quote]

Wrong!

What he does is NOT debate --- it's little more than spreading misleading propaganda.

Vader · 06-08-08, 11:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ludahai

There is still no basis for Israeli sovereignty over East Jerusalem.

Jerusalem means "TEMPLE OF THE JEWS" ... this fact provides PERFECT EVIDENCE as to who the legitimate owners of Jerusalem are.

Vader · 06-08-08, 11:19 PM

Ok people ....

Here is some good information regarding the true ownership of Jerusalem:

Who Owns Jerusalem?:
The Israelis claim ownership of the city as their historical capital. In other words, they claim right of
prior ownership. The Israelis have a legal claim to the city as the spoils of war. The Israelis captured the
city in 1967 when they defeated the invading Arab armies, including Jordan. Israel also captured what was historically Judea and Samaria. Today, it's called the West Bank.

The Jordanian citizens caught on the wrong side of the border at the end of the war were abandoned
by their government. They were shoved into refugee camps and presented to the world as the Palestinian people. From one of these refugee camps in 1968 emerged Yasser Arafat and, overnight, Jordanian refugees were
transformed into the 'Palestinian people'.

The rest of the story can be found here:

Who Owns Jerusalem

This information CLEARLY debunks to the pro-Palestinan lobby on this forum.