Crash cource in mid-east history (a must read for some)

[Charon]

Nashwan

Charon

[babek-]

@nashwan

Thx for your great job in correcting Hortlunds interpretation of the history.

Most of your infos were very interesting.

WTG and Greetings from Germany.

[~Caligula~]

Hezbollah are controlled by Syria, which wants the Golan back. That's one of the disputes Israel hasn't solved.

Jordan and Egypt have both made peace with Israel, and keep it. Neither sanction terrorism against Israel from their territory.
 

So why aren`t the Hezbollah fighting on the Golan?
Your logic just doesn`t work.

There was a tunnel the IDF just found about a month ago,that was from Egypt to the Gaza strip,and used for smuggling weapons.
There were many terrorist coming trough from Jordan in the past few weeks,most of them were caught.

Set your facts straight!!!

The Israeli extremists consider Jordan to be the real Palestine, occupied by Palestinians. Yet these racial terminators have made peace, and stick to it. Seems like an indication the Palestinians are capable of making peace if they are offered a workable deal.

I have no idea what You`re talking about.
The PLO was kicked out of Jordan.While the population of Jordan is about 90% palestinians,the ruling class isn`t.Yet they`re not engaging in any terrorist activity against them.Why?
Because it`s not  the palestinian homeland they fight for,but the termination of Israel.
They can`t accept land that was allready under Muslim rule,to be under foreign power.And they will take no deal in the peaceful way,because they have to win that land back in war.That`s the honorable way..the only way for them.

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by babek-
@nashwan

Thx for your great job in correcting Hortlunds interpretation of the history.

Hmm..yes...you DO realize that Nashwan has not corrected anything of what I have written so far? All he has been trying to do is to shift focus to other aspects of the conflict...or did that escape you? The reason for this is very simple. What I posted in the two first posts in this thread is the TRUTH, only facts, no opinions, no speculations, no irrelevant ramblings. Nashwan dont want to argue over that because he knows I'm right. Instead he tries to shift focus of the discussion to some obscure and irrelevant issues, take a look at his last couple of posts and you will see alot of quotes from some former Israeli prime minister, some debate over ethnical cleansing, and some heartbreaking sob-stories over various victims in this comflict...oh, and not to forget, some insulting personal attacks as well...

Now Babek, please let us all know exactly what Nashwan has "corrected". Cant find anyting?

Well, thanks for trying.

(Oh, and please do take a crack at finding anything wrong with the facts I posted at the top of this thread.)

[StSanta]

One thing that's odd is how unwiling the Arabs are when it comes down to actually heping the Paestinians with housing etc.

I've got more than a few friends from the middle east - 2 Palestinians, one Iranian, an Iraqi and a Saudi buddy.

For better  or worse, they seem to agree: while Arab states agree with the Palestinian struggle, they don't want them on their own teirritory. They're considered troublemakers, unwanted in that sense.

Methinks Arab nations could do a lot more for the Palestinians. Jordan for instance ould begin with returning their land.

We don't see big fighthing there, though.

[Nashwan]

There was a tunnel the IDF just found about a month ago,that was from Egypt to the Gaza strip,and used for smuggling weapons.
There were many terrorist coming trough from Jordan in the past few weeks,most of them were caught.

Set your facts straight!!!

Yes, like drugs and guns are smuggled from America into Canada.
Neither Egypt or Jordan condone, aid or even turn a blind eye to these activities, which are in a small scale.

Because it`s not the palestinian homeland they fight for,but the termination of Israel.
They can`t accept land that was allready under Muslim rule,to be under foreign power.And they will take no deal in the peaceful way,because they have to win that land back in war.That`s the honorable way..the only way for them.

So, Jordan is Palestinian.
The Palestinians won't accept Israel, and work for it's destruction.
Jordan accepts Israel, and doesn't work for it's destruction.

See the contradiction?

So why aren`t the Hezbollah fighting on the Golan?
Your logic just doesn`t work.

Hezbollah are fighting on the Golan.

April 5th Hezbollah attack Israeli positions on the Golan.
April 9th Hezbollah attack Israeli positions in the Shaba farms (which are either part of the Golan or part of Lebanon, depending on whom you believe. Israel and the UN say they are part of the Golan)

Those are just the two most recent. Do a search on the BBC news site.

I forgot the other issue Hezbollah has with Israel, the two hostages Israel has been holding for 12 years to use as bargaining chips to secure the release of Ron Arad.

What is your solution to the security problems in Israel?

Mine is pull out of the West Bank, and establish a strong well defended border between Israel and the Palestinians.

The Israeli government's is continue settlements in the West Bank, make the Palestinians think they will never get a deal no matter what, and refuse to set up a border because it might imply the West Bank isn't going to become part of Israel.

What's your idea Caligula?

[~Caligula~]

I belive the palestinian problem is only the surface,and we need to go lot deeper to solve this.They are only tools in greater arab hands.
The whole mentality of most arabs countries need to be changed.
I think overthrowing goverments in the strongest rouge arab countries has to be the first step.Then comes the education of the people,and making them see that the values and the way of life of the west is in fact not a bad thing.They have to made understood,that the prosperity that`s on the west does not come for free,they need to work hard for it.And a world where people work together,and not just accept but cherish the difference in cultures would be a better place for everybody.
I do belive education is the strongest weapon we have,much stronger than any tank or plane.
But unfortunatelly setting up the soil for this to happen,these countries need to be beat severly in war.They have to be brought to their knees,and made understood that they cannot win.

Yes, like drugs and guns are smuggled from America into Canada.
Neither Egypt or Jordan condone, aid or even turn a blind eye to these activities, which are in a small scale.

Please show me any evidence of tunnels used to traffic drugs between the US and Canada.Smuggling a kilo of dope is not comparable to smuggling containers of RPGs.Besides that,I doubt there`s any intention on the drugdealers part to bring down the canadian state,and murder it`s people.
I have been to the border between Israel and Egypt.There`s no way it could have been done without the egyptians knowing about it,or without their approval.

[Nashwan]

What I posted in the two first posts in this thread is the TRUTH, only facts, no opinions, no speculations, no irrelevant ramblings. Nashwan dont want to argue over that because he knows I'm right.

As your a judge, I'll use a legal quote (from the British legal system, anyway)
The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

What you posted was broadly true. It could even be described as nothing but the truth. (Though your assertions that Britain "gave" Israel its land are nothing like the truth.)

However, what you posted was very far from "the whole truth"

If I say this man slashed me with a knife, and I needed 15 stiches, it makes him sound like a criminal. If he fills in the rest of the picture, that he was a surgeon operating on me, he doesn't seem so bad.

Here's your first post redone, till with FACTS, only some different ones thrown in.

1. During World War I (1914-1918), Turkey (a.k.a. Ottoman Empire) supported Germany. When Germany was defeated, so were the Turks. Control of the southern portion of their empire was "mandated" to France and Britain. The area under British supervision was referred to as "Palestine".

Britain had committed itself to setting up a Jewish homeland in Palestine, and the League of Nations charged Britain with carrying out this task. The text of the Mandate repeated that of the Balfour declaration:
"Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country"

2. In 1923 the British "chopped off" 75% of the proposed Jewish Palestinian homeland to form an Arab Palestinian Nation of "Trans-Jordan", meaning "across the Jordan River".

In 1915, before the Balfour declaration and the commitment to a homeland for the Jewish people, Britain had pledged to the Sharif of Mecca that it would, following the war, immediately grant independance to most Arab states that fell under it's control. Specifically excluded were certain territories, including "the whole of Palestine west of the Jordan"
Palestine east of the Jordan, ie modern day Jordan, was not excluded, and was therefore promissed independance.

3. Throughout the 20, 30s and 40s Britain attempted to set up a Jewish homeland. The first plan was for a federal state encompassing Arabs and Jews, with economic and political co-operation between the two. This was rejected by the Jews, accepted by the Arabs.

The second plan was to divide Palestine into two states, one for the Arabs, one for the Jews.

This was accepted by the Jews, rejected by the Arabs. The reasons for the rejection by the Palestinian Arbs were set forth in their submission to the UN:

 the question of creation of a Jewish State cannot be taken without two other connected problems; that is, the question of immigration and that of foreign subsidies. A Jewish State would, of course, be master of the immigration into Palestine. It might decide that immigration would be without limits and the economic argument, which would be that it is impossible for a very large number of people to live in a very small territory, would become void if the Jewish State can still reckon with foreign financial support. Therefore, with the doors of the country wide open to immigration, and financial support from outside, the Jewish State would become extremely populated. Therefore, it might not be 1 million, but 2, 3, 4 million, since it would not depend on its own economy or its own produc- tion. As soon as it goes beyond a certain limit in numbers, it is no longer a State where Jews can come and be safe but it becomes a bridgehead against the Arab world. This is what we absolutely want to avoid.

Jewish terrorists became increasingly active during the 40s, carrying out attacks on British troops and administrators, and on British targets outside Israel. Largely because of this, and because no compromise seemed possible, Britain announced it could not fullfil the terms of the mandate, and decided it would pull out. Britain asked the UN to come up with a solution to the problem.

4. The UN decided that partition was the only solution, and drew up borders grnting just over 50% of Palestine to the Jews, the rest to the Arabs.

Britain announced a date for it's withdrawal.

When a large part of the British troops had already left, in late 1947, Jewish groups began a campaign aimed at enlarging the ammount of territory that had been allocated to them. By the time Britain finally left, and before the declaration of independence by Israel, Jewish paramilitary groups had occupied large parts of the terrtory that had been alloted to the Arabs.

Following the declaration of independence, and the months of fighting that had preceeded it, small contingents from several Arab armies became involved. In some cases, it was an offensive, in others, such as the Jordanian army, the forces moved into Arab ares only and didn't launch attacks on areas that had been allocated to the Jews.

5. The end result of the 1948 war was that Israel held on to the lands Jewish paramilitaries had siezed before independence, and ended up occupying large tracts of land that was allocated for  Palestinian state. The owners of more than 80% of the land now inside Israel were Palestinian Arabs, and most had fled the fighting. Their land was confiscated by Israel, and they were not allowed to return to their homes. They, 500,000 of them, became refugees.

6. In the final analysis, hundreds of thousands of people were driven from their homes, and disposed of the land and property they owned. Today, even though many can prove ownership of the land and property, they are not allowed to claim it, and are not allowed to claim compensation for it's siezure, in violation of the terms of the UN partition agreement.

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by Nashwan
Completely wrong.

The land was placed under League of Nations mandate following the first world war. Britain was the mandated power, charged with carrying out the Balfour declaration, which I posted earlier. The land was not Britain's.

From the UN's web site:
[SNIP]
Doesn't sound like the land "belonged" to Britain, does it?

In the end, Britain gave up trying to find a solution, and handed the problem over to the UN, which had succeeded the League of Nations.

OK, lets try that again shall we. I said that The UN did not “give” anyone anything. It was the British. The British owned the land according to all laws of the time, and it was theirs to give.

It doesnt matter what it sounds like, it doesnt matter what the UN said, it doesnt matter what the LoN said. There is a difference between politics and international law. You have to realize this Nashwan, because apparently you keep confusing the two, mixing them up. Understand that there is a difference, an important one aswell, otherwise you should stick to being a spit dweeb, instead of being a BBS moron.

The simple fact of the matter is that the British owned and controlled the land (being a colonial power was accepted back then) and the British ceded control over the land. (Legal aspect of it, you see the UN never owned the land, neither did the LoN) After that, The jews declared the state of Israel, this new state was then recognized. The Palestinians did not declare a state of Palestine, and no such state has ever been recognized.

UN Resolution 181:
[SNIP]

Before the current mess there was an area of the the Ottoman Empire that was administered by the League of Nations, then the UN.

The UN decreed it should be split up into two states, a Jewish state and an Arab state. The Jewish state went to war and occupied most of the Arab state. How exactly does Israel have international law on it's side in it's occupation of the West Bank?

You just had to go into that one, didnt you? Well, if you enjoy parading off your ignorance, so be it.

1) UN resolution 181 calls for the creation of two states. Only one was created. Thus the conditions in the resolution was not met, the resolution becomes null and void. But thanks for trying.

2) See what I wrote above regarding the UN or LoN owning any land. Perhaps you should scroll back up and read it again.  

3) You have to decide what country owns what territory before you can make bold statements regarding any occupation.

Before we even start, are you basing that statement on the 1975 Helsinki final act of the Conference of Security and Co-operation? Because if you dont, I want you to tell me who decides what country owns what territory. And if you base your statement on the Helsinki final act, where does that leave the Palestinians in their demand for a country of their own?

After you have made up your mind on what territory is occupied/stolen, and from whom? You can go on to the question which law is governing the alleged occupied territory, and if the answer to that question is the occupant, then what conclusions can be drawn from that?

IF you say that the territory is occupied or stolen by Israel, you MUST answer the question "who owned it before it was occupied". Now, lets suppose you answer that question with "Palestine". (Im gonna be real nice here, so instead of diving in on you after you answer that, Im gonna tell you what the problem is). Problem is that there never was an independent country named Palestine. You had a British protectorate, which was divided into two parts "Israel" and "Palestine". The part called "Palestine" was immediately conquered by Egypt and Jordan. The part called "Israel" survived. Everyone basically agrees that the "state" of Palestine never existed, Egypt and Jordan absorbed its territory. In another war 20 yrs later Israel conquered the territory from the new owners. Now I ask you, the West Bank and the Gaza strip... who owned it before Israel conquered it? Jordan, Egypt or "Palestine"?

If you claim that Israel occupies Palestinian territory, then you have effectively created a vaccum, because Palestine does not exist, and it has indeed never existed. That would mean that Israel "occupies" land that doesn't belong to anyone. And in such a case, the territory occupied is considered a part of the occupying country. Clearly you would not want that, so you must find some other way. How about Jordan then? After the 48-war, Jordan occupied the west bank and claimed ownership over the territory. Problem with that line of argument is that nowadays states never recognize aggressive warfare as a legal way to increase your country's territory. And besides, Jordan has stated that the river Jordan is her western border. That would mean that the west bank is abandoned territory, and thus it belongs to the country claiming it by occupation. And again, Israel owns the west bank.

Leaving all that legal complexity aside (its complicated huh…and no fun either), it should be pretty obvious that Israel currently "owns" the west bank. Israeli law is applicable on the territory, it is defended by Israeli armed forces, and no other country claims any legal rights to that territory.

You cant steal something that has no owner. Tough huh?

4) The conflict in Israel today can be described as internal unrest, or a civil war (if you are stretching it) In neither of these cases is international law applicable. That leaves us with Israeli national law, and some general rules of warfare etc. It is not against the rules of war to assassinate valid military targets. Terrorist leaders, members of the Palestine security staff, members of the Palestinian police force are all considered combatants, and thus valid military targets. It is however, against both national law, as well as the general rules of warfare to use suicide bombers to blow up children.

I was merely pointing out the contradictions in your position. You lump together all Arabs in a group, and then assign goals and intentions to that group. How is that different from assigning goals and intentions to a country? If "the Arabs" or "Palestinians" can have goals, so can a country.

Please drop this part of your “argumentation”. Frankly it’s becoming embarrassing.

I say that a country or a nation is not a living entity, and thus it is incapable of independent thought, a prerequisite for forming goals or intentions. If you see things differently, fine, go talk to a psychologist or something.  

I agree. However, nearly all the settlements in the West Bank were founded after the Helsinki protocol was agreed. Land siezed that recently should be handed back, I think.

You seem to be incapable of coherent thought. Israel seized the west bank in 1967, agree? Besides, why are we even debating this? You will not find any support for Palestine in international law. Move on.

I'd say the UN should decide, or perhaps the population of the area in question. Who decides Israel has a right to exist?

Well, it is a bad idea and it wont ever happen.
1) the UN has no jurisdiction in domestic issues. Israel-Palestine is a domestic issue.
2) If you let the population have a vote, you’ll end up with hundreds of other minorities who also want to vote about their independence, something their current “owners” generally think is a bad idea. There is a reason why the UN dont have any jurisdiction over domestic issues, its because nations want to govern themselves.

Apart from a few differences.

The average Irishman, Quebecois etc doesn't have to survive on 70 litres of water a day (including his crops, industry etc)  [blah blah blah]

My point was that no one is forcing the Palestinians to fight against the Israelis, just as no one is forcing anyone to become a bankrobber, no matter how poor they might be.

[I’m snipping lots of your comments here, you simply dont seem to have anything to say.]

If the Palestinians are not occupied, what is their status? Citizens of Israel? Why haven't they got a vote then?
If not citizens of Israel, citizens of where?

They are not occupied, nor are they citizens of Israel. Have you ever heard of the concept of stateless refugees? They are not citizens anywhere. Though luck.

I seem to recall it's on the Dresden thread.

Quote it or give me an apology.

That the end result of the "good guy's" actions seems to be more fatal to innocent bystanders than the "bad guy's" actions.

If you leave out all the families of terrorist supporters, suicide bombers or rock throwers, how many Palestinian families do you think you have left? How many of these families has also been victims of unprovoked Israeli aggression? I'm not saying that there is no such family. No, accidents do happen, even to the Israeli army. This is unfortunate, but the victims of such attacks and their families are not victims of Israeli aggression, they are victims of an accident.

[Snipped lots if irrelevant comments again, try to stay focused]
 

Every time Israel has given land, it has got peace. Name a case where Israel solved a land dispute with a neighbour and then returned to war. There isn't one.

Sinai desert 1956-1967.

The Arabs won't start another war against Israel. Israel has nukes, and the Arabs wont go to wr until they have them as well.

Israel had nukes in 1973.

[Nashwan]

The simple fact of the matter is that the British owned and controlled the land (being a colonial power was accepted back then) and the British ceded control over the land. (Legal aspect of it, you see the UN never owned the land, neither did the LoN)

Leglly, Britain never owned the land. Politically, Britain never claimed to own the land. It wasn't a crown colony, or a dominion, or a state within the Empire or Commonwealth.

Britain made no claims on the land legally or politically. No attempts were made to incorporate it into British territory.

Are you saying it was legally British? If so, Britain said it wasn't, the LoN said it wasn't, international treaties Britain signed up to said it wasn't.

Previous owner was the Ottoman Empire. Temporary administrative control passed to Britain, but it was allways intended to be temporary.

The closest term under British law would be power of attorney. It confers responsibilty and power of decision, not ownership. The person with power of attorney is supposed to take decisions if the owner i not competent or present.

Britain did not cede control of the land to Israel. It announced it could not carry out the mandate, and said it would no longer accept the mandate.

"It is with deep regret that my Government recognizes that an acceptable settlement has still not been found. I do not say that in any spirit of criticism. My Government would be the last to minimize the difficulty of the task, as it is the first to appreciate the efforts that have been made. The fact remains that we are obviously confronted with a failure to arrive at a settlement based upon consent. My delegation would have failed in its duty if it had not emphasized from the beginning of the session the consequent need for the General Assembly to consider the situation which is likely to arise upon the removal of the forces which at present ensure law and order in Palestine. Their departure will leave a gap, and it has been the most difficult part of the General Assembly's task to find means of filling this gap ...

"... I am ... instructed to repeat explicitly that the United Kingdom Government cannot allow its troops and administration to be used in order to enforce decisions which are not accepted by both parties in Palestine ..."
British submission to the UN.

Britain did not own the land. Britain did not cede the land. Britain administered the land until 1948, trying to find a compromise solution. Then, as now, the sides would not compromise. Britain announced it's intention to stop administering the land, and asked the UN to find a solution.

The UN decided partition was a solution, but nobody else was prepared to send troops in to administer an orderly handover. As a result, the British pulled out, and the Jews, far stronger than the Arabs militarily, took control of their land and the land allocated to the Arabs.

After that, The jews declared the state of Israel, this new state was then recognized. The Palestinians did not declare a state of Palestine, and no such state has ever been recognized.

Palestine is not recognized by most countries, or the UN. It's the UN which would give it legitimacy. If not the UN, then Palestine is recognized by a large number of countries, and so has equal legitimacy with Israel.

Either way, the UN or most countries, recognize the West Bank as occupied territory, and call on Israel to withdraw from it.

Few countries recognize the West Bank as Israeli territory, even fewer than recognize Palestine.

You just had to go into that one, didnt you? Well, if you enjoy parading off your ignorance, so be it.

I'm not the one climing Britain owned Palestine, or the one claiming Britain established the state of Israel.

1) UN resolution 181 calls for the creation of two states. Only one was created. Thus the conditions in the resolution was not met, the resolution becomes null and void. But thanks for trying.

A UN resolution does not become null and void because it has not yet been carried out.

2) See what I wrote above regarding the UN or LoN owning any land. Perhaps you should scroll back up and read it again.

Perhaps you can read what I said about Britain owning the land.

Before we even start, are you basing that statement on the 1975 Helsinki final act of the Conference of Security and Co-operation? Because if you dont, I want you to tell me who decides what country owns what territory. And if you base your statement on the Helsinki final act, where does that leave the Palestinians in their demand for a country of their own?

Which part?

This one:?

The participating States will respect the equal rights of peoples and their right to self-determination, acting at all times in conformity with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and with the relevant norms of international law, including those relating to territorial integrity of States.
By virtue of the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, all peoples always have the right, in full freedom, to determine, when and as they wish, their internal and external political status, without external interference, and to pursue as they wish their political, economic, social and cultural development.

The Helsinki agreement is irrelevant, whatever you think it says. Helsinki was a conference on security in Europe, it dealt with issues affecting Europe, and Israel was not a signatory.

[Nashwan]

Countries are bound by the international agreements they sign up to. As such, Israel is bound by UN resolutions, such as 1397:
"Affirming a vision of a region where two States, Israel and Palestine, live side by side within secure and recognized borders,

242:
1. Affirms that the fulfilment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles:

(i) Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;

3236:
Recalling its relevant resolutions which affirm the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination,

1. Reaffirms the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people in Palestine, including:

(a) The right to self-determination without external interference;

(b) The right to national independence and sovereignty;

2. Reaffirms also the inalienable right of the Palestinians to return to their homes and property from which they have been displaced and uprooted, and calls for their return;

3. Emphasizes that full respect for and the realization of these inalienable rights of the Palestinian people are indispensable for the solution of the question of Palestine;


Israel is also a signatory of the fourth Geneva convention:

"The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies."
Article 49
However, Israel states that as the Geneva convention has never been ratified by the Knesset, it cannot be enforced in Israeli law.

IF you say that the territory is occupied or stolen by Israel, you MUST answer the question "who owned it before it was occupied". Now, lets suppose you answer that question with "Palestine". (Im gonna be real nice here, so instead of diving in on you after you answer that, Im gonna tell you what the problem is). Problem is that there never was an independent country named Palestine

If you claim that Israel occupies Palestinian territory, then you have effectively created a vaccum, because Palestine does not exist, and it has indeed never existed. That would mean that Israel "occupies" land that doesn't belong to anyone. And in such a case, the territory occupied is considered a part of the occupying country.

Can we agree the Ottoman Empire owned the land until 1918?

During the war, Britain and France signed the Sykes Picot agreement, setting out their responsibilities to the Arab areas soon to liberated from the Ottoman empire. That agreement ws echoed in the charter of the League of Nations, which both signed up to:
To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant. The best method of giving practical effect to this principle is that the tutelage of such peoples should be entrusted to advanced nations who by reason of their resources, their experience or their geographical position can best undertake this responsibility, and who are willing to accept it, and that this tutelage should be exercised by them as Mandatories on behalf of the League. The character of the mandate must differ according to the stage of the development of the people, the geographical situation of the territory, its economic conditions and other similar circumstances. Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone.
Get it yet?

The mandates were to administer the territories whilst they moved to self determination.

Who owns a territory governed by the principle of self determination?

How about Jordan then? After the 48-war, Jordan occupied the west bank and claimed ownership over the territory. Problem with that line of argument is that nowadays states never recognize aggressive warfare as a legal way to increase your country's territory.

Lets get this straight. According to you, nobody owned the West Bank.

Jordan occupied it. But Jordn couldn't own it, because "states never recognize aggressive warfare as a legal way to increase your country's territory"

Fair enough. However:

That would mean that Israel "occupies" land that doesn't belong to anyone. And in such a case, the territory occupied is considered a part of the occupying country.

See the contradiction here?

No one own the West Bank. Jordan occupies it, but cannot own it, because they didn't own it before they occupied it. Israel occupies it, and Israel owns it because no one else owns it.

We're back to hypocrisy again.

Do you use logic like this in court?

The conflict in Israel today can be described as internal unrest, or a civil war (if you are stretching it) In neither of these cases is international law applicable.

It is however, against both national law, as well as the general rules of warfare to use suicide bombers to blow up children

Israel is not bound by internationl rules, the Palestinians are.

Hypocrisy again.

I say that a country or a nation is not a living entity, and thus it is incapable of independent thought, a prerequisite for forming goals or intentions. If you see things differently, fine, go talk to a psychologist or something.

You cannot trust these people, there is no way to achieve peace with these people, and they will not stop...ever. They are like Terminator on steroids, and they are ready to do just about anything (be it suicide bombers or other terrorist actions) to achieve their goal...to rid the world of Israel.
Hortlund

Perhaps indicating that land is not as holy for Israel as you might want to imply? Israel is more than willing to change land for peace
Hortlund

Besides, when the peace deal with Egypt was made, there were no terrorist activity funded and led by Egypt against Israel. Perhaps that might have something to do with things too?
Hortlund

So, it's okay for Hortlund to ascribe goals and actions to countries, anyone else who does it needs to see a shrink.

Hypocrisy

My point was that no one is forcing the Palestinians to fight against the Israelis, just as no one is forcing anyone to become a bankrobber, no matter how poor they might be.

And no one forced Jews to fight the Arabs to set up Israel.

Of course, Jews were right to kill to establish their state, the Palestinians are wrong to kill to establish their state.

Hypocrisy.

If you leave out all the families of terrorist supporters, suicide bombers or rock throwers, how many Palestinian families do you think you have left? How many of these families has also been victims of unprovoked Israeli aggression? I'm not saying that there is no such family. No, accidents do happen, even to the Israeli army. This is unfortunate, but the victims of such attacks and their families are not victims of Israeli aggression, they are victims of an accident.

3 children killed in "accidents" yesterday. Ever heard of negligence? Ever heard of not shooting a child throwing stones? After all, the Merkava is supposed to be the world's best tank. If a 9 year-old with a stone is a threat to it...

Sinai desert 1956-1967.

Yes, another example of Israeli aggression.

Israel had nukes in 1973.

Not openly.

Quote it or give me an apology.

Earlier on this thread you came up with this:

For some reason unbeknownst to me you have chosen to side with the bad guys, the ones strapping on explosive vests and heading into playgrounds filled with kids to blow up as many of them as possible. The guys who were cheering on 9-11. The ones who sided with Saddam in 91. The guys who will do just about anything they can to kill Israeli civilians, they will blow up busses, cars, airplanes, boats, houses, shopping malls, grocery stores...they will even blow themselves up....just to kill women and children...

just exactly how sick is that? Think about it.

Any chance of an apology?

Look at some of your comments:

In this conflict there is a good side and a bad side.

Compare that to this comment in a topic on Nazi war crimes:

I’m simply trying to point out the fact that the world is not black and white. No matter how hard you try to paint it that way.

So, the Israelis are good, the Palestinians evil, but the Nazis are somewhere in the middle?

Of course, considering your next line was:

You wont find that black or white anywhere, only various shades of gray

it could just be hypocrisy again.

To be fair, I think it was just hypocrisy, as backed up by gems like this:

Exactly. The more you dehumanize your opponents, targets, victims, the easier it is to kill, maim or butcher them. That is why we should not try to dehumanize anyone, anyway, anymore (such as by generalizing and oversimplifying for example).

You cannot trust these people, there is no way to achieve peace with these people, and they will not stop...ever. They are like Terminator on steroids, and they are ready to do just about anything (be it suicide bombers or other terrorist actions) to achieve their goal...to rid the world of Israel.
Hortlund

[Hortlund]

Please oh please recognize the fact that you dont have any idea what you are talking about when you enter the legal discussion here. International law is one of the most complex legal areas there is, and it is so very easy to get confused. Also, the line between politics and international law is sometimes very hard to spot. To have someone (like you) dig up various articles from various UN resolutions and then present them as some sort of evidence is really frustrating, and generally a waste of time. Simply because it takes a while to get into the various legal aspects of conflicts like this one. I will answer all your theories this time, but please drop this part of the argumentation and realize your own limitations.  

I'm gonna divide my answer into three posts, two concerning the legal aspects of the Israel-Palestine conflict, and one concerning your mud-slinging contest.

Originally posted by Nashwan
Leglly, Britain never owned the land. Politically, Britain never claimed to own the land. It wasn't a crown colony, or a dominion, or a state within the Empire or Commonwealth.

Britain made no claims on the land legally or politically. No attempts were made to incorporate it into British territory.

Are you saying it was legally British? If so, Britain said it wasn't, the LoN said it wasn't, international treaties Britain signed up to said it wasn't.

And again, you miss the point by a mile.

Let me try to put it in plain words for you. Palestine was a British protectorate. In this case (because there are no general rules regarding protectorates) that means that Britain was responsible for both the internal and external affairs of the territory. Are you with me so far?

Let us then look at another feature of international law that is called "sovereignty". Sovereignty over territory means "the right to exercise therein, to the exclusion of any other state, the functions of a state".

Combine the two, and you will reach the conclusion that Britain was the sovereign ruler over the Palestine protectorate. A sovereign ruler or state has certain rights, and certain obligations. It does not matter whether Britain claimed to own the land, it does not matter that it was not a crown colony, it doesnt matter what the League of Nations said. These things do not matter, what does matter is who is the de facto owner over the territory. And that was Britain.    

Previous owner was the Ottoman Empire. Temporary administrative control passed to Britain, but it was allways intended to be temporary.

This is irrelevant.

The closest term under British law would be power of attorney. It confers responsibilty and power of decision, not ownership. The person with power of attorney is supposed to take decisions if the owner i not competent or present.

Here you make another classical mistake. It is not possible to draw analogies like that. Power of attorney is one thing, protectorate is another thing. The two are not related, and it you try to draw conclusions from one and apply on the other, you will only end up with faulty conclusions. The law is more complicated than that.  

Britain did not cede control of the land to Israel. It announced it could not carry out the mandate, and said it would no longer accept the mandate.

The correct term for this is abandonment. Abandonment of a territory occurs when a state declares that it will no longer exercise authority over a territory, and effectively seize to exercise control over the territory.

What happened after that? Well the territory became terra nullius, territory that does not belong to any state.

And after that? Israel occupied the parts of the former mandate that can be seen in the 5th picture in my original posts. Territory is occupied when it is placed under effective control. The other parts of the former mandate were occupied by Egypt and Trans-Jordan.

Please remember this occupation, because it is important later on when we discuss how a state comes into existence.    

"It is with deep regret that my Government recognizes that an acceptable settlement has still not been found. I do not say that in any spirit of criticism. My Government would be the last to minimize the difficulty of the task, as it is the first to appreciate the efforts that have been made. The fact remains that we are obviously confronted with a failure to arrive at a settlement based upon consent. My delegation would have failed in its duty if it had not emphasized from the beginning of the session the consequent need for the General Assembly to consider the situation which is likely to arise upon the removal of the forces which at present ensure law and order in Palestine. Their departure will leave a gap, and it has been the most difficult part of the General Assembly's task to find means of filling this gap ...

"... I am ... instructed to repeat explicitly that the United Kingdom Government cannot allow its troops and administration to be used in order to enforce decisions which are not accepted by both parties in Palestine ..."
British submission to the UN.

All irrelevant.

Britain did not own the land. Britain did not cede the land. Britain administered the land until 1948, trying to find a compromise solution. Then, as now, the sides would not compromise. Britain announced it's intention to stop administering the land, and asked the UN to find a solution.

The UN decided partition was a solution, but nobody else was prepared to send troops in to administer an orderly handover. As a result, the British pulled out, and the Jews, far stronger than the Arabs militarily, took control of their land and the land allocated to the Arabs.

Well, the first part of this quote is wrong, and the second part is not exactly true either. However it is irrelevant.

Palestine is not recognized by most countries, or the UN. It's the UN which would give it legitimacy. If not the UN, then Palestine is recognized by a large number of countries, and so has equal legitimacy with Israel.

Either way, the UN or most countries, recognize the West Bank as occupied territory, and call on Israel to withdraw from it.

Few countries recognize the West Bank as Israeli territory, even fewer than recognize Palestine.

This part of your post brings us to the question "how is a state created", or "what constitutes an independent nation".

We start with the definition of what constitutes a state. A state as a person of international law possess the following qulaifications: It has
1) a permanent population
2) a defined territory
3) a government

We start with 2) a defined territory. The control of territory is the essence of a state. This is the basis of the central notion of "territorial sovereignty". The state must have exclusive competence to take legal and factual measures within that territory and it must be capable of prohibiting other foreign governments from exercising authority in the same area without consent.

On to 1) The criterion of "a permanent population" is connected with that of territory and constitutes the physical basis for the existence of a state. Who belongs to this population is determined by the internal law on nationality.

3) Effective control by a government over territory and population is the third core element of what constitutes a state. There are two aspects following from this control by a government, on internal and one external. Internally, the existence of a government implies the capacity to establish and maintain a legal order in the sense of constitutionals autonomy. Externally it means the ability to act autonomously on the international level without being legally dependant on other states within the international legal order.  
 
On now to the recognition of states and governments in international law.
This is one of the more complex aspects of international law. First a distinction must be made between the recognition of a state and the recognition of a government. The recognition of a state acknowledges that the entity fulfills the criteria of statehood. The recognition of a government implies that the regime in question is in effective control of a state.

When a new state comes into existence, other states are confronted by the problem of deciding whether or not to recognize the new state. Recognition means a willingness to deal with the new state as a member of the international community. Problem is what are the legal consequences of recognition/non-recognition? Generally it can be said that a new state is not an entity in international law until it has secured its general recognition by other states. If the establishment of a government or a state is a breach of international law, the state or government is often regarded as having no legal existence until it is recognized. To explain it in somewhat easier terms, it takes recognition from other states to fulfill critera 3) in the definition of what constitutes a state. Because without the recognition from other states, the "wannabe-state" is not capable of autonomous actions on the international level. There is also a difference between a de facto recognition and a de jure recognition.

So what does all this mean in the Israel-Palestine question?
Basically it means the Palestinians are screwed, because they do not have control over any territory, they have no government (in the legal sense) and they are not recognized by anyone.

Israel on the other hand fulfills all the criteria, AND most states, including the UN recognizes the fact that Israel have control over the west bank, gaza strip and golan heights de facto. That means, that Israel owns these territories. Regardless of what other people want/wish/hope.

[Hortlund]

Britain owned Palestine, or the one claiming Britain established the state of Israel.

See above.

A UN resolution does not become null and void because it has not yet been carried out.

Again, wishful thinking. It has become null and void, because the specific circumstances that existed when the resolution was taken does not exist any more. The resolution was aimed at what should take place with the territory the British abandoned (see above). Since there is no abandoned territory in the region any more, the resolution is null and void.

Perhaps you can read what I said about Britain owning the land.

See above.

[SNIP preamble]
The Helsinki agreement is irrelevant, whatever you think it says. Helsinki was a conference on security in Europe, it dealt with issues affecting Europe, and Israel was not a signatory.

Agreed, but if you look at my post once again there was a question in there too. " if you dont, I want you to tell me who decides what country owns what territory." Hint: the answer is not "the UN".

Countries are bound by the international agreements they sign up to. As such, Israel is bound by UN resolutions,
[SNIP various resolutions]

Well, if Israel is in breach of any UN resolution, then it is up to the UN to make sure that the resolutions are enforced. There are two problems though
1) International law is not applicable on the Israel-Palestine conflict. International law is only applicable in relations between states.
2) The UN has no jurisdiction over internal matters in the member states.  

1 & 2 leads to the conclusion that the UN resolutions you have quoted are either irrelevant or null and void. See "difference between politics and law" above.

Israel is also a signatory of the fourth Geneva convention:

"The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies."
Article 49
However, Israel states that as the Geneva convention has never been ratified by the Knesset, it cannot be enforced in Israeli law.

Here you are confusing two types of "occupation". The one in the Geneva convention aims at military occupation in a war (unless I'm sadly misstaken), the Israeli occupation of the west bank is another kind of occupation (the one where you claim something that has been abandoned by occupying it).

Can we agree the Ottoman Empire owned the land until 1918?

During the war, Britain and France signed the Sykes Picot agreement, [SNIP]
 
Get it yet?

The mandates were to administer the territories whilst they moved to self determination.

Who owns a territory governed by the principle of self determination?

Please oh please understand that all this is irrelevant. IRRELEVANT. It has nothing to do with anything.

What does matter is the fact that Britain owned the territory (from a legal point of view) Britain abandoned the territory, the territory became terra nullius, the Israelis created a new state on this abandoned land. From that moment, Israel is a state.

Lets get this straight. According to you, nobody owned the West Bank.

Jordan occupied it. But Jordn couldn't own it, because "states never recognize aggressive warfare as a legal way to increase your country's territory"

No one own the West Bank. Jordan occupies it, but cannot own it, because they didn't own it before they occupied it. Israel occupies it, and Israel owns it because no one else owns it.

We're back to hypocrisy again.

Do you use logic like this in court?

Once again, perhaps I should have taken the time to explain it all in greater detail before. When Britain abandoned the territory, the territory became terra nullius. Jordan moved in on the west bank and occupied it. At this moment in time, Jordan owns the west bank. After another war, Israel occupies the west bank. In the peace settlement between Israel and Jordan, Jordan abandons the west bank. Suddenly Israel owns the west bank. Please read through this explanation a couple of times until you understand it.

And yes, this is exactly how everyone argues, and a good example of the logic used in a court.

Israel is not bound by internationl rules, the Palestinians are.

Hypocrisy again.

No, you just didn't understand what I wrote. It is the other way around. Israel is bound by international rules. They just aren't applicable on the Israel-Palestine conflict. Why? Because it is not an international conflict. And if international law is not applicable, then Israeli national law is.

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by Nashwan
So, it's okay for Hortlund to ascribe goals and actions to countries, anyone else who does it needs to see a shrink.

Hypocrisy

I say that a country or a nation is not a living entity, and thus it is incapable of independent thought, a prerequisite for forming goals or intentions. If you see things differently, fine, go talk to a psychologist or something.

And no one forced Jews to fight the Arabs to set up Israel.

Of course, Jews were right to kill to establish their state, the Palestinians are wrong to kill to establish their state.

Hypocrisy.

Where in any of my posts have you found the sentence: " Jews were right to kill to establish their state, the Palestinians are wrong to kill to establish their state."?

3 children killed in "accidents" yesterday. Ever heard of negligence? Ever heard of not shooting a child throwing stones? After all, the Merkava is supposed to be the world's best tank. If a 9 year-old with a stone is a threat to it...

Well, actually I think the 9 year-old with a stone is more of a threat to any IDF infantryman. Perhaps the Merkavas were shooting to cover said infantrymen?

Regardless of which, as soon as that 9 year-old has decided to take to the streets and throw rocks at armed soldiers, he will have to face the consequences of his actions. There is a very easy way to avoid the entire situation: Stay at home. And the neglect of the parents is beyond belief. Any parent letting his 9 year-old kid go out in the street to throw rocks at IDF soldiers should not be a parent at all.

I have heard of negligence, have you heard about criminal negligence and its relation to negligence?

You wrote:
Name a case where Israel solved a land dispute with a neighbour and then returned to war. There isn't one.

I replied:
Sinai desert 1956-1967.

You seem to lose focus and reply:
Yes, another example of Israeli aggression.

Which one? Are you gonna say that the 1967 war is an example of Israeli aggression?

We move on:

You wrote:
The Arabs won't start another war against Israel. Israel has nukes, and the Arabs wont go to war until they have them as well.

I replied:
Israel had nukes in 1973.

You reply:
Not openly.

Again, you seem to lose focus.

My point would be that even though Israel has nukes, she will not use nukes unless there is no other option. For Israel, nukes are a defensive weapon.

What do you think would happen if we gave a couple of nukes to Syria, Iraq, or why not to Hezbollah, Hamas and Al Acqusa to make things really interesting?

Another recap:
You wrote:
That would be stupid even if it didnt come from someone who tried to justify the Nazi reprisal massacres in France. Coming from you its obscene.

I replied:
Please, do show me a quote from me where I tried to justify any Nazi massacre in France. If you cant, then you really should apologize. That is all Im gonna say about that.

You:
I seem to recall it's on the Dresden thread.

Me:
Quote it or give me an apology.

You:
Earlier on this thread you came up with this: For some reason unbeknownst to me you have chosen to side with the bad guys, the ones strapping on explosive vests and heading into playgrounds filled with kids to blow up as many of them as possible. The guys who were cheering on 9-11. The ones who sided with Saddam in 91. The guys who will do just about anything they can to kill Israeli civilians, they will blow up busses, cars, airplanes, boats, houses, shopping malls, grocery stores...they will even blow themselves up....just to kill women and children...

just exactly how sick is that? Think about it.
 
Any chance of an apology?

Exactly what kind of an apology are you looking for here? "I'm sorry that 73% of all Palestinians support suicide bombings?" Or "I'm sorry that I told you the truth about the palestinian terrorists"? What exactly do you find offensive in the post you quoted?

And I'm still waiting for that quote.

Look at some of your comments:
(Me)
In this conflict there is a good side and a bad side.

(You)
Compare that to this comment in a topic on Nazi war crimes:

(Me)
I’m simply trying to point out the fact that the world is not black and white. No matter how hard you try to paint it that way.

(You)
So, the Israelis are good, the Palestinians evil, but the Nazis are somewhere in the middle? Of course, considering your next line was:

(Me)
You wont find that black or white anywhere, only various shades of gray

(You)
it could just be hypocrisy again.
To be fair, I think it was just hypocrisy, as backed up by gems like this:

(Me)
Exactly. The more you dehumanize your opponents, targets, victims, the easier it is to kill, maim or butcher them. That is why we should not try to dehumanize anyone, anyway, anymore (such as by generalizing and oversimplifying for example).
You cannot trust these people, there is no way to achieve peace with these people, and they will not stop...ever. They are like Terminator on steroids, and they are ready to do just about anything (be it suicide bombers or other terrorist actions) to achieve their goal...to rid the world of Israel.

Is there a point to all this in here somewhere?  
I am of the opinion that in the Israel-Palestine conflict there is a good and a bad side. Maybe not black and white, but black enough and white enough. The Israelis are the good guys (in case you were wondering, you seem to have problems understanding that).
 
The quotes you pulled from another thread were when I was debating with someone who was of the opinion that all Germans living in 1934-45 were nazis. So, the nazis would end up on the black side of the scale, the Israelis on the white side, I think you know where the Palestinian terrorists belong. We then take all Germans, Israelis and Palestinians and place them along the scale depending on their actions and their motivations.

The last quote from me was what I think about terrorists. And you are right, I have no sympathy for them whatsoever. And the problem for the Palestinians is that 73% of all Palestinians support the terrorists and their actions. And anyone supporting a terrorist is just as bad as the terrorist himself. I think it was the US president who said that.

[Nashwan]

Let us then look at another feature of international law that is called "sovereignty". Sovereignty over territory means "the right to exercise therein, to the exclusion of any other state, the functions of a state".

Combine the two, and you will reach the conclusion that Britain was the sovereign ruler over the Palestine protectorate. A sovereign ruler or state has certain rights, and certain obligations. It does not matter whether Britain claimed to own the land, it does not matter that it was not a crown colony, it doesnt matter what the League of Nations said. These things do not matter, what does matter is who is the de facto owner over the territory. And that was Britain.

It matters very much what the LoN said.

Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have selected His Britannic Majesty as the Mandatory for Palestine; and

Whereas the mandate in respect of Palestine has been formulated in the following terms and submitted to the Council of the League for approval; and

Whereas His Britannic Majesty has accepted the mandate in respect of Palestine and undertaken to exercise it on behalf of the League of Nations in conformity with the following provisions; and

Whereas by the aforementioned Article 22 (paragraph 8) it is provided that the degree of authority, control or administration to be exercised by the Mandatory, not having been previously agreed upon by the Members of the League, shall be explicitly defined by the Council of the League of Nations;

There followed 20+ articles, all stipulating what could and could not be done by the mandated power, articles such as

Article 5
The Mandatory shall be responsible for seeing that no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way placed under the control of, the Government of any foreign Power.

Britain administered themandated territory, within rules laid out by the LoN. Britain did not own the territory, and was answerable to the LoN for it's actions in carrying out the Mandate.

Sovereign powers are not answerable to anyone for their actions, by defenition.

Britain was not the sovereign power in Palestine, it was the administrator.

Britain recognized the ultimate authority of the LoN in the mandated territory.

The correct term for this is abandonment. Abandonment of a territory occurs when a state declares that it will no longer exercise authority over a territory, and effectively seize to exercise control over the territory.

What happened after that? Well the territory became terra nullius, territory that does not belong to any state.

Then you have abandoned the position Britain ceded the territory to Israel?

If that is the case, the ownership or not of the territory by Britain becomes irrelevant.

We start with 2) a defined territory. The control of territory is the essence of a state. This is the basis of the central notion of "territorial sovereignty". The state must have exclusive competence to take legal and factual measures within that territory and it must be capable of prohibiting other foreign governments from exercising authority in the same area without consent.

Governments in exile have been recognized widely in the past.Nazi Germany held control over most of Europe, but was not recognized by many countries as the sovereign power, owner, whatever.

Nobody, not even the Germans, recognized Holland, Belgium, Norway etc as parts of Germany, or assumed they were no longer states. Some recognized the puppet governments, some recognized the governments in exile.

Control does not imply ownership, ownership does not imply control.

Israel on the other hand fulfills all the criteria, AND most states, including the UN recognizes the fact that Israel have control over the west bank, gaza strip and golan heights de facto. That means, that Israel owns these territories. Regardless of what other people want/wish/hope.

Control is not ownership.

Name the countries that recognize the West Bank as part of Israel.

Here's a few that do not:
The US
The UK
The UN (not a country)
The EU (not a country)
Russia
Israel.

Not even Israel claims the West Bank as part of Israel, legally.

Israel occupied the West Bank, Gaza, the Golan. It annexed the Golan, and parts of Jerusalem, into Israeli territory. It has never claimed the West Bank or Gaza as Israeli territory, and neither they, nor the Golan, are recognized as Israeli territory by other countries.

From the US state department web site:
As a result of the 1967 War, Israel occupied the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, East Jerusalem, and the Golan Heights. The international community does not recognize Israel's sovereignty over any part of the occupied territories

2) The UN has no jurisdiction over internal matters in the member states.

The West Bank and Gaza are not recognized as internal territory of Israel. They are reffered to as occupied territory, even by Israel.

Here you are confusing two types of "occupation". The one in the Geneva convention aims at military occupation in a war (unless I'm sadly misstaken), the Israeli occupation of the west bank is another kind of occupation (the one where you claim something that has been abandoned by occupying it).

Israel has not claimed the west Bank or Gaza.

The ICRC regarded the fourth Geneva convention as applying to the West Bank and Gaza. It believes all those areas not under Palestinian local administration do fall under the terms of the convention. As an opinion, forgive me for trusting the ICRC's legal opinion over yours.

Once again, perhaps I should have taken the time to explain it all in greater detail before. When Britain abandoned the territory, the territory became terra nullius. Jordan moved in on the west bank and occupied it. At this moment in time, Jordan owns the west bank. After another war, Israel occupies the west bank. In the peace settlement between Israel and Jordan, Jordan abandons the west bank. Suddenly Israel owns the west bank. Please read through this explanation a couple of times until you understand it.

Jordan did claim ownership of the West Bank. Few countries recognized it, and Jordan has since withdrawn the claim.

Israel does not claim ownership of the West Bank, refering to the area as "disputed territory".

Your first claim was that Jordan didn't own the territory, because it was taken in war, but Israel does own the territory, because it was taken in war.

If you are now saying Jordan did own it, then the status of the territory can not have been "abandoned" when Israel captured it. The status of the territory is simply part of Jordan occupied by Israel. Please make up your mind, was the West Bank owned by Jordan or not. You are saying yes and no in different parts of your answer.

And if international law is not applicable, then Israeli national law is.

Israel does not apply Israeli national law in the territories. Israeli national law is applied to Israeli citizens in the territories, but Israeli military law is applied to non-citizens in the territories, ie 90% of the population.

I say that a country or a nation is not a living entity, and thus it is incapable of independent thought, a prerequisite for forming goals or intentions. If you see things differently, fine, go talk to a psychologist or something.

Read Ossie's post. Read the quote I gave you from Kennedy.

I could understand your position if you did not use similar phrases yourself. I could understand your position if you shut up when it was pointed out you used similar phrases yourself.

Continuing to suggest someone seek psychiatric help for using similar phrases to ones you use yourself is obviously not hypocrisy, but something else entirely.

Well, actually I think the 9 year-old with a stone is more of a threat to any IDF infantryman. Perhaps the Merkavas were shooting to cover said infantrymen?

I don't think a 9 year old without a gun is a threat to an armed soldier in any way.

Regardless of which, as soon as that 9 year-old has decided to take to the streets and throw rocks at armed soldiers, he will have to face the consequences of his actions. There is a very easy way to avoid the entire situation: Stay at home. And the neglect of the parents is beyond belief. Any parent letting his 9 year-old kid go out in the street to throw rocks at IDF soldiers should not be a parent at all.

Stone throwing by children is a crime. It is not a threat to life.

Shooting criminals in the act, if they do not present a danger, is an act of extra-judicial execution.

The role of law enforcement, in which Israeli soldiers are operating, is to prevent crimes, not punish them.

Any parent must let a 9 year old child out, or else keep them under permament curfew.

I have heard of negligence, have you heard about criminal negligence and its relation to negligence?

Yes. I would say leaving a booby trap bomb in a refugee camp, which then explodes killing five children, is an act of criminal negligence.