22 Israelis murdered 180 wounded during the last two months

Not according to your source that doesnt specify that.

- - - Updated - - -

I did provided qoutes. Those are aslo existing in your source.

Oh! we are playing a game? Do serious issues are a game for you?

 

it aint a claim. It's a fact the UN made Palestine a non UN member state.
That you go question things around it, won't change that the fact remains.

And the borders of Israel has been set by the UN as well, making settlements are illegal. The ICJ ruled it's so in regard of the international law.. no discussion possible.

The chance for compensation is irrelevant. It remains illegal and a war crime. It's not as if you can offer 3 bucks in compensation and go commit a war crime like a genocide. To than go like "but I gave this chance of compensation".

In short it's illegal. Period. It does contract everything you rant about this to justify it.

 

Arabs in the West Bank and Gaza don't live in Israel.

the compensation law says only people who lived in Israel in 1973, can get compensation for land lost in Israel.

 

when you constantly repost the same link over and over again, and refer to post numbers over and over again, and refuse to acknowledge contradictory information, then yes...it appears you're playing a game and not seriously debating

 

Is that important? Why?

 

Benson and Hedges would disagree.

 

So what are the bordrs of such state?

Not according to International law, as I showed you.

So are you saying that according to the International law, giev a compensations for "refugees" is a war crime?

- - - Updated - - -

Because you say that there is a entity in Area C that allows only for the "Palestinains" to live, like Israel are living Israeli citizens. Hence, There is a "Palestinain state in the West Bank?

- - - Updated - - -

I'm only replying to your clain, so if you have a problem that I repeat myself, then you need to stop repeating yourself.

- - - Updated - - -

Not according to your source that doesnt specify that, as I already showed you.

 

For whom the bell trolls.

 

No there is not a Palestinian state. ive never mentioned any entity.

There is Israeli territory, and there is occupied territory belonging to the Palestinians, first assigned to the arabs of the mandate then taken over by Jordan who then after the Israeli occupation conceded it to the palestinians.

So no there is not a Palestinian state in the west bank, and why is that important? Are you saying that there must be a state in order to decide that Jewish people in the west bank cannot live there as Israelis ?

 

Areas A and B assigned to the Arabs to control by Oslo, but as well Oslo determined that in Arae B there will be the IDF that will be in charge of the security issues in Area B.

If a "Palestinain" state will be existing in the West Bank (which means without Israel/IDF presence), only then such state could decide if they will allow people to live in such state with a double citizenship (like Spain does not allow to their citizens to have double citizenship).
Meanwhile, there is no prohibition, in form of an agreement, on the existance of the settlements in the West Bank.

 

Why only when a Palestinian state exists in the west bank can it decide whether or not to allow Israelis? The PA right now is perfectly capable of deciding who lives in the West Bank and who doesnt just as Israeli government does for its own territory.

Meanwhile there is indeed a prohibition in the form of an agreement on the existence of settlements in the west bank. Settling people on occupied territory is illegal and is recognised as such by every state or trans state organisation in the world. There is no state that denis that.

 

And today in Area A Israelis nor Jews live there. Israelis do not allow to enter that territory and it is been described on verious signs across the West Bank.

There is no prohibition in the form of an agreement between the Arabs and Israel. Even Oslo didnt prohibid on the existance of the settlements.

 

Already answered that

It is according to the international law, ruled by the international court of Justice, the UN and the UNSG.
International law is bigger than 1 line, as I told you so many times.

I am saying you can not ethnic cleanse with some makeshift law even when it includes you compensate your victims. It remains highly illegal under international law. And you're some character alright, in claiming you can ethnic cleanse that way. That makes you a supporter of clear war criminal behavior. Thanks for playing.

 

Area A is the smallest of area's. Big whoop. And Israeli's are there frequently to kill around. If it aint the IDF, than it's your random Jew doing his price tag thing under the protection of the IDF.

They are illegal by definition.

- - - Updated - - -

There is. The UN had a vote on it years ago. And they agreed to acknowledge the existence of the Palestinian state as a non UN-member. Israel, with the US and the pressure of a lot of Jews around the world lobbied fanatically against it, but lost.

 

I already replied to such claim. Please read: http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=433636&page=35&p=1065615686#post1065615686

Those people, according to international law need to get compensated, so Israel offered to compensate them, but they didnt do anything to get compensated. As I already showed here.


BTW- does, for you, a serious subject is a game?

 

So if there is a "Palestinian" state in the West Bank, what are the borders of such state?

 

You're reply is still in contempt of the international court, the UN, the UNSG...
who apply the entire international law and not just 1 line out of it.
You lost the case. You're just being a troll.

There is one, because the UN ruled there is one.
You again refuse to accept the course of international law when it doesn't suit you.
You're just being a troll.

That aint international law, but the Israeli apartheid law about ethnic cleansing aka the Land Acquisition law, article 3, according to your own ideas mentioned in http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=433636&page=62&p=1065661239#post1065661239

In the Geneva Conventions it's made illegal to ethnic cleanse or to transfer (not to be confused with FORCED transfer) your population across the border for some colonization purposes. Israel signed this, hence it applies to Israel.

I still see you're here to justify war crimes if you're just willing to give some bucks.
You lost this game for sure.

 

My comment is according to International law. You just need to read it.

So if there is a "Palestinian" state in the West Bank, what are the borders of such state?

There you could see that Isreal offered compensations for the Arabs, just as the International law says.

Article 49 of the GC is not applicable regarding the West Bank, because Article 49 was created to deal with the reality of the WWII, and since this kind of reality does not exist in the West Bank it is no applicable for it.

As Levy Report stated:

Which relied on the authoritative interpretation of the International Committee of the Red Cross, responsible for implementing the Fourth Geneva Convention, which states regarding the purpose of article 49 of the Convention:

And Levy Report concluded regarding Article 49 that:

Source: http://israelipalestinian.procon.or...l-Status-of-Building-in-Judea-and-Samaria.pdf

So do serious subjects are only a game for you?

 

Indeed, and yet area C, also occupied territory, Israelis can and do live there as Israelis without Palestinian Authority permission. No Palestinian can live in Israel without Israeli permission.

There is no agreement between Arabs and Israel that occupied territory can be settled by the occupying side, the Palestinians have never accepted the settlement of occupied lands, and they protest against it every single day, moreover there is numerous proclamations against settlement by every single state and trans state organisation in the world.

1/ So on what basis do you say that settlements are okay?

2/ Who benefits from this?

3/ Who has ever agreed that settlements are okay in the occupied territories?

 

Indeed, there is a Palestinian state as non UN-member, but I think the final hurdle the pro Israelis here want to argue is that the Palestinian wishes and wants to do not count for anything as long as Palestine is not a UN member.

 

It is like in all the countries in the wrold.

* Area C is in the hands of the control of Israel, like Area A is 100% under the control of the PA.

They can object the existance of the settlements, but since there is no agreement that forbid their existance then I dont see the problem.

1 + 3) On the basis of the UN Charter, Article 80 that protects the rights that were granted to the Jews over the Land of Israel, which among those rights was also settling.

2) Who benefits from the settlements? the settler and the "Palestinains" that come to work in the settlements.

 

No it is not like this in all countries.

Area C is settled by the occupying power. Illegal.

The problem is it is objected to by one side. It is not agreed.

The un charter does not protect the right of Israelis to settle in the west bank and this is not agreed to by any state or trans national organisation. In fact the charter provides for equal rights of peoples and self determination. Since the arabs were never taken account of the partition itself is undermined and thus is also the settlement of territories later on by acts of war.

Yes, the settler. So why do you take only the interested party's line on this? Why not just accept the current judgement of the entire world?

Who, by the way, is harmed by evacuating the settlements?

 

So Scotland is allowing people frm all around the wrold to enter ti's territory without checking them and then giving them a premision to enter?

There is no occupation since the international law protects the rights of the Jews over the Land of Israel. You cant occupy something that was given to you.

So if it is not been agreed that the setllements is illegal and thus should be evecuated, then I dont see the problem.

If the Arabs have problems with the settlements, they can go to court with their evidences so the court would decide, but since it doesnt happen today (since some in the past), then I dont see the problem.

Paragraph 1 of Article 80 says:

Source: http://www.un.org/en/sections/un-charter/chapter-xii/index.html

Which means that until the Mandates would concluded nothing shell be constructed in or of itself to alter in any manner the rights of any states of people or the terms of the existing international insturments, and since the document of the Mandate wasnt concluded, then nothing shell be needed to constructed or alter the rights that were given by the Mandate.

Because the International law says something different. As I showed here.

The settlers.

 

No. And neither is Israel, and neither are Palestinians.

No it doesnt, the West Bank is not Israel.

No its not been agreed that the settlements are legal. There's the problem.

They did that already. And the judgement went in their favour every time.

Except that of course Palestinian arabs were denied their political rights. Which remain denied. They were not granted a decision on their future. Instead it was decided for them. Thus the sacred trust of the mandate system remains unfulfilled, and Israelis are not entitled to live anywhere they like in the Mandate without the agreed consent of palestinians - since all sides require to be treated equally.

Do you think the mandate still exists?

Except it doesnt mean what you think it means.

Why is that a problem? And who is harmed by the building of Israeli settlements?

 

Correction.. it's just according to 1 line of the international law.
The ICJ, the UN and UNCG use the entire international law and their experts concluded something else.
Deal with it instead of ignoring the course of international law as usual.

Palestine is a state. They have a vote on it, raised their flag at the UN and everything.
Deal with it instead of ignoring the course of international law as usual.

Thats not international law, that the Israeli ethnic cleansing law,.. according to your own link.
Ethnic cleansing is a war crime. That's what Israel with it's Jews did.
It doesn't go with a law that it's justified if you pay the victims of your racist war crime.
But you sure seem to think you can ethnic cleanse if you just pay some bucks.
Nice show you're in contempt of international law and support war criminals.

It is, because the UN, the UNSG and the ICJ say it is.
Deal with it instead of ignoring the course of international law as usual.

irrelevant. Levy nor that report gets to rule or judge about international law.
See point above.

A game of debate you lost, since you're ignoring the course of international law as usual.
Israel and your experts aint the party that gets to explain international law.
The UN, the UNSC and the ICJ are.