Arab illegal building on lands that Jews bought

Man bites dog.

 

lol...how about give Israel the Sinai and let the Arabs have all of the West Bank.

- - - Updated - - -

lol!!!!!!

silly Youtube videos aren't evidence of anything.

and no, genetic research doesn't prove someone is a Crypto-Jew.

the idea that even 10% of the Palestinians are actually Crypto-Jews, is severally lacking in logic.

 

If you are going to respond to someone read what they said.
I said
"I never said West Bank wasn't part of Palestine. I said that the mandate promised a Jewish home in Palestine. That has been fulfilled since 1948. Israel is located in an area that was called Palestine that is not a debatable point. Israel is a Jewish home that's not a debatable point, thus the mandate has been fulfilled meaning it has no legal significance."

That means mandate is fulfilled making it no legal relevance along with the document. This makes your whole paragraph on West Bank irrelevant since already established above the mandate has been fulfilled since 1948.

Article 80 doesn't mention Palestinian mandate and refers to international trustees. Unless West Bank is under international trustees article 80 doesn't apply which it's obviously not under. Therefore you have no case.

Regarding video on Jerusalem. I don't need to see the video on Jerusalem, I know the history of it and problems associated with it, past Jordanian occupation of it; etc. The video won't change facts about it like absentee law used to take property from Palestinians that reside in West Bank and have property in East Jerusalem, inequality documented by Israeli NGO's like Ir Amim etc.

"As I said and which you didnt contradict:
According to legal expert as the former Israeli Supreme Judge Admund Levy (in Levy Report the judges relied on the ICRC), International law expert and one of the drafter of resolution 242, Prof. Rostow, ICJ (that reaffirmed Article 80 three times, that the last one was in 2004), Prof. Gauthier are reinforcing me. And let's us not forget as well the letter that been sent to Ban-Ko Moon that over 130 international law experts and jodges are signed on the document etc."

Again if you are going to respond to my post actually read it and also Levy report didn't use ICRC(if you want an example of ICRC's view of it, link to an op ed called "Why the law Prohibits settlement activities" written in the Jerusalem Post by Antom Camen; ICRC's legal adviser is below) nor did ICJ reaffirm article 80(again the fact is that the ICJ didn't quote mandate document or refer to mandate document and was simply noting areas Israel controlled after 67 war which consisted of Palestine under British mandate)
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Op-Ed-Contributors/Why-the-law-prohibits-settlement-activities-354425

"Edmund Levy(here I am directly repudiating Edmund Levy) was only judge out of eleven Israeli judges to rule against disengagement.Rostow is one author of one UNSC resolution when there has been several that has called them occupied territories and that settlements violate 4th Geneva Convention. As already stated numerous times there is nothing in ICJ that supports your view with ICJ citing UNSC saying territories are occupied and that settlements violate 4th Geneva Convention along with the fence being illegal(don't necessarily agree with that) .

The Israeli Supreme Court, UNSC(again Rostaw was author of one resolution UN 242 when there has been several that calls Israel occupying power and notes settlements violate 4th Geneva Convention), ICJ, International Red Cross, international law experts including Israelis like Theodore Meron, Yoram Dinstein, Eyal Benvenisti, Yuval Shany, and David Kretzmer all hold that Israel is holding West Bank as an occupying power. "

In addition 16 out of 27 EU ministers signed a letter calling for settlement products to be labelled.
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/1.652113

All 27 ministries of the EU in a document said "settlements remain illegal under international law, irrespective of recent decisions by the government of Israel. The EU reiterates that it will not recognize any changes to the pre-1967 borders including with regard to Jerusalem, other than those agreed by the parties." They also reaffirmed their commitment to implement existing EU legislation applicable to settlement products.
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diploma...est-bank-endanger-two-state-solution-1.430421

Here is a letter from 151 organizations telling Ben and Jerry ice cream to not invest in the settlements.
http://www.vtjp.org/icecream/internatletter.php

Here is text from letter of 40 former American officials, ambassadors, and other experts

Dear Mr. President,

In light of the impasse reached in efforts to revive Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, and as the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) moves to consider a resolution condemning Israeli settlements in the Occupied Territory, we are writing to urge you to instruct our Ambassador to the United Nations to vote yes on this initiative.

The time has come for a clear signal from the United States to the parties and to the broader international community that the United States can and will approach the conflict with the objectivity, consistency and respect for international law required if it is to play a constructive role in the conflict's resolution.

While a UNSC resolution will not resolve the issue of settlements or prevent further Israeli construction activity in the Occupied Territory, it is an appropriate venue for addressing these issues and for putting all sides on notice that the continued flouting of international legality will not be treated with impunity. Nor would such a resolution be incompatible with or challenge the need for future negotiations to resolve all outstanding issues, and it would in no way deviate from our strong commitment to Israel's security.

If the proposed resolution is consistent with existing and established US policies, then deploying a veto would severely undermine US credibility and interests, placing us firmly outside of the international consensus, and further diminishing our ability to mediate this conflict.

If the U.S. believes that the text of the resolution is imperfect, there is always the opportunity to set forth additional U.S. views on settlements and related issues in an accompanying statement. The alternative to a Resolution - a consensus statement by the President of the UNSC - would have no stature under international law, hence this option should be avoided.

"As you made clear, Mr. President, in your landmark Cairo speech of June 2009, "The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements. This construction violates previous agreements and undermines efforts to achieve peace. It is time for these settlements to stop."

There are today over half a million Israelis living beyond the 1967 line - greatly complicating the realization of a two-state solution. That number has grown dramatically in the years since the peace process was launched: in 1993 there were 111,000 settlers in the West Bank alone; in 2010 that number surpassed 300,000.

The settlements are clearly illegal according to article 49 of the Fourth Geneva convention - a status recognized in an opinion issued by the State Department's legal advisor(a decade before Israel's legal adviser at the foreign ministry told Levi Eshkol the same thing) on April 28, 1978, a position which has never since been revised.

That official US legal opinion describes the settlements as being "inconsistent with international law". US policy across nine administrations has been to oppose the settlements, with the focus for the last two decades being on the incompatibility of settlement construction with efforts to advance peace. The Quartet Roadmap, for instance, issued during the Bush presidency in 2003, called on Israel to "freeze all settlement activity, including natural growth."

Indeed, the US has upheld these principles, including their application to East Jerusalem, by allowing the passage of previous relevant UNSC resolutions(all of these resolutions mentioned weren't authorized by Rostaw), including: UNSCRs 446 and 465, determining that the settlements have "no legal validity"; UNSCRs 465 and 476, affirming the applicability of the Fourth Geneva convention to the Occupied Territory; UNSCRs 1397 and1850 stressing the urgency of achieving a comprehensive peace and calling for a two state solution; and UNSCR 1515, endorsing the Quartet Roadmap.

At this critical juncture, how the US chooses to cast its vote on a settlements resolution will have a defining effect on our standing as a broker in Middle East peace. But the impact of this vote will be felt well beyond the arena of Israeli-Palestinian deal-making - our seriousness as a guarantor of international law and international legitimacy is at stake.

America's credibility in a crucial region of the world is on the line - a region in which hundreds of thousands of our troops are deployed and where we face the greatest threats and challenges to our security. This vote is an American national security interest vote par excellence. We urge you to do the right thing."

Among those who signed the letter include

Amjad Atallah, Co-Director, Middle East Task Force, New America Foundation

Bruce Ackerman, Sterling Professor of Law and Political Science, Yale University

Rabbi Leonard I. Beerman, Leo Baeck Temple, Los Angeles

Peter Beinart, Associate Professor of Journalism and Political Science, the City University of New York; Schwartz Senior Fellow, New America Foundation

Landrum Bolling, Senior Advisor, Mercy Corps

Hon. Everett Ellis Briggs, former US Ambassador, Portugal, Honduras, Panama; former special advisor to President George H.W. Bush, National Security Council; former President, Americas Society and Council of the Americas

Hon. Frank Carlucci, former US Secretary of Defense

Hon. Wendy Chamberlin, President, Middle East Institute; former US Ambassador, Pakistan

Steven Clemons, Founder and Senior Fellow, American Strategy Program, New America Foundation; publisher, The Washington Note

Hon. Walter L. Cutler, former US Ambassador, Sa udi Arabia

Hon. John Gunther Dean, former US Ambassador, Cambodia, Lebanon, Thailand, India

Michael C. Desch, Professor of Political Science, University of Notre Dame; Contributing Editor, The American Conservative

Hon. James Dobbins, former Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs

Hon. Joseph Duffey, former Director, US Information Agency

Hon. Wes Egan, former US Ambassador, Jordan

Hon. Nancy H. Ely-Raphel, former US Ambassador, Slovenia; former Counselor on International Law, Department of State

Dr. John L. Esposito, Professor of International Affairs and Islamic Studies, School of Foreign Service, Georgetown University

Rabbi Tirzah Firestone, Board of Directors, Rabbis for Human Rights - North America

Hon. Chas W. Freeman, Jr, former US Ambassador, Saudi Arabia; former President, Middle East Policy Council

Hon. Edward W. Gnehm, Jr., Professor of Gulf and Arabian Peninsula Affairs, George Washington University; former US Ambassador, Jordan, Kuwait

Hon. William C. Harrop, former US Ambassador, Israel, Guinea, Kenya, Seychelles, Zaire

Hon. Carla Hills, former Secretary of Housing and Urban Development and former US Trade Representative

Hon. Roderick M. Hills, former Chairman, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission

Hon. H. Allen Holmes, former Assistant Secretary of State, European Affairs; former Assistant Secretary, Political-Military Affairs; former US Ambassador, Portugal

Hon. Arthur Hughes, former Deputy Chief of Mission, Israel; former Deputy Assistant Secretary, Department of Defense; former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State, Near Eastern Affairs

Robert Jervis, Professor of International Affairs, Columbia University; former President, American Political Science Association

Christian A. Johnson, Professor, Hamilton College

Michael Kahn, Professor Emeritus of Psychology, University of California, Santa Cruz

Hani Masri, Publisher, The Palestine Note

Hon. David Mack, Vice President, Middle East Institute; former US Ambassador, UAE; former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State, Near Eastern Affairs

Hon. Richard Murphy, former Assistant Secretary of State, Near Eastern and South Asian Affairs; former US Ambassador, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Mauritania

William Nitze, former Assistant Administrator for International Activities, Environmental Protection Agency; Trustee, the Aspen Institute

Hon. Robert Pastor, former Senior Director, National Security Council; Professor of International Relations, American University

Hon. Thomas Pickering, former Undersecretary of State, Political Affairs; former US Ambassador, Russia, India, Israel, El Salvador, Nigeria, Jordan, United Nations

Paul Pillar, former National Intelligence Officer, Near Eastern Affairs; Director of Graduate Studies, Security Studies program, Georgetown University

Hon. Anthony Quainton, former US Ambassador to Kuwait and Peru; former Assistant Secretary for Diplomatic Security; former Ambassador-at-Large and Coordinator for Counter Terrorism, State Department

William B. Quandt, Professor, Middle East history, University of Virginia; former National Security Council Middle East Assistant, President Carter

Hon. Roscoe Suddarth, former US Ambassador, Jordan; former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State, Near Eastern and South Asian Affairs

Andrew Sullivan, Senior Editor, The Atlantic; Editor and Publisher, The Daily Dish

Hon. Nicholas Veliotes, former Assistant Secretary of State, Near East and South Asian affairs; former U.S. Ambassador to Egypt and Jordan; former Deputy Chief of Mission to Israel

Hon. Edward S. Walker, Jr., former US Ambassador, Israel, Egypt, UAE; former Assistant Secretary of State, Near Eastern Affairs

Hon. Allen Wendt, former US Ambassador, Slovenia; former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State, International Energy and Resources Policy

Hon. Philip Wilcox, President, Foundation for Middle East Peace; former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State, Middle Eastern Affairs; former Ambassador-at-Large and Coordinator for Counter Terrorism, State Department

Col. Lawrence Wilkerson (USA, ret), former Chief of Staff, Department of State; Visiting Professor, College of William & Mary

James Zogby, President, Arab American Institute
http://www.aaiusa.org/prominent-group-of-experts-urge-obama-to-back-un-settlement-resolution-

Other examples include John Quigley an American professor that is expert on international law and has written several books like

Basic Laws on the Structure of the Soviet State (with H. J. Berman), Harvard University Press, 1969
The Merchant Shipping Code of the USSR (196 (with W. E. Butler), Johns Hopkins University Press, 1970
The Soviet Foreign Trade Monopoly: Institutions and Laws, Ohio State University Press, 1974
Law After Revolution: Essays on Socialist Law in Honor of Harold J. Berman (edited) (with William E. Butler and Peter B. Maggs), Oceana Publications, 1988
Palestine and Israel: A Challenge to Justice, Duke University Press, 1990
The Ruses for War: American Interventionism Since World War II, Prometheus Books, 1992
Flight into the Maelstrom: Immigration to Israel and Middle East Peace, Ithaca Press, 1997
Genocide in Cambodia: Documents from the Trial of Pol Pot and Ieng Sary (edited, with Howard J. DeNike and Kenneth J. Robinson), University of Pennsylvania Press, 2000
The Case for Palestine: An International Law Perspective, Duke University Press, 2005
The Genocide Convention: An International Law Analysis, Ashgate Publishing Ltd, 2006
The Statehood of Palestine, Cambridge University Press, 2011
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Quigley_(academic)

Other Israeli experts on international law that agree laws of occupation apply include Barak Medina, Orna Ben-Naftali, Guy Harpaz, Amichai Cohen, and Yael Ronen.
http://www.yesh-din.org/infoitem.asp?infocatid=181

On your claim that there is secret Jews in the West Bank. The Palestinians are mostly Muslim with Christian minority. As stated before on this form dna tests show part to majority of Palestinians are descended from population that resided in Palestine at time of Arab conquest that were Jews or Christians that converted to Islam. As such they haven't identified as Jews for hundreds of years or over a millennium if they are descended from population residing in Palestine at time of conquest.

In should also be noted that the mandate has no legal relevance to the Oslo Accord since already established several times mandate became fulfilled with formation of Israel in 1948. What is relevant is laws regarding occupation which is stated in 1907 Hague Regulation and 4th Geneva Convention. The Oslo Accord was also suppose to be a temporary agreement lasting five years with both sides to blame(although arguable Arafat the most for launching second intifada and leaving behind legacy of corruption and autocracy for the PA) for why the agreement failed.

If you are for Israel annexing entire West Bank then party like Joint List would be largest with around 40% in Knesset and increasing. This is a party composed of ideologies like communism, Arab nationalism, and political Islam. This is the party that refused to sign a vote surplus agreement with Meretz even though they were polling at the threshold. Would you really want a party like that to be the largest?(this is assuming if after annexing West Bank you would be willing to give everyone there citizenship).

 

When did I say that the British Mandate is ongoing?
The British Mandate indeed ended, while the "Mandate for Palestine" the document is still valid.

 

You insist to get articles? alright.

here is one more, ,about a genetic research that was publish in "Nature":

Source'1: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Blogs/Message.aspx/3654#.VcxWAzGsVT8
Source'2: http://www.bbc.com/news/10276393

 

I read carefully all what you have written, dont worry.

As I already said:
So if the West Bank is part of "Palestine" and is not mean that a control over it will be "whole of Palestine", hence, Israel can control over the West Bank according to the Mandate.
If your problem is that "because the Mandate never talked about whole of Palestine", so Israel cant control over it on behalf of the Mandate", then this problem is not existing, because even with Judea and Samaria, it will not be "whole of Palestine".

Because the Mandate never talked about clear borders that this Jewish national home will be reconstitue, and only referred the Land of Israel (aka "Palestine") as the alce where it will be reconstitute, then Israel have legal right over the West Bank as a place that been granted to the Jews as part of a territory to the future Jewish national home.

As I alraedy said to you:
Article 80 say that the rights that were granted to people or countries by previous Mandates (which means they relate to Mandates that were created and existed prior to 1946), would not be harmed in anyway, hence the rights that were granted to the Jews in 1920, which is prior to 1946, in San Ramo Confference in the "Mandate for Palestine" will be stil valid and still need to be respected.

The video provide evidences like the document of the Mandate, hence, it is not only providing evidences about Israeli sovereignty over Jerusalem, but the evidences that is shown there are connected to what we are talking about, so it means that if you want more information from actual researcher that studied this subject for 25 years, then you need to listen and watch the lecture I provided in comment #68.

I prefer the actual Levy Report. According to the actual report:

Which lead us the report's conclusions:

Which means that Levy Report indeed relied on what the ICRC had to say about Article 49 from the 4th GC (among others), and this relying source has made the Judges and lawyer from Levy Report conclude that Article 49 from the 4th GC is no applicacble + that there is no such thing as "occupation" regarding "international law and the calssical laws of occupation as set in the relevent internatnioal conventions. (4th GC is one of these relevent international conventions).

Source'1: http://elderofziyon.blogspot.co.il/2012/07/english-translation-of-legal-arguments.html#.Vcxd6TGsVT8
Source'2: http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/D9D07DCF58E781C585257A3A005956A6

As I said and which you didnt contradict:
According to legal expert as the former Israeli Supreme Judge Admund Levy (in Levy Report the judges relied on the ICRC), International law expert and one of the drafter of resolution 242, Prof. Rostow, ICJ (that reaffirmed Article 80 three times, that the last one was in 2004), Prof. Gauthier are reinforcing me. And let's us not forget as well the letter that been sent to Ban-Ko Moon that over 130 international law experts and jodges are signed on the document etc.
I posted all of these documents and statements numerous of times.

Please watch the videos I posted in comment #170 and articles that I provided in comment #180.

 

lol!!!

go tell the Arabs in Palestine that they are really Jews, see what happens.

 

The people who are a Crypto Jews, they already know it, I dont need to tell them.

 

there are no crypto-Jews in Palestine.

such a claim is absurd.

 

"I read carefully all what you have written, dont worry."
You don't address anything I said beside ICRC and repeat what you said before even though I have disproved it countless times.

I said
"I never said West Bank wasn't part of Palestine. I said that the mandate promised a Jewish home in Palestine. That has been fulfilled since 1948. Israel is located in an area that was called Palestine that is not a debatable point. Israel is a Jewish home that's not a debatable point, thus the mandate has been fulfilled meaning it has no legal significance."

That means mandate is fulfilled making it no legal relevance along with the document. This makes your whole paragraph on West Bank irrelevant since already established above the mandate has been fulfilled since 1948."
All you do is repeat paragraph about West Bank the one I just repudiated. The dispute is not whether West Bank is part of Palestine it's part of West Bank that is not in dispute. As proven above the mandate is fulfilled, the fact that West Bank is part of Palestine doesn't change that. All you do is repeat the same paragraph I keep getting repudiated.

The Levy report does cite what ICRC say but doesn't cite there actual position. As mentioned before Antom Camen ICRC's legal adviser wrote an op ed in Jerusalem called "Why the law Prohibits settlement activities"
Here is some of what Camen wrote

"The assertion that there is no occupation in the West Bank is rejected almost unanimously, including by most Israeli legal authorities. With reference to Israeli scholarship in the field of international humanitarian law, reference can be made to the work of leading international law experts such as Yoram Dinstein. Dinstein has described the official Israeli interpretation of Article 2 as “patently sterile” and “disjunctive.”

"Now, an occupying power is prohibited, as is expressly stipulated in Article 49(6) of the Fourth Geneva Convention, from transferring parts of its own population into the territory it occupies. Again, some reject that this prohibition applies to Israeli settlement activities in the West Bank, asserting that it would only apply to forcible population transfers


By arguing that the transfers must be forcible, those who propose the argument assume that this prohibition aims to protect the nationals of the occupying power from being transferred into the occupied territory. This explanation does not sit with the fundamental purposes of the law of occupation. In regulating situations of armed conflict, including occupation, international humanitarian law, and in particular the Fourth Geneva Convention, is primarily concerned with the treatment by a party engaged in such a conflict of the nationals of its adversary, and not in fact with the relations between such a belligerent party and its own nationals, as the aforementioned explanation would suggest.

It is the nationals of the adversary, and in this context, the local population of the occupied territory, who primarily require the protection of international humanitarian law when they fall into enemy hands.

This is why the prohibition on settlement activities does not require that the transfers it envisages are “forcible.” It was intentional that the negotiators did not mention the term “forcible” in paragraph 6 of Article 49 of the fourth Geneva Convention. It should also be noted, that the foregoing does not relieve an occupant from a duty to protect the life, integrity and dignity of other people in the occupied territory as part of its obligation to maintain law and order.

Maintaining law and order comprises a duty to protect any person from violence.

Without prejudice to the prohibition of settlement activities by the occupant, this would include nationals of an occupant who are present in the occupied territory.

The prohibition of settlement activities seeks to protect the population in the occupied territory from the changes resulting from nationals of the occupying power populating the territory. These changes can be far-reaching, and can profoundly affect the demographic characteristics of the territory, the fabric of the entire society there and all aspects of life."

In addition to his work, professors Eyal Benvenisti, Yuval Shany and David Kretzmer, all leading Israeli international law scholars, unambiguously affirm the existence of an occupation at law in the West Bank, including east Jerusalem.

In addition to these scholars, it would be remiss not to recall that in September of 1967, the legal adviser to the Israeli Foreign Ministry, Theodore Meron, himself a leading international law scholar and currently serving as the president of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, opined in an internal memo that Israeli settlement building violates occupation law and in particular the relevant provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949. While this view ultimately did not win the day in terms of official Israeli policy, the presence of such an opinion within the official internal Israeli discourse – so close to the end of the war in 1967 – is significant.

Indeed, in this regard, it is worthwhile recalling that there is significant jurisprudence of the Israeli Supreme Court in the field of occupation law. While the Israeli Supreme Court has not directly affirmed the applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention or expressed its legal reading on settlement activities as such, it has in no uncertain terms, in a well-established line of case-law spanning decades, unambiguously accepted that the West Bank is occupied territory and that Israel is the occupying power there."
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Op-Ed-Contributors/Why-the-law-prohibits-settlement-activities-354425
Again this from ICRC's legal adviser clearly the ICRC views it as occupied territories and that settlements are illegal.


Below is link to ICRC official website with ICRC stating
"The ICRC started work in Israel and the occupied territories in 1948, following the first Israeli-Arab conflict. Its presence became permanent in the aftermath of the 1967 war. The ICRC repeatedly reminds Israel of its obligations under IHL towards the population living under occupation, through bilateral and confidential dialogue. The organization focuses on the protection of civilians and the welfare of detainees held in Israeli and Palestinian places of detention, and helps the most needy. The ICRC supports the Palestine Red Crescent Society and the Magen David Adom (the Israeli National Society)."
https://www.icrc.org/eng/where-we-work/middle-east/israel-occupied-territories/index.jsp

Already established ICRC, ICJ, UNSC, and Israeli Supreme Court all says law of occupation apply which include 4th Geneva convention.
Replying with same point when I have already refuted it won't change anything.

"As I said and which you didnt contradict:
According to legal expert as the former Israeli Supreme Judge Admund Levy (in Levy Report the judges relied on the ICRC), International law expert and one of the drafter of resolution 242, Prof. Rostow, ICJ (that reaffirmed Article 80 three times, that the last one was in 2004), Prof. Gauthier are reinforcing me. And let's us not forget as well the letter that been sent to Ban-Ko Moon that over 130 international law experts and jodges are signed on the document etc.
I posted all of these documents and statements numerous of times."
Again I have responded to that and you just respond with the same point. I already directly pointed out that in a case he ruled on regarding on disengagement out of 11 judges he was the only one to rule against disengagement meaning his view of Israel not being an occupying power goes against most Supreme Court justices and against decades of Supreme Court rulings. UN 242 resolution is one resolution out of many UNSC resolutions. All UNSC resolutions cited in letter by over 40 former American officials are resolutions that weren't 242. The letter to Ban Ko Moon was signed by right wing Israelis; people bias to the conflict. I cited a document from all EU ministers saying that settlements are illegal under international law, a letter from 140 organizations saying settlements are illegal, a letter by over 40 senior American officials ambassadors other experts saying settlements violate article 49 of Geneva convention. I have pointed several legal scholars like Theodore Meron, John Quigley, etc. This is addition to UNSC, ICJ, Israel Supreme Court, and ICRC clearly stating Israel is the occupying power(many of the sources like Meron Israelis people you expect would have the opposite opinion).

The video doesn't change anything I wrote or any of the facts I cited. I have read the mandate document which already stated numerous times it promised a Jewish home in Palestine which as pointed above there has been since 1948 making it fulfilled.

On article 80 of UN charter. It's indisputable that a mandate is suppose to be a temporary agreement meaning an article promising a mandate(obviously a mandate stays in effect until it's goal is met)
to stay in effect indefinitely makes no sense.

1. Except as may be agreed upon in individual trusteeship agreements, made under Articles 77, 79, and 81, placing each territory under the trusteeship system, and until such agreements have been concluded(if you are actually reading article this means until agreements are finished meaning you are being false when you claim this article protects mandates indefinitely), nothing in this Chapter shall be construed in or of itself to alter in any manner the rights whatsoever of any states or any peoples or the terms of existing international instruments to which Members of the United Nations may respectively be parties.
2.Paragraph 1 of this Article shall not be interpreted as giving grounds for delay or postponement of the negotiation and conclusion of agreements for placing mandated and other territories under the trusteeship system as provided for in Article 77.

Your logic that the Palestinians(most Muslims with minority Christians) are Jews which some or part of descended from population residing at time of conquest in 7th century were Jews(this means if they are descended from that population that haven't identified as Jews for over 1,300 years) that coverted to Islam is contradictory when at the same time you claim that most of them want to wipe out Israel and the Jews.


If you are going to respond to this, try to say something new.

 

Please re-read my previous comments.

 

you have no hard evidence that even 1% of the Palestinians are secretly practising Judaism.

 

I repeat myself because what I said previously is the proper reply to what you wrote.

As I already said:
So if the West Bank is part of "Palestine" and is not mean that a control over it will be "whole of Palestine", hence, Israel can control over the West Bank according to the Mandate.
If your problem is that "because the Mandate never talked about whole of Palestine", so Israel cant control over it on behalf of the Mandate", then this problem is not existing, because even with Judea and Samaria, it will not be "whole of Palestine".

Because the Mandate never talked about clear borders that this Jewish national home will be reconstitue, and only referred the Land of Israel (aka "Palestine") as the alce where it will be reconstitute, then Israel have legal right over the West Bank as a place that been granted to the Jews as part of a territory to the future Jewish national home.

I already replied to your claims about the reference of Article 49 in the Levy Report. Please re-read the part from my last comment to you that talks about the reference of Article 49 in the Levy Report.

Areas A and B is the PA who is in control over the Arabs there.

The settlements are protected by Article 80 of the UN Charter that protects the rights that were granted to the Jews over "Palestine". Some of the rights were settling in "Palestine".

According to Eyal Benvenisti in his research "The Legal Status of Lands Acquired by Israelis before 1948 in the West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem", there are Arab villages that sitting on top of Jewish villages and which according to the law in the West Bank that still valid These are lands that Jews bought and thus need to returned to them. Also it is according to a memo that was signed in 2008 between Israel and Abu-Mazen.

According to legal expert as the former Israeli Supreme Judge Admund Levy (in Levy Report the judges relied on the ICRC), International law expert and one of the drafter of resolution 242, Prof. Rostow, ICJ (that reaffirmed Article 80 three times, that the last one was in 2004), Prof. Gauthier are reinforcing me (which means contradict what Maron said). And let's us not forget as well the letter that been sent to Ban-Ko Moon that over 130 international law experts and jodges are signed on the document etc.
I posted all of these documents and statements numerous of times.

Not according to the UN Charter that keeps the rights that were granted to the Jews over "Palestine".

So ICRC is working in Israel and in Judea and Samaria, ok.

All resolutions that refer to the West Bank as "occupied" is been contradicted by Article 80 of the UN Charter that protects the rights that were granted to the Jews over "Palestine", and which all of the experts that I mentioend agree with me.

As I already stated:
The video provide evidences like the document of the Mandate, hence, it is not only providing evidences about Israeli sovereignty over Jerusalem, but the evidences that is shown there are connected to what we are talking about, so it means that if you want more information from actual researcher that studied this subject for 25 years, then you need to listen and watch the lecture I provided in comment #68.

The evidences that is shown by Dr. Gauthier is contradicting your claims.

When and where did I mention that all of the Arabs want to wipe out Israel?

So please dont repeat yourself.

- - - Updated - - -

Please watch the videos I posted in comment #170 and the articles (that one of them refer to a genetic research that been published in "Nature") in comment #180.

 

you have provided zero evidence that even 1% of the Palestinians are secretly practising Judaism.

a Crypto-Jew is someone who in secret, practises the Jewish faith.

 

Please watch the videos I posted in comment #170 and the articles (that one of them refer to a genetic research that been published in "Nature") in comment #180

 

Nature never published an article saying that even 1% of the Palestinians are Crypto-Jews.

I dont think you know what a Crypto-Jew is.

 

I know, dont worry about me.
I referred to you to my comments that shows what you dont want to get. If still you dont want to get, then it is not my problem.

 

what is a Crypto-Jew?

 

A person that is practicing Jewish customs in their homes, but for the outside they does not identify as Jew.
Or as the dictionary defines it:

Source: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/crypto-jew

 

It is clearly mentioned in the UN charter that the indigenous Palestinian population is protected and the rights granted to Jewish immigrants come in at a distant 2nd place compared to that. We've been through this before, yet you keep on spreading them zionistic lies.

 

funny, as he contradicts many of YOUR claims.

- - - Updated - - -

The UN Charter and Article 80 never mention Palestine, therefore you are wrong.

 

None of the Palestinians are practicing Jewish customs in their homes with not having identified as Jews(if Palestinian is part of population descended from population that converted to Islam from Judaism) for hundreds of years if not more than a millennium. Most of the Christians and Jews in Palestine under Islamic rule weren't forced to convert to Islam. That's historic fact. Jews and Christians did have restrictions like jizya tax. Christians on the other hand during that time period did have a lot of forced conversations with inquisition in Spain being the most noticeable case.

 

Most Zionists except for right wingers like stuntman don't believe that about article 80. The notion that article 80 protects settlements has no factual basis with article 80 never mentioning Palestine and refers to international trustees.

 

It is as if you fail to read correctly and absorb or you have an inner resistance to negate the truth. In fact your declaration is <Topsy Turvy> and is far away from reality!!!

I have taken this opportunity to reproduced the PREAMBLE and the Articles that would stop your rambling on the 'Mandate for Palestine' in here for ALL to read.


LONDON:
PUBLISHED BY HIS MAJESTY&#8217;S STATIONERY OFFICE

The Council of the League of Nations:
Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have agreed, for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, to entrust to a Mandatory selected by the said Powers the administration of the territory of Palestine, which formerly belonged to the Turkish Empire, within such boundaries as may be fixed by them; and

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; and

Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country; and

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 afore-mentioned Article 22 (paragraph , 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;

Confirming the said Mandate, defines its terms as follows:

Article 1.
The Mandatory shall have full powers of legislation and of administration, save as they may be limited by the terms of this mandate.

Article 2.
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.

I hope this will clarify the situation...

 

not even 1% of Palestinians are doing this.