Israel Approved 734 Housing Units in East Jerusalem Settlements in 2011

Arent any what? palestinian families who were evicted from their houses in 67/48? sure there are.

However, that doesnt make the whole city occupied.
Please remember that also jewish residents of jerusalem were evicted as areas who were populated with jewish residents were conquerd by jordan.

 

Why is that? Weve seen what Muslim control of the Old walled city of Jerusalem brings. Jewish and Christian Holy sites were placed off limits. Most synagogues were razed or turned into barns. The old Jewish cemetary was desecrated, and they used the tombstones to line latrines.

 

The holy places will belong to no one - they will be put under international control (or something like that).

 

Occupied territory.

Houses taken by Israel on that territory, then moved into by citizens of the occupying power.

Whats so problematic about it? Why not just admit it?

But yes I do recognise the earlier actions of a previous occupying power. Does that really make a difference to you?

 

Its not all "occupied" according to the UN. But you share the same stated view as Fatah, Hamas and the Palestinian authority. Specifically that ALL land occupied by jews in Israel or the territories is "occupied". Thus the muslims 60 year campaign to drive the jews into the sea.

 

The territories were never annexed to one or the other state. Israel captured West Jerusalem by force in 1948. Only following the 1967 war did Israel annex West Jerusalem, and in the process somehow West Jerusalem's territory nearly tripled! These annexed territories included not only the part of Jerusalem that had been under Jordanian rule, but also an additional 64 square kilometers, most of which had belonged to 28 villages in the West Bank, and part of which belonged to the municipalities of Bethlehem and Beit Jala. The Palestinians in that part were displaced and their property seized by Israel. Before this division though, there was never an "East" or "West" Jerusalem, and Israel still considers them as one area as we saw with Israel's 'basic law' on Jerusalem. The UNSC firmly has stated that Israel's attempts to annex Jerusalem are void and null. Jerusalem was even declared an Israel-Occupied City by the Israeli Government in a proclamation on August 2, 1948.

 

Hmmm

Fatah has renounced such claims to all palestine.

Is that game set match or is there another card up your slieve?

 

Playing the make some (*)(*)(*)(*) up again card arent you. Its right there in their constitution. Couldnt be stated any more plainly.

12. Complete liberation of Palestine, and eradication of Zionist economic, political, military and cultural existence.

 

This does indeed describe Israel, given its illegal settlement expansions throughout Palestine and its attempted eradication of the Hamas Zionism variation.

 

Uh huh. And where does it say anything about driving Jews into the sea? If I said to you, in 1933, that I wanted to see the complete liberation of Germany, eradication of Nazi economic, political, cultural and military existence would that translate into wanting to rid the world of Germans, or drive them into the North Sea?

 

??? Its from the fatah constitution. Hamas charter also makes clear that the complete elimination of Israel is their goal.

 

Im glad to see youve pulled their constitution out of your sleeve. Should I pull out Likud's positions? Nah lets leave that for now.

Indeed it does remain in the constitution, but claims on 78% of palestine were renounced years back during the Camp david negotiations. Indeed Palestinians were not bothering to demand Haifa back etc etc were they?

Changing the constitution requires something a bit more substantial between Israel and Palestine wouldnt you say? For example, why change a constitution when the Israelis are still building everywhere? Wouldnt that be unreasonable?

 

Are you referring to the documents of 1964 and 1988 respectively ?

 

Palestinian Charter specifies how the Charter is to be amended. Camp David they agreed to amend their charter. They havent got around to it yet. Revealing, isnt it.

 

Really? It looks just like the Likud charter and that of several other Israeli parties. But, you would never ever ever ever criticize such a problem, right? Let me know if you ever encounter a Zionist who is not a racist.

 

About 25,400 results on google for "Fatah Constitution", I'm not seeing a date.
Here
http://www.palwatch.org/main.aspx?fi=640&doc_id=1160

It says "Fatah's charter was originally written in 1971"

Here's a 2008 reference to it in the US Congressional record calling for Abbas to do something about it because they are still the only written, controlling authority. That and Palestinian Charter from 68. 64?? 88??

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?r110:S03AP8-0042:

 

Many Israelis are opposed to the creation of a Palestinian State. Palestinians advocate the elimination of a state that has existed for 60 years. I can understand the Israelis opposition to the creation of a Palestinian state, considering the declared goals of those Palestinians calling for the creation of a palestinian state to displace the Israeli state.

Israel declared its borders in 1948, according to UN plan, and 5 arab nations responded by declaring war on Israels existance with any borders.

 

Indeed, at camp david they did.

But camp david didnt work out, so why again should they be amending anything, especially given israelis own party's views?

What am I missing here in your argument?

 

If you can understand Israeli opposition to Palestine, then why cant you understand opposition to Israel?

After all, Israelis have unceasingly declared their call for the Israeli state to displace the both the Palestinians as a people and prevent any Palestinian state.

Israel declared its borders then determined that they wanted better ones after a civil war that they started. Please don't hit us with history, both we and most historians reject your and official Israel's characterization of it and your justifications.

There's no point in trying to assert how your version is superior, you dont have either the details or the specific rationales to contest our positions. So lets not go there.

 

Nope. Some Jews and Palestinians are like that, but not all or most.

Such explains the Likud/Hamas position. Both wish to see the other as being a "threat" and thus treat them in that manner.

Why did Israel "declare its borders" and seek war instead of negotiating and working with the local population?

 

Nope

Article 33:
This Charter shall not be amended save by [vote of] a majority of two-thirds of the total membership of the National Congress of the Palestine Liberation Organization [taken] at a special session convened for that purpose.

They merely promised to do so.

 

They didnt seek war, they offered peace. The muslims sought war.

 

Explain then Netanyahu's boast about derailing the Oslo peace accords-probably the best attempt at a lasting peace settlement in decades. You can't can you?

 

What is there to explain? Thats 50 years after the fact.

 

If "they" were offered "peace", then why did Irgun terrorists slaughter "their" children? I'm glad that you acknowledge that many Zionists are heavily supportive and defensive of such terrorism.