Who Shot Mohammed al-Dura? (long)

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


Ned, there was no Palestine. There was a Mandate of Palestine. When the partition plan was announced, but more importantly when the Jews decalered the new state of Israel, they were stating that they were not Palestinians, but Israelis. they gave up the notion of being Palestinians. Do th settlers call themselves Jewish Palestinians? or Israelis?

Now, personally, I think the partition was a terrible plan and idea, but it creates the new legal definitoons we must work under.

the league mandate which the zionist accepted called only for a Jewish national home. They didnt press for statehood and partition until it became clear that the arabs would not accept unlimited jewish immigration. and in fact that the arabs would riot to press the mandatory authority to virtually halt Jewish immigration.

[GePap]

And where the Arabs wrong to ask for such a thing, given that they had no democratic choice over the actions of a foreign mandate government, and that it is within the rights of peoples to close their doors (such as the US geenrally did in the 1920's) if they feel their way of life being threatened, erroded, by others?

This always astounds me: can anyone else think of any people in the world who were forced to accept mass immigration by foreigners seeking not to be part of thier community, but to create seperate and new communities of their own, to th every possible detriment of the local's way of life, and to be happy about it? To say "hey, that's OK with us"?

If you were a palestinains living in haifa in 1947, would YOU have backed the partition plan? Would you have accepted and endless string of new migrants? Specially, fi you had no democratic say in the matter????

[Ned]

Originally posted by GePap


Ned, there was no Palestine. There was a Mandate of Palestine. When the partition plan was announced, but more importantly when the Jews decalered the new state of Israel, they were stating that they were not Palestinians, but Israelis. they gave up the notion of being Palestinians. Do th settlers call themselves Jewish Palestinians? or Israelis?

Now, personally, I think the partition was a terrible plan and idea, but it creates the new legal definitoons we must work under.

Here is a snippet from UN General Assembly resolution 181 that clearly demonstrates that Jews were citizens of Palestine:

"The Provisional Council of Government of each State shall, not later than two months after the withdrawal of the armed forces of the mandatory Power, hold elections to the Constituent Assembly which shall be conducted on democratic lines.
The election regulations in each State shall be drawn up by the Provisional Council of Government and approved by the Commission. Qualified voters for each State for this election shall be persons over eighteen years of age who are (a) Palestinian citizens residing in that State; and (b) Arabs and Jews residing in the State, although not Palestinian citizens, who, before voting, have signed a notice of intention to become citizens of such State."

http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/go.asp?MFAH00ps0

The question remains, how did they lose their Palestinian citizenship?

[GePap]

The resoltuion was writen before the declaration of the state of Israel. You ask how the Jews lost Palestinain citizenship? well, why don;t Palestinains have Israeli citizenship? Is that a different question?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


Please!

Sorry, but that 'explinatio" ignores many salient facts.

1. In 1948 Israel declared its independence without declaring borders. The 1950 armistice lines have been agreed to be the borders of the state of Israel since then, just as the armistice line between Norht and South k0rea is seen as the border. if NK troops cressed into the South, under the DMZ, at least according to this way of thinking, they would not be occupiers, noly in "despitued territory".

2. UNSCR 242 states Israel must withdrwa from occupied territories. Fine, quible over the abscensce of a "the", but it is clear that in 1967, before any settlements were built, Isreal was already seen as being an occupying power.

3. If what you say is correct, ALL of ISREAL is disputed territory, plus, the Plaestinians still ahe the right to returns, and since the borders of Israel, according to you, are not set, what argument can Jews make about their state being inudated by Arabs? Just et the Palestinains back, then finalize a set of borders that gives you a mojority Jewsish state, NO?

Israel is seen as the occupying power. UNSCR are the laws. Settlements are, until a final agreemn is reached, ILLEGAL.

1. yes with regard to korea you are absolutely correct.

If Nkor were to take over Seoul, and were to establish settlements there people by North koreans, that would not be a violation of the geneva convention. That would hardly be the most important issue for the world community at such a time, i think.

2. Non use of the word the is NOT a quibble. It was a matter of heated discussion among the UNSC members at the time. US diplomats have subsequently made it clear that if "the" had been included, they would have vetoed 242. Ergo no borders, despite use of term occupying power.

3. Israels objection to the Pal right of return is a prudential one, based on israels security. Israel has NOT, AFAIK invoked the geneva convention as a rationale against the Pal right of return. Which it could not, since, as you point out, all of Israel is disputed territory.

so again - israel has never declared the 1948 lines as a formal boundary. The PLO did not. Jordan did not. The UN did not. They are NOT a formal boundary.

Therefore if the argument is to be made that the settlements are illegal under international law, it must be made on the UNSC resolutions alone, and not in relation to the geneva convention. Which would require a close reading of those resolutions, the relevant section of the charter under which they were passed, and the legal implications of those resolutions.

[Edan]

Originally posted by GePap
The resoltuion was writen before the declaration of the state of Israel. You ask how the Jews lost Palestinain citizenship? well, why don;t Palestinains have Israeli citizenship? Is that a different question?

Umm, many do.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap

This always astounds me: can anyone else think of any people in the world who were forced to accept mass immigration by foreigners seeking not to be part of thier community, but to create seperate and new communities of their own, to th every possible detriment of the local's way of life, and to be happy about it? To say "hey, that's OK with us"?

The balfour declaration and the League mandate, by establishing a jewish national home, recognizes the international community's understanding that the Jews were NOT foreigners, but were an indigenous people.

There is no parallel (and thus no precedent in international law) as there is no other example of a people expelled and dispersed and yet retaining its identity over 1800 years through numerous changes of international legal regimes.

I would also note that during that period there were many cases of arabs conquering lands, migrating into settlements, seizing land, and pressuring the locals to convert to islam and/or adapt to muslim culture. In fact this has occured regulartly through the centuries, in cases where the interlopers were not indigenous people returning from exile.

and by the way arabs were not expected to be happy about it. Merely to not respond with violence, violence principally directed against civilians.

[GePap]

But not all, not most. That is the question.

LoTM:

So youw oudl agree that the entirety of the mandate of palestinbe area is up for renogotiation, since ht borders are not set?

Sorry, but I find this argument facitious. Isreal has utter and complete civil control over the ands within the green line: why? after all, it is simply "dsiputed territory. Why is there an israeli civl authority in 78% of the disputed areas, but a military one in the rest? After all, no set borders......

Israel has not right to deny the right of return: it is a bacis right of refugees. All refugees have the right of return, whether Israel cares to accept it or not. The only ones that can negotiate that right away are the palestinians. The 4th geneva convention has nothing to do with it.

Therefore if the argument is to be made that the settlements are illegal under international law, it must be made on the UNSC resolutions alone, and not in relation to the geneva convention. Which would require a close reading of those resolutions, the relevant section of the charter under which they were passed, and the legal implications of those resolutions.

UNSCR are international law! If there is a UNSCR saying that the settlements are illegal, then it is illegal for member states to have such settlements. And the UNSC came to that conclusion by reading the 4th Geneva convention. Nowhere in the geneva convention does it state that a military occupant can only be such if they are beyond authortized borders. The Pals have no Israeli citizenship: the Israeli authority oevr them is MIlitary, hence, it is a military occupation. It is obvious, ecept to those that want to create some sort of legal loophole for these settlements to fall through.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap
But not all, not most. That is the question.

LoTM:

So youw oudl agree that the entirety of the mandate of palestinbe area is up for renogotiation, since ht borders are not set?
.

yup - the pals could make a proposal asking for Haifa. Just as the israelis could make a proposal claiming the pal state should be limited to Gaza only. In neither case would the proposal be serious - because of the facts on the ground, not any formal border.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap

Israel has not right to deny the right of return: it is a bacis right of refugees. All refugees have the right of return, whether Israel cares to accept it or not. The only ones that can negotiate that right away are the palestinians. The 4th geneva convention has nothing to do with it.

[.

excuse me, youre the one who brought this up in the context of the discussion of the 4th geneva convention, not me.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
The balfour declaration and the League mandate, by establishing a jewish national home, recognizes the international community's understanding that the Jews were NOT foreigners, but were an indigenous people.

The Balfour decaration has little if any legal stading. it was a statement of policy at a time Britian did not even have control over the lands It was "giving away". As for the League Mandate, it was imposed upon the local populace. Last time I checked, the Palestinians did not vote to become a mandate. It, and all mandates, were inherently undemocratic, against the very notion of self-determination.

I would also note that during that period there were many cases of arabs conquering lands, migrating into settlements, seizing land, and pressuring the locals to convert to islam and/or adapt to muslim culture. In fact this has occured regulartly through the centuries, in cases where the interlopers were not indigenous people returning from exile.

There is no such thing as indegenous people in exile. Second, the line of logic that "hey, they (not Plas, but Arabs..so the case is even less logical) were doign ti eslewhere, so we can do it here" is wrong. If the Arabs were doign ti eslewher,e then they were euqally as wrong in the places they were doing it! So if everyone is murdering someone else, it is legal all of a sudden?
(I am interested in hearing the examples of this Arab perfidity in the 1920's)

and by the way arabs were not expected to be happy about it. Merely to not respond with violence, violence principally directed against civilians.

How civilized of you
Obviosuly violence against innocents was wrong, but there was no effective way for them to counteract this, given that peacefull portest would lead nowhere, given the uttery undemocratic nature of the mandate regime.

[lord of the mark]

"Sorry, but I find this argument facitious. Isreal has utter and complete civil control over the ands within the green line: why? after all, it is simply "dsiputed territory. Why is there an israeli civl authority in 78% of the disputed areas, but a military one in the rest? After all, no set borders......"

that distinction was made by the Oslo agreements, which specifically left the question of formal borders to final status negotiations.

[GePap]

No, that distinction was made every day, and by the Israleis, since 1950, gievn that they patrol Tel aviv with civil police,and use civil courts, not military ones. What right do any states have to set up embassies in disputed territory? Aren;t they picking sides by doing so? and if Tel aviv is dispted? Obviosuly then, the world must back the Jews, sicne they are willing to open embassies in clearly disputed territory, and side with the Israeli claim...all these notion of an international bias against the Jews must then be crap, given the facts in the ground.......

The green line has become the internationally recognized borders of Israel, the land in which the Israeli goevrnment has full control and authority. This international recognition ends at the green line. The territories (OCCUPIED TERRITORIES) are not accepted as part of Israel, and hence, the Geneva convention applies (which should be obvious by the ery acts of the Israeli, and thier using of the IDF to enforece the laws there).

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


The Balfour decaration has little if any legal stading. it was a statement of policy at a time Britian did not even have control over the lands It was "giving away". As for the League Mandate, it was imposed upon the local populace. Last time I checked, the Palestinians did not vote to become a mandate. It, and all mandates, were inherently undemocratic, against the very notion of self-determination.

Quote:

I would also note that during that period there were many cases of arabs conquering lands, migrating into settlements, seizing land, and pressuring the locals to convert to islam and/or adapt to muslim culture. In fact this has occured regulartly through the centuries, in cases where the interlopers were not indigenous people returning from exile.

There is no such thing as indegenous people in exile. Second, the line of logic that "hey, they (not Plas, but Arabs..so the case is even less logical) were doign ti eslewhere, so we can do it here" is wrong. If the Arabs were doign ti eslewher,e then they were euqally as wrong in the places they were doing it! So if everyone is murdering someone else, it is legal all of a sudden?
(I am interested in hearing the examples of this Arab perfidity in the 1920's)



How civilized of you
Obviosuly violence against innocents was wrong, but there was no effective way for them to counteract this, given that peacefull portest would lead nowhere, given the uttery undemocratic nature of the mandate regime.

1.you have repatedly stated that UNSC resolutions are law - i have thus far accepted this, and have not critiqued those resolutions based on equity. Yet you deny the similar validity of League mandates. Which is it - does international law matter or not? Or only when it supports your position?

2. there is no such thing as indigenous populations in exile - didnt you just state that there is a right of refugees to return, which cannot be given up except by that people?

3. The mandate regime was no more undemocratic than the British raj in India, and non-violent means proved very effective there.

I would also point out (given how much you emphasize the undemocratic nature of the mandatory regime) that it was at least as democractic as any regime established in Palestine since the muslim conquest.


The key is your assertion that the Jews were not an indigenous people to palestine = the essence of the Zionist claim is that they are, and this was recognized by the league of nations, and was effectively reaffirmed by the UNSC in 1948.

The question of the justice of that claim is the "ur question" of the dispute. I respectfully suggest that we agree to disagree on that, i see no argument on that here as being fruitful. The achievement of Oslo, such as it was, was to move past historical narratives, the Pal claim that the Jews were foreigner, the claims of some zionists that the Pals were not really a distinct people, and to proceed on the working assumption that both are distinct and indigenous peoples. This implies i think, accepting the league mandate as law, just as much as any recent UNSC resolutions criticizing israel.

Ultimately the Israelis and Palestinians must live in peace together. when that happens, any settlements which remain will be those on that portion of the disputed land that both sides agree should be annexed to israel. all others will be dismantled. Meanwhile it is clear that either expansion of OR dismantlement of settlements is prejudicial to the final boundary. It is therefore appropriate that Israel build no more settlements, and that the Pals make every reasonable effort to limit terrorism. It is not unreasonable, given that a new settlement can yet be dismantled, but that an innocent life cannot be returned, that Israel insist that one action take priority over the other.

Now where were we?

[Edan]

Originally posted by GePap
The green line has become the internationally recognized borders of Israel

Same old false statement. Bored now.

[gsmoove23]

Israel has borders which it has recognized. Otherwise it would not be logically possible to choose to annex East Jerusalem. This is all a strawman since Israel is continually recognizing these borders everyday. Settlements on the palestinian side of the green line border towns within Israel and are given legal distinction. Israel cannot choose to disregard its obvious recognition of its borders only when it is convenient.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap
No, that distinction was made every day, and by the Israleis, since 1950, gievn that they patrol Tel aviv with civil police,and use civil courts, not military ones. What right do any states have to set up embassies in disputed territory? Aren;t they picking sides by doing so? and if Tel aviv is dispted? Obviosuly then, the world must back the Jews, sicne they are willing to open embassies in clearly disputed territory, and side with the Israeli claim...all these notion of an international bias against the Jews must then be crap, given the facts in the ground.......

The green line has become the internationally recognized borders of Israel, the land in which the Israeli goevrnment has full control and authority. This international recognition ends at the green line. The territories (OCCUPIED TERRITORIES) are not accepted as part of Israel, and hence, the Geneva convention applies (which should be obvious by the ery acts of the Israeli, and thier using of the IDF to enforece the laws there).

the israelis acknowledge that the territories are disputed, and that there is a reasonable chance of their becoming part of a palestinian state ( as is not the case for Tel avic) to formally annex them and treat them as part of israel would tend to prejudice that possibilty, and would
in all likelihood result in a war that would burn the entire region. Israels non-annexation is forebearance, and cannot be held to thereby limit here rights.

I would also point out that Israel HAS annexed both the Golan Heights and the entire municilaity of Jerusalem, and treats them legally as parts of israel - applying your de facto standard, then, both of these are de jure parts of israel, and the border is to the east of them.

I dont see how you can use the defacto situation where it works against israel, but not the other way around.

[Ned]

Originally posted by GePap


The Balfour decaration has little if any legal stading. it was a statement of policy at a time Britian did not even have control over the lands It was "giving away". As for the League Mandate, it was imposed upon the local populace. Last time I checked, the Palestinians did not vote to become a mandate. It, and all mandates, were inherently undemocratic, against the very notion of self-determination.

[

GePap, The Balfour Declaration IS binding international law. Here is a snippet from the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine:

"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."

http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/go.asp?MFAH00pr0

GePap, we are having a legal discussion here, not one of what "should have been."

The Jews, immigrants or not, had a full legal right to be in Palestine. They were citizens of Palestine in 1948. Everyone residing in the borders of Israel, Jew and Arab alike, also became citizens of Israel upon its establishment in 1948. The peoples, Jew and Arab alike, living outside Israel could not become citizens of a new Palestinian state because one was never created.

So the question remains, how did only the Jews lose their Palestinian citizenship in 1948?

If they did not lose their citizenship and remain citizens of Palestine, why is illegal for them to live in Palestine?

[gsmoove23]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
The key is your assertion that the Jews were not an indigenous people to palestine = the essence of the Zionist claim is that they are, and this was recognized by the league of nations, and was effectively reaffirmed by the UNSC in 1948.

The UNSC of 1948 did no such thing. Its purpose was to recognze an Israeli state based on the facts that were currently on the ground.

The question of the justice of that claim is the "ur question" of the dispute. I respectfully suggest that we agree to disagree on that, i see no argument on that here as being fruitful. The achievement of Oslo, such as it was, was to move past historical narratives, the Pal claim that the Jews were foreigner, the claims of some zionists that the Pals were not really a distinct people, and to proceed on the working assumption that both are distinct and indigenous peoples. This implies i think, accepting the league mandate as law, just as much as any recent UNSC resolutions criticizing israel.

Accepting that Israel exists and is there to stay hardly means accepting the ideology of zionism or the methods and means that brought about its existance. This arguement usually arises when zionists fault Palestinians for not simply accepting the zionist philosophy in 48 and actively fighting against it.

Ultimately the Israelis and Palestinians must live in peace together. when that happens, any settlements which remain will be those on that portion of the disputed land that both sides agree should be annexed to israel. all others will be dismantled. Meanwhile it is clear that either expansion of OR dismantlement of settlements is prejudicial to the final boundary. It is therefore appropriate that Israel build no more settlements, and that the Pals make every reasonable effort to limit terrorism. It is not unreasonable, given that a new settlement can yet be dismantled, but that an innocent life cannot be returned, that Israel insist that one action take priority over the other.

It is very unreasonable as by your very arguement you admit how settlements will become permanent. They are an active policy to change the nature of the dispute and the more they grow the more the future Palestinian state is stunted, a state which is already overpopulated. The dismantling of settlements is not as easy as you say, especially since they are placed with the very assumption of being permanent. The land is not leased to prospective buyers but permanently sold.

[Ned]

Originally posted by GePap
This always astounds me: can anyone else think of any people in the world who were forced to accept mass immigration by foreigners seeking not to be part of thier community, but to create seperate and new communities of their own, to th every possible detriment of the local's way of life, and to be happy about it? To say "hey, that's OK with us"?

Yes, the United States throughout its history. Have you ever seen the movie "Gangs of New York?" It portrays the literal invasion of New York by the Irish in the '40s and '50s. They took over whole communities and soon began dominating the politics. The locals resisted, at times violently.

[gsmoove23]

If they did not lose their citizenship and remain citizens of Palestine, why is illegal for them to live in Palestine?

For crying out loud Ned, the Palestinians lost their citizenship in 48. They do not have any citizenship in fact. The Mandate is over, kaput, nada. Whats more, today the Palestinians have no rights to settle in the territories outside of designated PA zones, certainly not within settlements or in the large security zones surrounding settlements, yet Israelis do under the gun of the IDF. WTF, why can't you see that the legal arguements for the settlements are strawmen that have not stood up in any international forum. They do not only violate the spirit of the law but can't stand except in the state of Israel.

[gsmoove23]

Originally posted by Ned


Yes, the United States throughout its history. Have you ever seen the movie "Gangs of New York?" It portrays the literal invasion of New York by the Irish in the '40s and '50s. They took over whole communities and soon began dominating the politics. The locals resisted, at times violently.

The Irish were "part" of the community and did not seek to create a an Irish state in the US.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


the israelis acknowledge that the territories are disputed, and that there is a reasonable chance of their becoming part of a palestinian state ( as is not the case for Tel avic) to formally annex them and treat them as part of israel would tend to prejudice that possibilty, and would
in all likelihood result in a war that would burn the entire region. Israels non-annexation is forebearance, and cannot be held to thereby limit here rights.

I would also point out that Israel HAS annexed both the Golan Heights and the entire municilaity of Jerusalem, and treats them legally as parts of israel - applying your de facto standard, then, both of these are de jure parts of israel, and the border is to the east of them.

I dont see how you can use the defacto situation where it works against israel, but not the other way around.

Only Israel recognizes its annexation of the Golan and Jerusalme, just like only Argentina recognized its annexation of the Falklands.

And you continue to ignore the simple fact than even if the territories were 'only disputed", what is going on here is a military occupation (nothing in the Conventona askf or clearly defined borders for there to be an occupation) and thus fall under its juridsdiction, and hence, settlements are illegal.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ned


Yes, the United States throughout its history. Have you ever seen the movie "Gangs of New York?" It portrays the literal invasion of New York by the Irish in the '40s and '50s. They took over whole communities and soon began dominating the politics. The locals resisted, at times violently.

yes, Ned. As gsmoove shows, the Irissh were there to be part of the US, not to create a different state. BUt I would go along with your correct point and ask: can you be surprised that Palestinains reacted violently to Jewish migration, given what we have seen happen in the US?

[Ned]

Originally posted by gsmoove23

Accepting that Israel exists and is there to stay hardly means accepting the ideology of zionism or the methods and means that brought about its existance. This arguement usually arises when zionists fault Palestinians for not simply accepting the zionist philosophy in 48 and actively fighting against it.

1) The Balfour Declaration became part of the League of Nations Mandate and is international law. Accepting Palestine as a Jewish homeland is not a question of accepting the ideology of zionism. It is the law.

2) Israel was the creation of the United Nations. It is a lawful entity.

3) The people who have been resisting the Mandate and the creation of Israel are fighting against international law as created and sanctioned by the League of Nations and the United Nations.

Their resisitance is unlawful, just as much as Saddam Hussein's defiance of the UN was unlawful.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by gsmoove23


The UNSC of 1948 did no such thing. Its purpose was to recognze an Israeli state based on the facts that were currently on the ground.



Accepting that Israel exists and is there to stay hardly means accepting the ideology of zionism or the methods and means that brought about its existance. This arguement usually arises when zionists fault Palestinians for not simply accepting the zionist philosophy in 48 and actively fighting against it.



It is very unreasonable as by your very arguement you admit how settlements will become permanent. They are an active policy to change the nature of the dispute and the more they grow the more the future Palestinian state is stunted, a state which is already overpopulated. The dismantling of settlements is not as easy as you say, especially since they are placed with the very assumption of being permanent. The land is not leased to prospective buyers but permanently sold.

1. the formal language of the UNSC in 1948 did recognize facts on the ground. I think it was widely understood at the time that was a fulfillment of the original mandate. I dont think the majority of the UNSC at that time renounced the League action of establishing the mandate.

2.Yes one could deny the zionist claim to be an indigenous people, and still accept the fact of israel. Similarly one could deny that the palestinians had any right to be a distinct nation, and still accept israeli withdrawl. The persistence of each side arguing against the other sides historical narrative as part of its claims tended to obstruct peace.

3. The israelis withdrew from several "permanent" settlements in Sinai.

[Ned]

Originally posted by gsmoove23


The Irish were "part" of the community and did not seek to create a an Irish state in the US.

I'm sorry, gsmoove, but they did revolt.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


Only Israel recognizes its annexation of the Golan and Jerusalme, just like only Argentina recognized its annexation of the Falklands.

And you continue to ignore the simple fact than even if the territories were 'only disputed", what is going on here is a military occupation (nothing in the Conventona askf or clearly defined borders for there to be an occupation) and thus fall under its juridsdiction, and hence, settlements are illegal.

Recognition - oh, so now we're back from de facto to de jure.

I dont see how the geneva convention could apply to a state occupying its own territory, simply because of domestic arrangements.

Kurds in iraq had no effective rights of citizenship, the land was controlled by military force, and arabs were settled in their land. Was that a violation of the geneva convention? no arab state said, so, nor did the PA or PLO or anyone else advocating on behalf of the Pals say so. Why? because whatever the nature of the administration, Iraq was not occupying FOREIGN territory. Ditto China in Tibet, USSR in numerous places, and im sure many other examples could easily be found around the world. Im quite sure the Geneva convention has only been applied to cases where one country was occupying FOREIGN territory, eg the US occupation of Iraq.

[Ned]

Originally posted by GePap


yes, Ned. As gsmoove shows, the Irissh were there to be part of the US, not to create a different state. BUt I would go along with your correct point and ask: can you be surprised that Palestinains reacted violently to Jewish migration, given what we have seen happen in the US?

GePap, no I am not surprised at Arab resistance to Jewish immigration. (I use the term Arab, because the Jews were just as much Palestinian as were the Arabs.) There was a clash of cultures, particularly of religion.

As has been mentioned here before, the Jews are somewhat unique in history because they have been able to maintain their identity as a people through two thousand years of exile. That, by itself, is worthy of admiration and respect.

I hope I have demonstrated here that the Jews had and still have a legal right to return to Palestine, live anywhere within its borders and become legal citizens of Palestine -- regardless of the wishes of the Arabs. They also, under Israeli law, have the same right to live in Israel and become Israeli citizens.

The problem, of course, is that the settlers do not want to become part of a new Palestinian State. Thus the settlements "unfairly" expand the potential borders of Israel at the expense of a Palestinian State. This is why the UNSC issued its resolutions in 1979 and 1980 calling for a halt.

[Ned]

Originally posted by gsmoove23


For crying out loud Ned, the Palestinians lost their citizenship in 48. They do not have any citizenship in fact. The Mandate is over, kaput, nada. Whats more, today the Palestinians have no rights to settle in the territories outside of designated PA zones, certainly not within settlements or in the large security zones surrounding settlements, yet Israelis do under the gun of the IDF. WTF, why can't you see that the legal arguements for the settlements are strawmen that have not stood up in any international forum. They do not only violate the spirit of the law but can't stand except in the state of Israel.

I don't buy this for a second. No Palestinian lost his citizenship of Palestine in 1948. In fact, the whole right of return issue critically depends upon recognition of the inherent retention of the people to their citizenship.

Also, as I have pointed out, all Jews throughout the world have a similar right to return to Palestine under international law. They too are exiles.