If the Palestinians don't get too uppity then let the illegal settlements get bigger and steal the land outright later.

Israel is an Apartheid state.


There's no other solution. The Palestinians have to fight it at the UN.

And yet you persist that The Jewish State is an "Apartheid " state when you don't even understand what that means.

But please continue , I am sure you are in good company ....

I don't think anyone who operates with jerking knees and only objects if it's Israel being accused of apartheid really has any genuine understanding of the term itself.

btw, why do you call Israel 'The Jewish State' instead of Israel when yr 'arguing' with other DUers? It's almost as though the point is to try to convince people that saying that Israel is an apartheid state is actually accusing Jews of being into apartheid. The second would be antisemitic and something no-one here has done, so I hope that's not what yr trying to do...

Interesting , you answer all my posts no matter who they addressed to .

I guess you found him, hey? There's plenty of people who reply to me, some that I never reply to myself, and I don't whine about it or make false claims that they're replying to everything I say. I just don't think I'm that fascinating to other people. I also address what they're actually saying. I find it works much better when it comes to actual discussion of the topic

I/P isn't some olive grove you can just tear down and plant your own truthiness regardless of how it grows.

King D. is an amateur. His schtick isn't working.

The truth is irritating .



( and I never called you or that other poster you were adressing an antisemite ever ... Those were your words my friend .. I am far too much of an "amateur " ( your words too) to do such a thing )

Last edited Thu Nov 8, 2012, 11:25 PM - Edit history (1)

There is a fine line between what is said and what is implied.

Innuendo works wonders for some. Dog whistles work for more than just the crazy right in America.

"I never called you or that other poster you were addressing an antisemite ever"

You don't have to do it outright. You only have to imply it.

Yes, the truth is irritating to you. Get used to it.

The truth is irritating to you. Get used to it.

Am not very intimidating ?

If you never met me , what attributes are you going by ?

...where Palestinians have lived for generations without the ability to vote, own land, or work in a number of professions?

Or is it only apartheid WRT Israel?

Just looking for consistency in your argument.

You sure you feel comfortable here at DU ?

I can't imagine any Democratic rep or Our President allowing Anyone to remain in party or on their staff who made such an absurd ridiculous hateful incorrect statement .

Weird you think it's acceptable .

Perhaps you are uncomfortable with that, but we do live in a democracy.

Perhaps you might feel more comfortable rewriting the rules for the I/P group to make some words and definitions disappear.

Was just pointing out Democratic Party principles and policies

If Algeria introduced a resolution declaring that the earth was flat and that Israel had flattened it, it would pass by a vote of 164 to 13 with 26 abstentions.

Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/a/abbaeban167935.html#1cqesEmY9L9b1az2.99

and make sure that their citizens obeyed the law then it would be a big gesture in the road to peace.

Because I seem to recall that's exactly what people used to say about Israel leaving Gaza. Turned out to not help in the least.

... if Palestinians are granted an upgraded U.N. status?

depending on the exact issue

Well, well... Now it's clear. Thanks for descrambling that for me.

World respect. It's time for Israel to play within its own borders and stop harvesting the lands of others.

Israel says it is pushing forward with the construction of more than 1,200 new homes in Jewish settlements, in an apparent warning to the Palestinians to rethink their plan to ask the United Nations to recognise an independent state of Palestine.

The Israeli government announced late on Monday that it was accepting bids from contractors to build the homes in two Jewish enclaves in East Jerusalem, Ramot and Pisgat Zeev. The homes are among 1,200 whose construction Israel ordered to be fast-tracked in November 2011 after a key UN body granted full membership to Palestine.

While construction would take months to begin, officials indicated that the timing of the tenders was meant to signal to the Palestinians that they should consider the possible consequences of their plan to ask the UN general assembly later this month to upgrade their status to non-member observer state.

Asked whether this was a sign of what could come, an Israeli official said if the Palestinians went to the general assembly it would be a "blow to peace" and cause problems. He spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorised to discuss the matter with reporters.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/nov/06/israel-12000-homes-jerusalem-settlements

per oberliner in post http://www.democraticunderground.com/113420494#post1

I simply came across the news while rooting around on the Guardian site, saw this OP and tagged it on here . I didn't notice the other OP.

got it

the housing are being built on disputed territory period end of story

It is a dog whistle for "We want it so we will take it."

Just as a dog whistle is for right wingers calling the President a Kenyan.


The housing is illegal. You know it and so does everybody else.

East of the Jordan river was land for Palestinian Arabs.

To the West was land for the Jews.

This was the work of the League of Nations (a sacred trust later adopted by the UN).

That ruling cannot be revoked unless the Jews allow for it (which they've offered in one peace deal after another).

You have no idea what you're talking about.

Last edited Thu Nov 8, 2012, 11:24 PM - Edit history (1)

You guys keep on making excuses for land grabs.


AHAHAHAHAHAHA.

I would normally advise you to quit while you're ahead, except, you're so far from "ahead" that it's just shameful.

...it was the homeland for Palestinian Arabs. To the west was the Jewish homeland.

The League of Nations did that and what they did was later adopted by the UN.

Unless the Jews voluntarily give up claims to any of that land, its legally theirs.

Nothing else can change that.

Google it.

Do some homework.

And surprise surprise... you still know fuck-all about history. And of course, being the incorrigible sort you are, I know that after explaining motherfucking reality to you, you'll just dither off and ignore it completely.

But I'll try anyway.

For starters, you have the British Mandate for Palestine. This mandate was divided into two administrative sectors; Transjordan, ruled by the appointed Hashemites, and Palestine, directly governed by Great Britain. The Balfour Declaration of 1917 set up an agreement for creating a "Jewish homeland" within Palestine. This is quite a different thing from declaring the whole of Palestine a Jewish homeland. Also do note that the terms "Jewish homeland" and "Jewish national home" were deliberately used instead of "Jewish state." Also note that the Balfour Declaration explicitly states that the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine are not to be infringed upon by this homeland. Transjordan's role in this drama is simply that Jewish emigration was not permitted into that portion of the Mandate.

That is, the "Jewish homeland" was envisioned as an ethnic enclave. It would hold no legal authority over any non-Jews, and presumably would itself have been superseded by the Mandate governor. There was no division of "this side for Arabs, this side for Jews." The notion of a state did not arise until after WW2 and the establishment of the UN, which - as you have no doubt conveniently forgot - came up with the Partition Plan of 1947, rather than your fever-dream belief that they just handed Palestine over to a Jewish state.

So, I repeat; you know fuck-all about history, and would benefit from ceasing your endeavor to bullshit people smarter than you.

And thanks for the bit about Jewish homeland vs. Jewish state.

So what did you learn? Did you learn that Jews have had every right to settle in the W.Bank for the past 90 years? Or that it's illegal for them to do so? Or that by doing so, they're stealing Palestinian land?

There's a reason it's called disputed land. I think you just learned why. I was trying to explain to someone else WHY it is understood to be disputed.

Now honesty would call for someone as 'smart' as yourself to come to grips with reality.

Wherein you will make a hilariously ludicrous claim like "Palestine was given to the Jews and Transjordan was for the Palestinians" (which, just from the words used, makes no damn sense), proceed to get your ass kicked by "facts" and "history" then two days later, crawl back to claim that was your plan all along.

The last person I saw use this strategy is currently sitting in his car elevator, crying into a bowl of jello and telling himself he was a contender. I don't think you'll have any better luck with ignoring reality and substituting one of your own choosing.

Of course it makes no sense b/c you just made it up!



But thanks for playing.

I don't expect to see again you popping into threads claiming the WB isn't or never was part of any intended Jewish homeland or that Jews have no rights to settle there, etc.

You're brilliant enough to understand that expectation, right?

"When established.... ...it (Transjordan) was the homeland for Palestinian Arabs. To the west was the Jewish homeland. "

You do understand that being paraphrased from a direct quote is not the same as "making it up," correct?

Once again Shira, we have arrived at a point where you are just flat-out wrong. There is no argument to be had, there are no "aha, but...!" moments, there are no unexplored angles. You're wrong. And you will not be right, no matter how hard you kick or how loud you yell.

It's over. Go home. Watch a light comedy or something. Airplane perhaps.

...to be the Jewish homeland. Meaning Jews could legally settle there.

Technically speaking, it's still part of the Jewish homeland and that won't change unless the Jews renounce all claims to that land (which they've offered to do numerous times with peace offers).

Where am I wrong?

And it's been explained to you several times by multiple posters.

I suggest you follow Mr. D-Mite's advice regarding the perusal of literary works; Read a book! Read a book! Read a motherfuckin' book! R-E-A-D A B-O-Ooooookaaaaay!

Did you write the explanation in some Klingon code?

Invisible ink?

The same language I use to explain real-world economics to Randians, the same language I use to explain biology to creationists and anti-vaccers, the same language I use to explain feminism and humanity in general to MRA's.

They don't understand it either, come to think of it. Maybe I should try Klingon? It might resonate better with people so deeply invested in false realities.

Hab SoSlI' Quch!

...which shows Palestinians have superior or exclusive claim to West Bank land over Jews. Which is why the land is disputed, not colonized by Jews who have no right being there. I've asked you multiple times to make your case and you haven't.

So you believe what you believe because.....that's what you want to believe.

I know some fundamentalist christians who like your way of thinking.

That reason is, I don't make that claim. I'm simply explaining to you why your claim that Palestine was "for the Jews" and Transjordan was "for the Palestinians" is ludicrous. I even went to the sources you were falling back on, and, yeah, they reveal you know fuck-all about them. So, that's the discussion, and I can understand why you're desperate for a subject change.

But alright, while my legs are busy recouping from a 12-hour shift on them, I guess I can indulge you and your panicked, desperate need to talk about anything other than you knowing absolutely nothing about the subject you chose to talk about.

First off, let's return to the basis of your argument. You're hinging this stuff on the Balfour Declaration. For the moment we'll take a detour around the issue of you relying on imperial declarations as the basis of an ethics argument on a progressive website. Now, I don't know if you've ever actually read the Balfour Declaration, so let's take a moment to do just that.

http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/E210CA73E38D9E1D052565FA00705C61

That was pretty easy, right? The Balfour declaration makes two things very clear;

1) The Government of Great Britain was promising to establish a "Jewish national home" in Palestine to the Zionist Federation.

2) Said "Jewish national home" would be prohibited from prejudicing (causing harm to the state of affairs of) the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine.

Both of which you seem to have real trouble understanding. I really don't know how to make it simpler for you without sounding each word out very slowly, and that just doesn't work in text anyway.

The next problem you run into is the concept of property ownership. I'm fairly certain that you understand you have property rights. You seem to understand that Israeli Jews have property rights... but you also to have trouble understanding that Palestinian Arabs also have this right, because you're here arguing that the Balfour Declaration gives Israeli Jews the right to evict Palestinians, confiscate Palestinian lands and homes, demolish the same, etc. it doesn't. In fact as we just saw, it says the exact opposite.

Simply, a person has no right to lay claim to something that somebody else legally owns. That's called theft.

Okay, so what about the uninhabited land in the west bank, you might ask. Well, remember just a few posts ago, you were leaning on the UN as a defense of your position? That organization considers the west bank from the 1967 Armistice lines East, to be Palestinian land. That is it is under the ownership and authority of whatever government the Palestinians consider their own, whether a proxy as Jordan was in the 60's, or the Palestinian Authority as it is today. The uninhabited / unused land belongs to the Palestinians as a collected group, much as unoccupied / unused land in Israel belongs to Israelis as a group.

Once again, taking this land is theft.

Trying to frame the argument as you are doing, about whether or not Jews in particular have any claim to the West Bank is a red herring, and you certainly know it. Jew or not, it doesn't matter - no one has rights to that land except the people who own it, and the government they have decided represents their interests. Any argument to the contrary depends on the arguer believing that Palestinians have none of the rights commonly recognized as applying to humanity in common.

You're putting those words into my mouth.

And the UN cannot just decide to reverse the fact that the WB is part of the Jewish homeland. There is no particular UN resolution that does so. Look it up.

My point is Jews have rights to the land, just as Palestinians do. You are arguing Palestinians have exclusive rights to the land. You're wrong. Also, the declarations from 90 years ago state that Palestinian Arabs have civil and religious rights there, but not political. Take that any way you wish.

Which tells me that whatever your actual position is, it must be pretty damn indefensible.

Now, through this little subthread, you've posted such things as...

Post #25:

And Post #30:


You are very plainly arguing that the whole of the territory west of the Jordan - that is modern-day Gaza, Israelm and the West bank - is Balfour's 'Jewish homeland.' Meanwhile everything east of the Jordan is (rather incongruously) for the Palestinian Arabs. There's absolutely no way to read this argument except that you believe that all the land west of the Jordan is 100% for Jews, and no one else gets any of it unless "the Jews" (what, all of them?) give up their exclusive claim to it.

Off course, none of this actually backed up by the source you're trying to use. Which I have very kindly provided. Perhaps you have an alternate text that has misled you down this tragic road to intellectual ruin?

I am arguing that the land's owners have exclusive right to the land. In the West Bank, the land is owned by individual Palestinians and by the Palestinian Authority. The only way for you to believe otherwise is to hold that the owners' ownership "doesn't count," that their rights to their property can just be waived any old time.

Wait, what's this?
[img][/img]
You really did just argue that civil rights don't include political rights. What's more, you actually felt hte need to edit your post to add that argument. I decided it was such a hoot that I ought to preserve it via screenshot just in case, y'know, you accidentally re-edited or something.

So... yeah, I guess you do believe that it "doesn't count," if the rights in question are those of Arabs.

All I've written is that land to the west of Jordan was designated as the Jewish homeland. That's not to say Palestinians had no right being there. It's your belief, shared by many here, that Jews have no right to anything in the WB. You're all unclear as to what that means, whether it's Israel that has no rights there or Jews who have no rights to the WB, which is no longer the Jewish homeland for some reason. You're arguing Palestinians have exclusive rights to the land and Jews shouldn't be there at all. I'm not arguing the mirror opposite (Palestinians should be expelled, etc. from Israel). Your position is obviously far more extreme.

All I've written is that land to the west of Jordan was designated as the Jewish homeland.

I'll refer you to yr own words in post #30: 'Unless the Jews voluntarily give up claims to any of that land, its legally theirs.'

It's your belief, shared by many here, that Jews have no right to anything in the WB.

I've not met a DUer here who believes that. Most LW folk at DU believe that Israel (repeat that after me, coz you seem to have trouble distinguishing between Israel (a state and a nationality) and Jews (many of whom aren't Israeli, just the same as a sizeable number of Israelis aren't Jewish). So it would be honest to say 'It's your belief, shared by many here, that Israel has no right ot anything in the WB'. That is actually the position held by many people at DU, because most DUers do oppose the occupation and comprehend that Israel doesn't own or have any legal right to the West Bank. Your position, in claiming that Israel legally owns the West Bank, is an extreme position, and one that never was welcome back at DU2...

There's nothing inconsistent there considering all that land was designated 90 years ago as the Jewish homeland. I didn't mention Israel.



Again, Jews having rights is consistent with that land being part of the Jewish homeland.

You keep bringing in Israel and sovereignty.

Stop me the second I start to lose you and let me know what bit of it I need to explain in a different way...

You claimed: 'All I've written is that land to the west of Jordan was designated as the Jewish homeland.' Correct?

But the thing was that's not all you claimed, because you also said: 'Unless the Jews voluntarily give up claims to any of that land, its legally theirs.'

The Balfour Declaration did not give the West Bank to the Zionists (for any juries of trigger happy alerters, pre-Israel settlers are referred to as Zionists, as it was the Zionist movement that was driving the First and Second Aaliyahs), who were disappointed at not getting any territory given to them or the mention of a state there. know Scoot's posted the text of the Balfour Declaration for you, so I'm not understanding how you can ignore what it says and just pretend that there was territory legally given and that the legal rights of Palestinians were thrown out the window, when in fact the Balfour Declaration says the complete opposite when it comes to the existing population...

Again, Jews having rights is consistent with that land being part of the Jewish homeland.

You keep bringing in Israel and sovereignty.

Gosh, do you think just maybe I'm bringing up Israel and sovereignty because until you came along and decided to refer to Israelis as Jews and say that opposing the occupation is actually opposing Jews living where they want to live, the thread was actually about Israel and sovereignty??

I'll make this as simple as I possibly can. Again, feel free to stop me if yr not following and I'll approach it a different way.

It doesn't matter if a person is Jewish, Anglican, Muslim, Hindu or anything else. They don't have the right to just kick other people out of their homes and live there. That's a right no-one in their right mind should want for any group of people.

Israel is violating international law by encouraging and condoning its population to settle in territory it occupies. Israel doesn't legally own that land. It's never been part of the state of Israel...

...for a Jewish homeland including what is now the WB. It was later adopted by the UN.

http://stateofisrael.com/mandate/

IOW, it's international law.

Seems you're confusing the British Mandate with the LoN Mandate for Palestine.

Unless the Jews voluntarily give up claims to any of that land, its legally theirs.

Nothing else can change that.

Ewww. Here's a dose of reality for you and other supporters of the settlers and Greater Israel. The West Bank and Gaza are not and have never been legally Israel's. Sorry, but yr views are very extreme, and in some ways every bit as uncompromising and hateful as those of Hamas...

Especially if you're going to be so gosh-darn selective about it.

Sure, the British empire and the French Empire decided to split Greater Syria between them with Sykes-Picot. I wonder exactly what gives this an ounce of validity, however. Logically, a conclave of world powers that arbitrarily decide that one of their number are now rulers of people who don't have the same status is... well, bluntly it's pretty fascist, isn't it?

Sure you could argue "product of their times," but there are two flaws to that. First, even at the time, this is an exercise in a lack of ethics. Each of the imperial powers involved clearly understood that they did not want to be ruled by a foreign power - it stands to reason that they would understand someone else wouldn't want to be ruled by them, in turn. Second, even without that... we're looking back at the society and politics of 1917 in an effort to justify a situation that exists nearly a century later. That's rather ludicrous, no matter how you look at it. "it was like that back then!" simply isn't an argument in support of "it should be like that now!"

And then, the hypocrisy of grappling onto the "Jewish homeland" stuff as proper and unquestionable, because it was handed down by the British empire.. .while at the same time ignoring and deriding the ban on Jewish immigration to Palestine levied by the very same British empire years later. it becomes a situation where a person is grasping at straws in order to justify their position, without having to actually state and defend their position as their own.

When Jews give up that right, as they have offered to do in one peace offer after another (which I support BTW), only then will you be able to claim the land is exclusively Palestinian, that settlers are stealing land, etc.

When you claim Jews have zero rights to settle there and are just stealing land, you're the one with the extreme views.

This was yr claim initially, which is peddling the Greater Israel crap. It's every bit as expansionist and uncompromising as that of Hamas.

'Unless the Jews voluntarily give up claims to any of that land, its legally theirs.

Nothing else can change that. '


No, Israel does not hold any sovereignty over the Occupied Territories. It's not legally Israels at all. That's really quite a ridiculous thing to claim...

When you claim Jews have zero rights to settle there and are just stealing land, you're the one with the extreme views.

Well, good thing I don't claim that about Jews, isn't it? And there's nothing extreme at all in pointing out that the Israeli settlements are illegal and land is being stolen from the Palestinians. I'm sure you'll find more DUers think along those lines than those who agree with you that Israel owns all of the West Bank...

...for Jews to settle. Nothing since then has legally changed, do you agree?

Coz I'm tired and Scoot said it better than I could, I'll copy and paste in the hope you read it this time:

'The Balfour Declaration of 1917 set up an agreement for creating a "Jewish homeland" within Palestine. This is quite a different thing from declaring the whole of Palestine a Jewish homeland. Also do note that the terms "Jewish homeland" and "Jewish national home" were deliberately used instead of "Jewish state." Also note that the Balfour Declaration explicitly states that the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine are not to be infringed upon by this homeland. Transjordan's role in this drama is simply that Jewish emigration was not permitted into that portion of the Mandate.'

http://www.democraticunderground.com/113420501#post32

I'm going to patiently repeat the bleeding obvious again in case there's anyone else confused still. Israel does not own the West Bank. Israel hasn't, and has never had sovereignty over the West Bank. The West Bank is not part of Israel. Have I missed anything here?

Last edited Sat Nov 10, 2012, 11:16 AM - Edit history (1)

I'm not arguing it's part of a sovereign Jewish state and I already gave Scoot credit for distinguishing b/w state and homeland. I'm not saying it's part of greater Israel. Just that the Jews have rights to the land.

I'm asking you whether you can acknowledge it as part of the Jewish HOMELAND established over 90 years ago, and that Jews have a right to settle the land.

The land was not allocated. There was no state created out of the Balfour Declaration. There was no borders or territory allotted and I'm not sure how you come to the conclusion there was...

...relates to Jewish settlement in the West Bank.

Rather than deny Jews have any claim whatsoever to anything anywhere, how about expanding on what this "homeland" means for Jews WRT the West Bank?

Here's where you deflect again going off on little tangents like "I never said".....



Anything to avoid answering a simple question.

I really don't understand what yr failing to grasp about the Balfour Declaration. Go back and read Scoot's post slowly. They explained everything in there, and you should take the time to read it rather than get abusive at me. It's very unpleasant to get nasty at someone yr asking to explain something to you...

Last edited Sat Nov 10, 2012, 11:43 AM - Edit history (2)

See, you wrote here it's not even disputed land:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=58284&mesg_id=58461

You've done that time and time again here, as if Jews have no rights to any land there.

To you, the WB is all Palestinian and these claims of a Jewish homeland WRT the WB are rubbish greater Israel settler views.

Working correctly for you.

Of course I believe the West Bank is occupied and Israel has no right to construct its illegal settlements there. It's not an extreme view, not like the view of someone who states that Israel owns all the land east of the Jordan. In fact, the view I hold would be the same view held by the vast majority of DUers, so I'm at a loss as to why you appear to be now claiming that thinking the West Bank is occupied is a 'rubbish greater Israel settler view'. That makes no sense, seeing as the settlers and their supporters believe everything West of the Jordan is part of Israel...

Also, Israelis (we're talking about Israel and Israelis, not Jews) don't have a right to any land here. That's because Israel has to abide by the same set of international laws as every other country is expected to and its citizens don't just get to up and settle wherever they want outside of Israel.

The nation that was formed from Jacob's twelve sons and their descendants ie: The Jewish State.

or Bnei Yisrael...The Jewish Nation.

'It's Israel, not 'Jewish', but you've been told that already...'


Now you have been told.

Yeah, it was in this thread...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/113420501#post11

Okay, now that's been put to bed, let's clear up this tendency of some to refer to Israeli soldiers as 'Jewish soldiers' and Israelis as Jews when it suits them. It's a tactic used by some 'supporters' of Israel to imply that those who criticise Israel are being antisemitic because according to them, they're not criticising Israel, but criticising Jews. They try to make out that criticism of the occupation only happens because the occupiers are Jewish, and that if anyone else but Israel was carrying out the occupation and treating the Palestinians as brutally as Israel has, the Palestinians and those who support their self-determination would be lauding the occupiers as heroes and putting on welcome parties for them.

You might also like to read the DU2 guidelines. It was covered in that. 'Do not use the term "Zionist" to mean "Jew" or "Israeli." Do not use the term "Jew" to mean "Israeli".'

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1134287

Be clear.

And you have denied repeatedly here at DU that the land is disputed.

Quite extreme.

As extreme as your past views advocating 1-state.

======

FWIW, I didn't state Israel owns the WB. I wrote very clearly that the WB is part of the Jewish homeland. You take that to mean it's Israel.

I'm not sure why you hold such faith in a British Declaration, which wasn't binding, yet dismiss actual legal resolutions and declarations if they don't suit yr agenda.

Scoot's posted the text of the Balfour Declaration, and I've already asked you in another post to read it, because you don't seem to understand what it says. Nowhere does it give legal ownership of the West Bank to Jews.

You'll find that many DUers actually believe that the West Bank is occupied territory. 'Disputed' is the language of the Right Wing, and there's a really good paper I once read on the language used by the Right Wing when it comes to Resolution 242 and 'disputed' that I'd post for you, but experience has shown that it's likely to be totally ignored.

No-one refered to East Timor as 'disputed' when Indonesia occupied it. Disputed is used when there's disagreements between states over sovereignty over territory, not to describe brutal and long-term occupations. It's definitely not extreme to be opposed to the occupation and to call it an occupation.

btw, we're discussing yr views where you claimed about the West Bank: ''Unless the Jews voluntarily give up claims to any of that land, its legally theirs.' Haven't you and one or two others spent much time and effort trying to tell everyone that Israel = Jews and that's because it's the Jewish State? Yet now all of a sudden, yr saying that 'the Jews' didn't mean 'Israel', even though a state is the only thing that can exert sovereignty over territory.

Anyone who holds the view that Israel legally owns the West Bank is holding some very extreme views, imo. And I think you'll find the vast majority of DUers find that an extreme view and don't find being opposed to the occupation of the West Bank to be extreme...

First, shira is going back 90 years. More, actually since she's going back to the Balfour Declaration. Britain established a "Jewish Home" whatever that was intended to mean (deliberate vagueness is a diplomatic necessity) in what they called "Palestine". Back then that included what is now Jordan. So in theory, the Balfour Declaration suggested that the Jews were going to be allowed to settle anywhere in that conquered area. Certainly they had the right to settle in all of what is now considered Palestine. Consistent with that they settled in Jerusalem, also in places that are marked in yellow on the map. Most famously in an area called the Etzion bloc. A few years later, the League rubber stamped a give away of what is now Jordan to Britain's Hashemite friends. League rubber stamps don't define rights.

The Partition Plan established nothing. It isn't legally or morally relevant. First because the UN isn't legally or morally relevant. Second, because the Partition Plan is a General Assembly Resolution, and the GA has no legal authority per the UN Charter. Third, it is written as a recommendation for a compromise. In fact, it is at least the third effort at compromise by the international community after two attempts in the 1930's. More likely, it's a smokescreen behind which the British, with the agreement of the rest of the world, could abandon Palestine with the understanding that a war was coming in which the Jews were likely to be massacred, and Palestinians disenfranchised by their brother Arabs. Fourth, the UN's suggestion represents facts on the ground at the time it was passed. It doesn't represent moral claims. It's just that the yellow areas hold an Arab majority and the orange part has a Jewish majority. It's not a statement of principle. It's an offer of a compromise. Fifth, to no one's surprise, the Arabs rejected the compromise, as they had all the prior ones. So the UN suggestion got tossed in the trash by the very people who are now trying to take advantage of it.

The bottom line is that the Jews have a rightful, but not exclusive, claim to settle in all of Palestine. They, can compromise that claim, and actually have offered to do that many times, notably by accepting the Partition Plan that the Arabs rejected. It's the Arabs, with their continuing demands for RoR, who have continually failed to offer any reasonable compromise.

well if you say so

Or maybe I wasn't clear. I don't think that the Balfour Declaration has any more legal significance than the UN, and the League was worse than useless. The point of the Balfour Declaration was that it was a supposed statement of intent of the British government. The Jews could settle anywhere that the conquering British let them settle, which in this case was all of the Palestine mandate, until Britain created Jordan. And I think that I pointed out that the League's rubber stamping of British decisions meant that they had no legal significance. What mattered were the actions of the sovereign, in this case Great Britain. As long as Great Britain allowed Jews to move to Palestine and buy land, then those people had the legal right to do that. They had the moral right to do that because Israel is the Jewish homeland, and the Jews had a right to re-create their nation there. Neither the League or the UN could add to or detract from that.

Are you claiming that the West Bank is legally Jewish territory?

1. They have a right to continue living there unless they actively make war on Israel.

2. They have a right to be made Israeli citizens if Israel annexes the West Bank.

3. They have a right to their own country in the West Bank and Gaza, provided they make peace with Israel.

It's very simple. West Jerusalem is part of Israel, East Jerusalem, which is where this is happening, isn't. Since when has being opposed to illegal construction in occupied territory been over playing anything?