The land in question is not "Israeli land" so they have nothing to forfeit. Before we continue this debate we have to settle the issue that the Palestinian territories do not belong to Israel and that the settlements are illegal.

If you believe those lands belong to Israel than we do not have a common understanding on which to base a debate...

Well, that's a parsing of my words.. I concede that the land is merely Israeli controlled land at this point and accept that ownership is debatable.

Given that, I repeat:

Isn't it true that neither Palestinians, nor Israelis have entitlement to the land?


If you take the stance that there is to be no debate or negotiation and merely an outright forfiet of Israeli contolled land, how does this get resolved?

The options are severely limited with that polar stance:

- A Palestinian seizure of the land by force (very low probability)

- An intervention by a third party which forces the hand of Israel (very low probability)

Do you see either of these avenues as viable? If you do, please detail the scenario....

__________________

Congratulations President-Elect Obama

I fail to see how the Palestinians are not entitled to the very land in which they lived as a majority, owned property and dominated for generations.

Israel honours its obligations under international law and withdraws it's settlements from the Occupied Territories. This would be a strong start to a legitimate peace process...

LBS;
Only if you disregard international law and UN Resolutions. That is exactly what the Zionists are attempting to do with their 'facts on the ground' i.e., their attempt to claim ownership by possession. However, such land-grabbing is illegal. Territory cannot be acquired by war. The Occupied Territories are known, officially, as the Occupied Territories because they are Occupied by a foreign entity acting illegally.

Who says so ? International law says so, as does the United Nations and the International Court of Justice. It isn't even in question whether or not the Zionists have any right to Palestinian territory seized after Resolution 181, the Partition Resolution, in 1947. They don't. They claim they do, by nature of their 'facts on the ground' defense, and their supporters claim they do, by all manner of disreputable and ridiculously illegal trumpeting, but the simple fact is that lots of shysters have generated lots of smoke in the hope of creating a legitimate claim to Palestinian territory over and above those territories which were ceded to Israel by the United Nations in 1947. It won't fly.

The International Court of Justice ruled that the wall- Sharon's Stockade- was illegal and should be dismantled. That ruling was based upon parts of the wall being built upon Palestinian territory. There is no shadow of doubt that Israel occupies Palestinian territory illegally. It follows that there already exists a territory known as Palestine, that the Zionists have invaded it and that they are required to go home under international law.

LBS;
No.

The same could now be said of Israelis. They have lived on this land where their ethnic group was the majority, owned property and dominated for generations.... (a generation can be viewed as about 20 years... so it's near 3 generations of Israelis that have inhabited the land).

It's not that I buy either side of that argument.

The Greeks, the Romans, and probably cave men also inhabited the land you would call "Palestine" through different periods of history.

So who exactly is entitled to the land if the Palestinian claim is based on residence and control for a particular era in history?..

The only logical answers are either that all parties share entitlement to the land in some way or No party is entitled to the land.


Each side demands that the other stand down as a pre-condition to negotiations. Another polar stance that encourages stalemate. Both sides are guilty of this.

__________________

Congratulations President-Elect Obama

LBS;
Shyster spiel . Territorial boundaries are enshrined in international law.

So Frank justifies Palestinian entitlement by the same historical squatters rights that the Romans, the Greeks, the Turks, and cavemen could also claim.

And you, Moon justify Palestinian entitlement based on the fantasy that an international law dictates entitlement of the land to Palestinians?

__________________

Congratulations President-Elect Obama

That and the Israeli recognition that the 22% of Palestine currently inhabited by these people is Palestinian land.

They never held such status on the 22% of Palestine inhabited by the Palestinians; in fact they formally relinquished claims to these territories in the 1949 Armistice Agreements.

LBS;
As Frank implied earlier, LBS, it's for you to get a grasp of the facts of territory before a debate is possible. Simply 'arguing' , in the face of international law, that Palestine doesn't belong to the Palestinians, or that nobody knows who it belongs to, isn't debate. Even the Israeli courts recognise Palestinian territory and accept that such territory is occupied. They even term it 'belligerent occupation'. Yes, the Israeli courts. Failure to recognise that disqualifies you from having any potential for meaningful input.

Now you're backing off your claim.....yes, Palestinian Territories do exist and are recognized.

But, if a UN Resolution or international law declares that Palestinians are entitled to the Arab-owned territories of 1947, please point it out.

I'm honestly asking about this.... from what I see, the land was previously owned by 4 different countries:Egypt, Syria, Jordan and Lebanon prior to the Arab-Israeli War in 1948.

I can understand that there are resolutions saying Israel is illegally occupying that land. But I don't get how going back in time and reversing Israel's illegal occupation gives the land to the Palestinians... Wouldn't the land instead be given back to Egypt, Syria, Jordan and Lebanon who owned it in the first place?

Help me out here...I honestly don't understand the Palestinian entitlement to the land. Perhaps they have greater and more specific claim to it than I realize.

__________________

Congratulations President-Elect Obama

LBS;
Nonsense. I don't post anything I have to retract.


United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181
November 29, 1947

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/un/res181.htm


http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/world/israelborders.php
The Legal Boundaries of Israel in International Law

LBS;
You betcha.

Actually they were "owned" by the British mandatory power who took Palestine from the Ottoman Empire. Jordan and Egypt never actually "owned" the Palestinian territories but merely controlled them after 1949.

The Israeli's recognise the Palestinian Authority as the legitimate governing body of said territories even though the PA's authority is severely limited. in addition to the Jordanians/Egyptians recognising this territory as Palestinian land would tend to give weight to the argument that the land belongs to the Palestinians.

Then you haven't read the likud party charter.

I think you'll find that comes under property ownership laws not UN resolutions. Although the UN does have Committees on the compensation for lose of private property.

No. You're getting stuck on National borders which is a red herring.

If went Ottoman state Land then British Mandate state land and then Israeli State land. This should not be confused with private property. Private property and state lands are 2 separate issues.


None of them did, it was Ottoman state land and private property. The British Mandate State land and private property and then Israeli state land, private property and Jordanian state land.

That's because you're falling into a trap of thinking that the state owns all the land. The state does not own all the land. Much of the land was held in many different was the Hope Simpson report is probably the best way to find out as that shows the different forms of land tenure.

__________________
"You believe what you want
I'll believe what I know"

Kevin Spacey Midnight in the garden of good and evil

Et lucis æterne beatitudine perfrui.

ok. That's the first time I really looked at res. 181.

It created Israel and an Arab State and Jerusalem as an internationally controlled city.

I'm all for reverting back to those original borders with Israel owning and controlling the Jewish state and a Palestinian governing body (Besides Hamas, a terrorist group) controlling the Arab State. Jerusalem would have to be worked out in a lot more detail than it was in the resolution.

There would have to be contingencies in place for how to fairly deal with violent acts after the new borders and jurisdictions were created.

To me, it seems like even a landmark peace agreement like this would not stop the violence or the protests. There are not enough people that would be satisfied with a rational solution at this point.

__________________

Congratulations President-Elect Obama

LBS;
Yes. However, what the architects of Resolution 181 perhaps failed to understand was that the leaders of Zionism, the political movement, already had plans to remove the Palestinians , not just from the territory ceded to Israel but also from the remainder of Palestine too. Those plans are still current and active and supported by America. The abuse of the US Security Council veto is evidence enough.

Can you wonder why so many people take up the Palestinian cause ?