Another thing to remember is that the 1947 Partition Plan placed Gaza and the West Bank under the Arab section of the partition. However, UNGA Resolution 181 itself is not binding but reflects the will of the international community. However, the 1949 Armistice Treaty would be binding in which Israel relinquished East Jerusalem and the West Bank to Jordanian control with control of Gaza being ceded to Egypt; please keep in mind that control does not translate into ownership.

When America stops supporting Israeli terrorism then America can take the moral high ground when it comes to Hamas; until then America has no leg to stand on! Israel was founded on terror; ask the British. I should also remind you that America did not oppose the "African National Congress" taking control of South Africa even though their armed wing murdered civilians, blew up civilian structures and ran torture camps; so lets not pretend that America has a problem with "terrorists" taking control of governments at least historically speaking anyway.

After 9/11/2001 Terrorists organizations generally hold a different place in the world psyche.

I don't think any UN member country would want it's neighbor country being run by a government that's a self-proclaimed terrorist organization.

__________________

Congratulations President-Elect Obama

"Self-proclaimed" or "American-proclaimed?"

Hamas proclaim themselves to be terrorists repeatedly... Claiming responsibility for rocket attacks on civilians... claiming responsibility andt intent for suicide bombings or car bombings...sometimes going as far as to celebrate or brag about the "success" of their terrorist activities.

Hell, they proclaim that Holy War is their only means to the end of obliterating Israel in their charter. Mostly, that violent holy war has been directed only at unarmed civilians.

If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, AND admits it's a duck....... it's a duck!


(Here comes the obligatory "Israel is a terrorist" or the "U.S. is a terrorist" retort.. )

__________________

Congratulations President-Elect Obama

actually I think Munich here and the take over of the holy shine in Mecca over there did a lot to convince people that terrorists and those that sppt. them were well, just beyond the pale despite years of UN and others rejuvenation of their reputations etc.

__________________
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

No individual can plan his own existence in their view.

So the state planners must arrogate to themselves the right to manipulate any sector of the economic system if the good of “society” or the “general welfare” is paramount.

Ipso- if the rights of the individual get in the way, the rights of the individual must be sublimated.

The Road to Serfdom
FA Hayek (interpretation)

And back to square one. I disagree. I think they should return some of that land, but saying that a country that defeats its enemies in a stand up fight for its very survival takes no reward or award and has no right of conquest is a new one on me. A convenient progressive polyglot of feel good nonsense.

A point I have made before and what LBS was alluding to I think is; the arabs got all fired up to throw the jews out, it didn’t get anywhere, and several have thrown in the towel and the Palestinians get to pay the price of that failure because its not the Sinai that got kept ( and returned), or Bekka, its the west bank and gaza and other areas....

I have believe it or not a lot of sympathy for them, I have said this before, they have been left to hold the bag but to the extent that one has to remember, that IF the Arabs would have been successful they would have reaped the rewards,
( the Pals to an extent as well).

So instead of stepping up and realizing that they too bear some of the burden regards the plight the Pals were left in, they could and should be doing a lot more than carrying on some tired fight by proxy because they could to get it done conventionally.

__________________
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

No individual can plan his own existence in their view.

So the state planners must arrogate to themselves the right to manipulate any sector of the economic system if the good of “society” or the “general welfare” is paramount.

Ipso- if the rights of the individual get in the way, the rights of the individual must be sublimated.

The Road to Serfdom
FA Hayek (interpretation)

Imperator;
That Imperator disagrees has absolutely no bearing upon international law. Imperator is wrong.

Territory cannot be gained by war. It's the basis of the post WW2 world peace initiative. Do you think that the UN and all its signatory States are going to make an exception for the Zionists ? No, not even to appease America. The integrity of every border on Earth depends upon that fundamental international agreement. It follows that the integrity of every border on Earth depends upon the law being applied to contain Zionist hegemony.

The best argument that the Zionists have in their locker is to refuse to comply with the UN , and the world's opinion, as 'non-binding'. Should such a plea ever come before the world's foremost legal body, the International Court of Justice, itself an arm of the United Nations, what do you think the verdict would be ?

The rules established by the US at the Nurnberg Trails set the precedent for the International Law.

The International Law has the principle of all the land.

Then go and read up on the principles established at the Nurnberg trials.


Yes, it was established so that smaller countries of a bellicose aggressive neighbour would have security.

Apart from the fact that Abdullah as commander of the Arab Forces (technically they weren't big enough to be called an army) had a meeting with agents (Goldie Myerson and Sasson) of the Jewish Agency where Abdullah made a deal not to attack Jewish forces of the Jewish Agency. That rather puts the collar on your existential threat.



it never was going to get anywhere, because there was no existential threat.


What? You still think there was an existential threat in 1967?


28th May 1967: US Secretary McNamara said the Israelis think they can win in 3-4 days; but he thinks it would be longer--7 to 10 days (US and British military analysis).

Docs 129-148

Imp please read the some of the US archive material. The existential threat of 1067 was/is a myth.

Imp I have a lot of sympathy for Israel, that does not mean that Israel gets an exemption certificate from International law, an exemption certificate from the Geneva Conventions and an exemption certificate from Historical fact.



28th May 1967: US Secretary McNamara said the Israelis think they can win in 3-4 days; but he thinks it would be longer--7 to 10 days (US and British military analysis).

Docs 129-148

Yeah sure Imp, if the Arabs had got to the Moon First they'd have won the space race.


May I suggest you have a look at the deals done by the US UK Israel and Jordan as to the annexation of the West Bank and settlement of the refugees.

The US and Israel pulled out at the last moment, the UK recognised the annexation and the refugees got stiffed. Nobody wanted the Grand Mufti with political power this is why the Palestinian refugees got treated like cattle in international politics.


It is not a proxy fight.

The Palestinians are making home made weapons.

The Palestinians are fighting their own war.

Home made weapons Imp, should give you a bit of a clue.

__________________
"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.

You are unaware of the preambular statement of UN Security Council Resolution 242? The law is very clear on the issue Imperator...

Yes, but Imperator disagrees. It's his prerogative to live in his own reality.

Imp is the only person I know that thinks home made weapons are supplied.

__________________
"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.

Good grief! I see another history lesson is in order. . .

First things first. The U.N. Security Council is a joke! Put simply, it's a committee of great powers, heirs to the victors in the Second World War. They manage the world in their own interest. The Security Council is, on the very rare occasions when it actually works, realpolitik by committee. The butchers of Tiananmen Square and Russia Inc. have seats on the Council and therefore have veto power. These 2 nations are responsible for over 80 million dead (off the battlefield by the way) during the 20th century. We are 8 years into the 21st and look at the "behavior" of China in Tibet and Russia on the whole. With that said, please explain to me by what logic the U.N. Security Council is a repository on anything much less international law?

Secondly, in regards to the debate thus far in this thread. . .this was in yesterdays newspapers. Frank and Moon enjoy!
RealClearPolitics - Articles - The Miracle, at 60

__________________
232 years ago, this is who we were. . .
"A republic, if you can keep it." ~ Benjamin Franklin, upon leaving the Constitutional Convention, in answer to "What have we got?"

232 years later, this is what we have become. . .
http://www.uspoliticsonline.com/war-...a-we-rule.html

There's nothing 'miraculous' about sixty years of ethnic cleansing. On the contrary, it's a disgrace to the architects of the United Nations.

Nothing that can't be rectified over time though.

I wonder if the history lesson included the fact that the UN arms sanctions only applied to supplies of arms to the Arab League and that that "miracle" meant that the Arab League only had the arms to defend the Palestinian territories while the Israeli forces had all the supplies to carry out an aggressive war.

__________________
"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.

What a bunch of Crap/Propaganda! Sadly, it's not even worthy of a response

__________________
232 years ago, this is who we were. . .
"A republic, if you can keep it." ~ Benjamin Franklin, upon leaving the Constitutional Convention, in answer to "What have we got?"

232 years later, this is what we have become. . .
http://www.uspoliticsonline.com/war-...a-we-rule.html