LOGO
Reply to Thread New Thread
Old 01-06-2012, 08:07 PM   #1
majestictwelve

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
515
Senior Member
Default No Such Thing as Palestinian; Arabs Attacked Israel ‘Aggressively’ in 1967
Rick Santorum gave several Iowa audiences last week a wow of a tutorial on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (here is the NYT’s take). Among the other fairy tales he spun, was that all the residents of the West Bank are “Israeli.” Those who call themselves Palestinian aren’t, because there is no such thing; and Israel “owns” the land by dint of war and conquest.



http://www.richardsilverstein.com/ti...ively-in-1967/
majestictwelve is offline


Old 01-06-2012, 08:21 PM   #2
Snuddyentaine

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
287
Senior Member
Default
From the preamble of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242:

“Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war …”

“”John McHugo says that by the 1920s, international law no longer recognized that a state could acquire title to territory by conquest.[17] Article 2 of the Charter of the United Nations requires all members to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.[18]

Michael Lynk says that article 2 of the Charter embodied a prevailing legal principle that there could be “no title by conquest”. He says that principle had been expressed through numerous international conferences, doctrines and treaties since the late 19th Century. Lynk cites the examples of the First International Conference of American States in 1890; the United States Stimson Doctrine of 1932; the 1932 League of Nations resolution on Japanese aggression in China; the Buenos Aires Declaration of 1936; and the Atlantic Charter of 1941.[19]

Surya Sharma says that a war in self-defense cannot result in acquisition of title by conquest. He says that even if a war is lawful in origin it cannot exceed the limits of legitimate self-defense..”
Snuddyentaine is offline


Old 01-06-2012, 08:32 PM   #3
darieBarexish

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
428
Senior Member
Default
Those who call themselves Palestinian aren’t, because there is no such thing
He's partly right...the term "Palestine" sprang from the stroke of a british pen in 1920. The people in the region are ethnically Jordanian.
darieBarexish is offline


Old 01-06-2012, 08:38 PM   #4
ImmitsRom

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
607
Senior Member
Default
He's partly right...the term "Palestine" sprang from the stroke of a british pen in 1920. The people in the region are Jordanian in origin.
Get real, they've been there forever. What's left of real Judeans, Philistines, the Arabs who invaded, then the crusaders, Turks, you name it. Jordan is a part of them not the other way around. The Hashemites are interlopers in control of jordan, put there by the British.


"The main difference between Bosnia and Palestine is that ethnic cleansing in the former took place in the form of dramatic massacres and slaughters which caught the world's attention, whereas in Palestine what is taking place is a drop-by-drop tactic in which one or two houses are demolished daily, a few acres are taken here and there every day, a few people are forced to leave" ~
ImmitsRom is offline



Reply to Thread New Thread

« Previous Thread | Next Thread »

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:58 PM.
Copyright ©2000 - 2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
Design & Developed by Amodity.com
Copyright© Amodity