| Kasz216 said: I'm away of those they are all non relevant. As has been stated. Palestine was never a state. Therefore the Geneva convention does not apply to them as the Geneva convention only applies to soverign states. So if the British want to give the land back to the Ottomans... that would be great except they don't exist. By UN degree. Also if they gave it away. So no. The international laws don't apply. If you want to take it up with the british sure. The Law wouldn't apply anyway. As the British took control of Palestine in 1920. While that article I believe was agreed on in 1949... and ratified later. Making those lands not part of the discussion. Even by the letter of the law, those annexed during the war by Israel arn't illegal as Palestine wasn't a state and they took that land from other countries anyway. Aside from which, a majority of those who left Israel land left due to there own free will. How then does one decide from those majority that left of there own free will, and the minority that was forced out? As for the UN resolutions, read the ones about israel carefully and once again note they are non-binding. Aka not law just a opinion held by the majority of the UN. Also even if it did apply to the brittish there is nothing in the Geneva convention about preventing the transfer of population when it comes to immigration. All it covers is not deporting or transfering parts of it's OWN population. Most of the jews transfering were in fact not British. Therefore perfectly legal. The laws against it? Racist law that cost many jews there lives in the holocaust. Also what claim to the Jews have? The EXACT same claim the Palestinians have. As they were removed by a foriegn power and replaced. Before the Geneva laws were set in place. You do know the only reason Palestine is called Paletine is because the Romans changed it after a Jewish revolt to punish them? After which revolt the romans expelled the jews from their homeland and dispersed them across the countryside? To me it's something like stealing a kids lunch, then when someone gives it back to them, arresting the kid who received his lunch back as a theif. Should money change hands? Sure. Though that's about all that should happen aside from removal from some areas. Even then they have no obligation to do so until the violence stops as it can all be seen as protectionary movements. Of course, who the negotiations are with is confusing. Since you apparently support the PA. Which itself while preferable to the west is acting against the Palestine constitution by it's removal of Hamas the democratically elected government party from the government. (Even if they are terrorists.) What SHOULD happen is that Hamas should be elected out of office and then a resolution should be passed to turn in the leaders of Hamas and other extremist groups. Though i'm not sure you could even even call Hamas an extremist group when they are being elected into office. Being elected into office would sure make it seem like the majority of people greatly support Hamas and support what the do. I think that line of thinking is going to have to change. |
1. Geneva conventions were finalized in 1949. That is why the Arabs have only been asking for land as of the 1967 borders. Not the land Israel took beyond what they were originally given in 1948/49 wars.
2. The laws regarding European immigration into Palestine while British controlled it were created during WWI.
3. Wether or not Palestine was ever a "state" is irrelavent. +-90% of the population was Arab for over 1400 years. Why does it make it ok to forcefully allow a huge influx of Europeans into the lands and them give them most of the aggregate land and nearly half of the total? This does not seem unfair?
4. As I discussed earlier Hamas' elections were a lot more to do with what they do for the social services of Palestine than the bombings. Even so, Palestinians consider the settlers and IDF as much as terrorist as you see Hamas. So, of course they don't see a suicide bomber in the same way as you do.
I think you and starcraft need to read this book. It is written by Charles D. Smith the department head of the Near Eastern Studies Department at the University of Arizona. His book "Palestine and the Arab-Israeli Conflict: A History with Documents" is in is 5th or 6th edition and is used by professors all over the world as a primary source for classes on this dispute. It is very detail with population figures and original documents from the time. Heck, you can probably find an older edition at a bookstore and borrow it for free.
This will be my last post on this topic as the discussion is getting nowhere. Regardless of the facts on the ground and the laws that exist to you the Arabs are solely responsible and Israel is righteous. I would simply suggest doing a little more homework and reading more sources.
In fact the wikipedia article is pretty good. As is this article on the British Mandate of Palestine. Here is a pretty good quote from that article that displays the racism and unequal treatment the Palestinians were forced to accept.
"The Palestinian Arabs felt ignored by the terms of the Mandate. Though at the beginning of the Mandate [1920] they constituted a 90 percent majority of the population, the text only referred to them as "non-Jewish communities" that, though having civil and religious rights, were not given any national or political rights. As far as the League of Nations and the British were concerned the Palestinian Arabs were not a people. In contrast the text included six articles (2, 4, 6, 7, 11 and 22) with obligations for the mandatory power to foster and support a "national home" for the Jewish people. Moreover a representative body of the Jewish people, the Jewish Agency, was recognised." -- so the Jews were less than 10% of the population but immediately given more power. Yeah that's fair.
Also be sure to look the tables near the bottom about population figures and land ownership. Again, fully illustrates the way in which the Arabs got totally screwed and robbed. One tidbit in 1943 There was approximalty 26,184,702 dunams of land in all of Palestine; of which the Jews only legally owned 1,514,247. Thats a mere 6%. Yet, in 5 years they were given approximately 45% of the land. Again, yeah real equitable.
How can anyone say that the original partition plan was anything but racist and completely unequal. I think history proves over and over why the Arabs have had plenty of reasons to hate the West and Israel. It is time to make at least some real attempt at ammends.
1. Pull back to 1967 borders, this includes Jerusalem.
2. Make monetary compensation to the refugees.
3. Assist newly formed Palestine to get powerful enough to squash any underground militant movement.
Another good source is this website.
