[W:4]Are the Jewish Israelis eventually going to push all of the Palestinians out?

[Chagos]

There was no Palestinian territory at the time, simply because there was no sovereign state of Palestine. Where the latter could easily have existed, it was rejected by the parties concerned, even where Israel had agreed to the UN partition proposal, prior to the outbreak of the civil war that then turned into all out war when surrounding sovereign Arab states (Jordan included) joined into the ensuing fracas.

In that all out war Jordan occupied the West Bank and East Jerusalem, later to annex the West Bank territory.

Pointing out those simple historical fact is not a diversion, while denying that any of it happened constitutes either the height of denial or the height of stupidity.

 

[Fledermaus]

I didn't think you would be so foolish as to post the same mistaken nonsense as Fledermaus but it seems you are, as your post confirms.

The territory is Palestinian,............ did you get that ?.......................... , Palestinian. So when Jordan occupied it, it doesn't become Jordanian occupied territory, it remains Palestinian occupied territory only occupied by Jordan instead. The OPTs are the Occupied PALESTINIAN territories or you could say Israeli occupied Palestine

The territory is occupied.

It was taken from Jordan.

 

[Fledermaus]

It was Palestinian territory occupied by Jordan.

The diversion of whether or not Jordan annexed it or not is just that, a diversion because you must realize by now the ridiculous phrasing that you have backed up lols

What historical facts do you consider to have been " undone" ? lols

It was JORDANIAN OCCUPIED TERRITORY that belonged to no nation at that time.

During the December 1948 Jericho Conference, hundreds of Palestinian notables in the West Bank gathered, accepted Jordanian rule and recognized Abdullah as ruler. This was followed by the 1949 renaming of the country from Transjordan to Jordan. The West Bank was formally annexed on 24 April 1950, but the annexation was widely considered as illegal and void by most of the international community.[6] A month afterwards, the Arab League declared that they viewed the area "annexed by Jordan as a trust in its hands until the Palestine case is fully solved in the interests of its inhabitants."[7] Recognition of Jordan's declaration of annexation was granted only by the United Kingdom, the United States, and Iraq, with dubious claims that Pakistan also recognized the annexation.[8][9][10][11][12]

When Jordan transferred its full citizenship rights to the residents of the West Bank, the annexation more than doubled the population of Jordan.[4] The naturalized Palestinians enjoyed equal opportunities in all sectors of the state without discrimination, and they were given half of the seats of the Jordanian parliament,[13] a consultative body at the service of the King that was created in 1952.

After Jordan lost the West Bank to Israel in the 1967 Six-Day War, the Palestinians there remained Jordanian citizens until Jordan renounced claims to and severed administrative ties with the territory in 1988.

 

[oneworld2]

It was JORDANIAN OCCUPIED TERRITORY that belonged to no nation at that time.

During the December 1948 Jericho Conference, hundreds of Palestinian notables in the West Bank gathered, accepted Jordanian rule and recognized Abdullah as ruler. This was followed by the 1949 renaming of the country from Transjordan to Jordan. The West Bank was formally annexed on 24 April 1950, but the annexation was widely considered as illegal and void by most of the international community.[6] A month afterwards, the Arab League declared that they viewed the area "annexed by Jordan as a trust in its hands until the Palestine case is fully solved in the interests of its inhabitants."[7] Recognition of Jordan's declaration of annexation was granted only by the United Kingdom, the United States, and Iraq, with dubious claims that Pakistan also recognized the annexation.[8][9][10][11][12]

When Jordan transferred its full citizenship rights to the residents of the West Bank, the annexation more than doubled the population of Jordan.[4] The naturalized Palestinians enjoyed equal opportunities in all sectors of the state without discrimination, and they were given half of the seats of the Jordanian parliament,[13] a consultative body at the service of the King that was created in 1952.

After Jordan lost the West Bank to Israel in the 1967 Six-Day War, the Palestinians there remained Jordanian citizens until Jordan renounced claims to and severed administrative ties with the territory in 1988.

Shout and scream all you want to but the fact remains that , virtually nobody supported the annexation AND the Arab League itself only considered Jordanian occupation of Palestine ( note how this works yet lol ) as a trust until such time as the Palestinians could gain a state of their own on that territory

This was actually in your wiki quote but you must have been too caught up in poor phrasing of the reality to notice, so I will quote it for others that might be interested

" The West Bank was formally annexed on 24 April 1950, but the annexation was widely considered as illegal and void by most of the international community.[6] A month afterwards, the Arab League declared that they viewed the area "annexed by Jordan as a trust in its hands until the Palestine case is fully solved in the interests of its inhabitants."

 

[Fledermaus]

Shout and scream all you want to but the fact remains that , virtually nobody supported the annexation AND the Arab League itself only considered Jordanian occupation of Palestine ( note how this works yet lol ) as a trust until such time as the Palestinians could gain a state of their own on that territory

This was actually in your wiki quote but you must have been too caught up in poor phrasing of the reality to notice, so I will quote it for others that might be interested

" The West Bank was formally annexed on 24 April 1950, but the annexation was widely considered as illegal and void by most of the international community.[6] A month afterwards, the Arab League declared that they viewed the area "annexed by Jordan as a trust in its hands until the Palestine case is fully solved in the interests of its inhabitants."

Poor Oneworld2.

Proven wrong you plow on with your intentional ignorance of what happened in 1948-1967.

Defacto annexation.

 

[oneworld2]

The territory is occupied.

It was taken from Jordan.

The " territory " was Palestine and it was first occupied by Jordan and then by Israel with both annexation attempts being roundly rejected.

When France was occupied by Germany it remained occupied France. Your phrasing is clunky at best

 

[Fledermaus]

The " territory " was Palestine and it was first occupied by Jordan and then by Israel with both annexation attempts being roundly rejected.

When France was occupied by Germany it remained occupied France. Your phrasing is clunky at best

What "Palestine" existed in 1948?

None.

There could have been.

But none existed.

Egypt to the left. Jordan to the right. Isreal in the middle.

But no Palestine.

 

[oneworld2]

What "Palestine" existed in 1948?

None.

There could have been.

But none existed.

Egypt to the left. Jordan to the right. Isreal in the middle.

But no Palestine.

Mandate Palestine leading to Partition Palestine, leading to the OPTs referenced today that at least enjoy observer status

 

[Fledermaus]

Mandate Palestine leading to Partition Palestine, leading to the OPTs referenced today that at least enjoy observer status

Mandate Palestine territory which was occupied by Jordan and Egypt.

There was no "Palestine" in 1948.

 

[Chagos]

Annexation didn't happen because it was widely rejected?

Ah, If only past events could be undone by fantasy.

 

[oneworld2]

Annexation didn't happen because it was widely rejected?

Ah, If only past events could be undone by fantasy.

Where did I say it didn't happen ?

I said it was roundly rejected, which is historically accurate.

Knowing what people have said ain't your strong suit, obviously

 

[Chagos]

I know that, before the issue of annexation was brought up, even the fact that Jordan occupied the West Bank was disputed in the usual dishonest manner (post #62).

In the frenzied hope that silly word games would support the claim ("not Jordanian occupied but Palestinian occupied"). Like Germany, in '45, was not (depending on Allied zone) British or US occupied.

Additional difference here being that Germany was, up til its capitulation, a sovereign state while no such entity existed at the time and in the location discussed here.

Now we get the equally frenzied attempt of denying the annexation of the West Bank by Jordan, by trying to support that attempt in raising how it found rejection by many.

The mental callisthenics engaged upon by anyone deluding themselves into the belief that this crap will cut it by way of credible argument, are somewhat comical to behold.

But also sad to see.

 

[oneworld2]

I know that, before the issue of annexation was brought up, even the fact that Jordan occupied the West Bank was disputed in the usual dishonest manner (post #62).

No, what was disputed was the clunky phrasing that could be miscontrued as the territory being occupied being Jordanian territory when clearly it was not " Jordanian occupied territory " ? You remobe the " occupied " and you have " Jordanian territory" which is evidently wrong.

I made the point about the OPTs being Occupied PALESTINIAN territories, thus the territory being occupied is Palestinian territory ( post 73)

That's when the distraction of annexation was introduced by yourself in the very next post

In the frenzied hope that silly word games would support the claim ("not Jordanian occupied but Palestinian occupied"). Like Germany, in '45, was not (depending on Allied zone) British or US occupied.

Additional difference here being that Germany was, up til its capitulation, a sovereign state while no such entity existed at the time and in the location discussed here.

Now we get the equally frenzied attempt of denying the annexation of the West Bank by Jordan, by trying to support that attempt by raising how it found rejection by many.

The mental callisthenics engaged upon by anyone deluding themselves into the belief that this crap will cut it by way of credible argument, are somewhat comical to behold.

But also sad to see.

The above is , once more, misrepresentations and outright illogical rubbish. Your usual standard imo

 

[Chagos]

Oh boy

If one would have removed "occupied" from "British occupied" zone in Germany after WWII, the zone would have become British territory.

The above is , once more, misrepresentations and outright illogical rubbish.

Absolutely.

Let's hope the Kobayashi Maru never sails via Suez or Panama.

 

[Fledermaus]

No, what was disputed was the clunky phrasing that could be miscontrued as the territory being occupied being Jordanian territory when clearly it was not " Jordanian occupied territory " ? You remobe the " occupied " and you have " Jordanian territory" which is evidently wrong.

I made the point about the OPTs being Occupied PALESTINIAN territories, thus the territory being occupied is Palestinian territory ( post 73)

That's when the distraction of annexation was introduced by yourself in the very next post









The above is , once more, misrepresentations and outright illogical rubbish. Your usual standard imo

Occupation happened. Jordan occupied the West Bank and effectively annexed it.

 

[snakestretcher]

There is a giant lie here, there are no holy Islamic sites in Jerusalem. The Quran never mentions Jerusalem.

This is a lie perpetrated by self interested Arab interests who want to keep Jews and Christians out.

This is the Al Aqsa mosque in the centre of Jerusalem; a holy Islamic site which you claim does not exist. Clearly, and predictably, you have no idea what you're talking about as usual.

 

[snakestretcher]

Isn't that Israeli occupied territory where Israel has jurisdiction?

Under International Law no occupier (in the legal sense of the word), can have legal jurisdiction over occupied territory. Thus if an occupation is deemed illegal under said law, the occupying power has no legal jurisdiction over either the territory or its inhabitants.

Chapter 3: Israeli Settlements and International Law

www.amnesty.org

 

[Chagos]

This is the Al Aqsa mosque in the centre of Jerusalem; a holy Islamic site which you claim does not exist. Clearly, and predictably, you have no idea what you're talking about as usual.
View attachment 67343076

The contention here appears to be that Islam had no business declaring the "mound" to be a holy place of Islam and subsequently no business in erecting a mosque upon it.

Of course, by that logic, the Pope should be kicked out of Rome and the Vatican razed to the ground, seeing how neither find mention in the bible and Christianity wasn't founded there either.

My point here being (nevertheless and in spite of it all) that if a sufficient number of people believes a place to be holy to them, that's what it becomes.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

This is the Al Aqsa mosque in the centre of Jerusalem; a holy Islamic site which you claim does not exist. Clearly, and predictably, you have no idea what you're talking about as usual.
View attachment 67343076

The existence of a singular mask does not make the entire city an Islamic holy site.

 

[snakestretcher]

The existence of a singular mask does not make the entire city an Islamic holy site.

Nobody suggested it does. The fact remains that the Al Aqsa mosque (not 'mask'), is just as much a holy Islamic site in Jerusalem as any other place of religious worship in Jerusalem for other faiths is. Or maybe you need help in learning what 'site' means.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Nobody suggested it does. The fact remains that the Al Aqsa mosque (not 'mask'), is just as much a holy Islamic site in Jerusalem as any other place of religious worship in Jerusalem for other faiths is. Or maybe you need help in learning what 'site' means.

it is no more a holy site then any random structure in any random town. Islam is an Arabic derivation of a Christian heresy that has no connection to Jerusalem. That mosque is no more important then a random one room Lutheran church in Minnesota

 

[Fledermaus]

Under International Law no occupier (in the legal sense of the word), can have legal jurisdiction over occupied territory. Thus if an occupation is deemed illegal under said law, the occupying power has no legal jurisdiction over either the territory or its inhabitants.

Chapter 3: Israeli Settlements and International Law

www.amnesty.org

• The occupying power must respect the laws in force in the occupied territory, unless they constitute a threat to its security or an obstacle to the application of the international law of occupation.
• The occupying power must take measures to restore and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety.

Now. Here is the rub.

The West Bank and Gaza were never governed by Palestine. They were occupied by Jordan and Egypt respectively. Prior to that the Mandate. Prior to the the Ottoman Empire.

Which "laws in force" does Israel respect in this case?

 

[Fledermaus]

it is no more a holy site then any random structure in any random town. Islam is an Arabic derivation of a Christian heresy that has no connection to Jerusalem. That mosque is no more important then a random one room Lutheran church in Minnesota

I bolded the uneducated opinion.

 

[snakestretcher]

• The occupying power must respect the laws in force in the occupied territory, unless they constitute a threat to its security or an obstacle to the application of the international law of occupation.
• The occupying power must take measures to restore and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety.

Now. Here is the rub.

The West Bank and Gaza were never governed by Palestine. They were occupied by Jordan and Egypt respectively. Prior to that the Mandate. Prior to the the Ottoman Empire.

Which "laws in force" does Israel respect in this case?

Israel 'respects' whichever laws she wants to, and ignores others which she doesn't feel appropriate. There are clearly defined laws regarding belligerent occupation-all of which should be adhered to, and not cherry-picked for expediency or the convenience of the occupier.

 

[snakestretcher]

it is no more a holy site then any random structure in any random town. Islam is an Arabic derivation of a Christian heresy that has no connection to Jerusalem. That mosque is no more important then a random one room Lutheran church in Minnesota

Stupid post-and you probably are unaware of just how stupid. Your opinion on what you consider important is noted.