Who owns Israel/Palestine?

[Ahmed Shaheen]

^ Hamas is called "terrorist group" only by Israel, the U.S. and some European countries who have good economic relations with America or Israel.

Completely right , cuz If they said anything but that they'll be considered as terrorists too , Cowered Politicians.
Hamas and Fatah Contrary to Israel's Intrests.
Thats why they are called Terrorists.

But if you asked Iran or China or Russia or Sweden or most of the Arab world, you would see that they don't see Hamas or Hezbollah as terrorists. So it's not that simple as you may have thought...

And thats why America hates China, Russa, and Iran.
They are in Contrary to Americas Intrests.

 

[Ahmed Shaheen]

The Palestinians are incorrect. They are acting in accordance with the will of thier islam-o-masters.

While not all Palestinians are terrorists, the governing body in Palestine IS A TERRORIST GROUP.

There is no denying this.

Governing body a terrorist group - no -
you see them terrorists because they allows Hamas and Fatah to exist .
Without Hamas and Fatah , Palestine is now dead.
They are they only Resistance method to keep palestine breathing .

 

[Goobieman]

Do you think this land belongs to Israeli? To Palestinians? To both? To none of them? Why?

I presume you mean the state of Israel and the area known as the West Bank.

Israel, as a sovereign state, obviously 'owns' Israel.

The West Bank, land taken by force from Joran in the 6-day war, which was then subsequently conceded by Jordan as lost, also belongs to Israel.

You get to keep land won in wartime, should you choose to do so.

 

[bub]

I presume you mean the state of Israel and the area known as the West Bank.

Israel, as a sovereign state, obviously 'owns' Israel.

The West Bank, land taken by force from Joran in the 6-day war, which was then subsequently conceded by Jordan as lost, also belongs to Israel.

You get to keep land won in wartime, should you choose to do so.

So if we invade Africa again, it's ours?

 

[Goobieman]

So if we invade Africa again, it's ours?

You get to keep land won in wartime, should you choose to do so.
Disagree?
Then certainly you support the return of East Prussia to Germany.

 

[Slainte]

I presume you mean the state of Israel and the area known as the West Bank.

Israel, as a sovereign state, obviously 'owns' Israel.

The West Bank, land taken by force from Joran in the 6-day war, which was then subsequently conceded by Jordan as lost, also belongs to Israel.

You get to keep land won in wartime, should you choose to do so.

Israel doesn't want to "own" the West Bank any more, in a generation or two it will probably be a practical impossibility for them to do so. It's already impossible for them to claim real sovereignty over the West Bank as that would end their claim of being a Jewish state, or of being a democracy.

You're foolish if you think you're making a "pro-Israel" argument there. Even Sharon accepted the impossibility of a single Jewish state in Palestine.

Israel's new plan is to offer the Palestinians a rump state which covers the major Palestinian population centers, but realistically could never emerge to be powerul or successful enough to challenge Israel or call for reunification.

IMHO Israel is too late, if it had attempted to give the Palestinians "half" a state right after the first Intifadh. After it had became clear that the energy within the Palestinian nationalist movement had moved away from the refugees to the people in the occupied territories, then manybe two states would have worked. Now with the rise of rejectionist groups in the OT(both Jews and Arabs these days!) I don't think any legitimate Palestinian government will accept that compromise. Even if the Israelis made an offer like was proposed at Taba, which probably would have been taken at the time, today it would be rejected. Even if it were accepted, you'd get pretty long odds from me of it ever being implemented, there are powerful groups on both sides who wouldn't accept it and could sabotage it all too easily!

 

[Slainte]

You get to keep land won in wartime, should you choose to do so.
Disagree?
Then certainly you support the return of East Prussia to Germany.

Do the Germans want East Prussia back?

If two countries later come to a legitimate agreement about the future of some disputed land, that agreement should be respected under international law.

 

[Goobieman]

Do the Germans want East Prussia back?

Irrelevant. See below.

If two countries later come to a legitimate agreement about the future of some disputed land, that agreement should be respected under international law.

I don't think that's how the argument is presented, when discussing Israel/West Bank. To apply the argument equally in both cases, you'd have to argue that the Poland had no right to take East Prussia from Germany, and should be forced to give back the land that it illegally occupies.

And for that matter... I was looking at a map of Europe from 1914 and then 1919. Where the heck did Poland come from?

(OK, the Russians took East Prussia from Germany and gave it to Poland -- but you get the picture).

 

[Slainte]

Irrelevant. See below.


I don't think that's how the argument is presented, when discussing Israel/West Bank. To apply the argument equally in both cases, you'd have to argue that the Poland had no right to take East Prussia from Germany, and should be forced to give back the land that it illegally occupies.

And for that matter... I was looking at a map of Europe from 1914 and then 1919. Where the heck did Poland come from?

(OK, the Russians took East Prussia from Germany and gave it to Poland -- but you get the picture).

Okay, but if a legitimate Palestinian government were to accept adjusted Israeli borders which encompassed parts of the West Bank, the argument of legality would dissapear.

Germany and Poland have had mutually agreed borders for 60 odd years, now you could argue for the first 45 they were forced into agreement by foreign power(s). But at least by 1990 they had mutually agreed on borders. My understanding of international law is that agreements like that are neccesary to change borders, unilateral claims don't cut it.

Now there is a complication with the Palestinians as most states had legally recognised Jordan as the "owner" of the West Bank. Now that they have withdrawn their claim to that land, it seems to me that you have to let the people living in that area appoint a new government to represent them, another country can't just come in and claim it. Indeed I don't think Israel ever has officially claimed the West Bank, mainly due to the demographic changes it would bring about in Israel.

 

[Goobieman]

Okay, but if a legitimate Palestinian government were to accept adjusted Israeli borders which encompassed parts of the West Bank, the argument of legality would dissapear.

Again, I believe the issue is that 'Israel has no right..." Clearly, there is an internationally recognized right to keep land you win in wartime.

Germany and Poland have had mutually agreed borders for 60 odd years, now you could argue for the first 45 they were forced into agreement by foreign power(s). But at least by 1990 they had mutually agreed on borders. My understanding of international law is that agreements like that are neccesary to change borders, unilateral claims don't cut it.

The 1945 borders of Germany were dictated to it. There was no 'agreement'.

Now there is a complication with the Palestinians as most states had legally recognised Jordan as the "owner" of the West Bank. Now that they have withdrawn their claim to that land, it seems to me that you have to let the people living in that area appoint a new government to represent them, another country can't just come in and claim it.

Israel isnt 'just claiming' the land -- Israel has sat on it for 40 years.

 

[Slainte]

Again, I believe the issue is that 'Israel has no right..." Clearly, there is an internationally recognized right to keep land you win in wartime.

Really, recognized by whom?

The Hague Conventions, Geneva Conventions, UN Charter and various UNSC resolutions would seem to disagree with you. I thought it was almost universally agreed that you can't unilateraly annex land under modern international law...

The 1945 borders of Germany were dictated to it. There was no 'agreement'.

Sure, but they were accepted by the government at the time, and they've been reaffirmed by several legitimate governments since. No Palestinian government has ever recognized Israel's right to the West Bank, the legal situations are very different. One is a unilateral declaration, the other is a mutual agreement.

Israel isnt 'just claiming' the land -- Israel has sat on it for 40 years.

Israel has occupied the land for 40 years, it has never declared sovereignty or ownership of it.

 

[Goobieman]

Really, recognized by whom?

The Hague Conventions, Geneva Conventions, UN Charter and various UNSC resolutions would seem to disagree with you. I thought it was almost universally agreed that you can't unilateraly annex land under modern international law...

Only if "modern" means "since 1945, covering most instances". Prior to WW2, it was widespread and commonplace -- just look at the map of Europe in 1914, 1933 and 1945.

Wars change borders, based on the idea that you can keep land you win.

Sure, but they were accepted by the government at the time

There was no German government at the time. The borders set in 1945 were set by the Russians and the Allies before the German government reformed, and are the same now as they were then.

No Palestinian government has ever recognized Israel's right to the West Bank, the legal situations are very different. One is a unilateral declaration, the other is a mutual agreement.

There was no mutual agreement on the 1945 borders.

Israel has occupied the land for 40 years, it has never declared sovereignty or ownership of it.

The point is that Israel being in the West Bank is not new.

 

[Slainte]

Only if "modern" means "since 1945, covering most instances". Prior to WW2, it was widespread and commonplace -- just look at the map of Europe in 1914, 1933 and 1945.

After WW2 it became clear that the world had changed and the classical "might makes right" system of international relations had failed everyone - not least the Jews! (This was actually true after WW1, except the legal systems established then were a horrific failure!)

A new system of international law was thus established, Israel as a member and/or signatory of the international instsitutions and treaties which established this system has a responsibility to abide by it, surely?

There was no German government at the time. The borders set in 1945 were set by the Russians and the Allies before the German government reformed, and are the same now as they were then.

German sovereignty was temporarily revoked during the occupation, when it was returned Germany reaffirmed its borders with a new treaty, agreed to by both parties. This is perfectly in keeping with international law.

There was no mutual agreement on the 1945 borders.

There are several mutual agreements on post WW2 borders!

The first was signed in 1950, prior to that Germany was under full occupation and possessed no sovereignty. Upon gaining sovereignty it signed a mutual agreement with its neighboring states finalizing borders.

The point is that Israel being in the West Bank is not new.

In a debate about whether or not Israel "owns" the West Bank I consider it somewhat important to consider if the Israelis have ever actually claimed they did!