[QUOTE="Cow4ever"][QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]
Like it or not, East Jerusalem is occupied territory under international law. They have no legal claim to that land. You can't show me one legal organization of international standing that has ruled otherwise. Israel might not like it, but that is the reality. Even the US, Israel's greatest (and one of its last few) ally sees it as occupied territory, which is why the US embassy is in Tel Aviv, not Jerusalem.
As for when exactly the PLO conceded virtually all of East Jerusalem, here you go:
"Qurei:This last proposition could help in the swap process. We proposed that Israel annexes all settlements in Jerusalem except Jabal Abu Ghneim (Har Homa)."
http://english.aljazeera.net/palestinepapers/2011/01/2011122112512844113.html
-Sun_Tzu-
Show me this law.Yes they have legal claim to that land, they where attacked from it YOINK! If you attack a country from a territory (which you occupied and of which you have destroyed all the synagogues, razed the Jewish quarter and expelled all the Jews) you can't be expected to get it back. The US does recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital. Haven't heard about the Jerusalem Embassy Act? And Israel is getting more and more allies. Greece, Cyprus, Bulgaria, Romania and Malta are getting much closer to Israel now. If this really is true then it is the most generous proposal from the PLO so far. But still you are again distorting facts. East Jerusalem is majority arab town so giving up all the Jewish "settlements" isn't close to "virtually all". And Har Homa is pretty much the biggest Jewish "settlement" in Jerusalem. In any case you can't say this is a concession. It's Israeli territory, Israel can concede it, they can receive it. Not the other way around.If Israel has a legal claim to the land then why hasn't one International court affirmed this? You can't show me one legal body of international standing that has ruled that these territories are a part of Israel. The law couldn't be more clearer on this matter. Per UN resolution 2625, "No territorial acquisition resulting from the threat or the use of force shall be recognized as legal." Yes, Israel was attacked, but that doesn't justify anything as far the law is concerned. It is illegal to acquire territory through force.
As for the Jerusalem Embassy Act - it was passed in 1995. The US embassy was suppose to be moved to Jerusalem no later than 1999, per the act. It's now 2011. No president has actually implemented the law. The US embassy remains in Tel Aviv.
And to allow for the annexation for almost all of the settlements in East Jerusalem for absolutely nothing in return is a huge concenssion.
International courts?? Didn't I just say this? They are clearly biased. Let's talk about something that isn't, international law itself. Show me where Israel breakes international law. YOU not some racist guy in some racist organization. And in addition do you really care about international law? I mean it good it exists but in a discussion like this I am more interested in your view not someone else's. Nevertheless I haven't seen any of these supposed laws. I see your UN resolution. Well first of all the UN is a big piece of **** But one thing is that the UNGA resolutions aren't legally binding according to the UN itself. I want more like geneva conventions, hague conventions. The actual LAW. Not interpretations by racist corrupt united dictatorships. Right but US nevertheless recognize Jerusalem as Israel's Capital. As does South Sudan and a bunch of other nations if I'm not mistaken. Israel's embassy to Georgia is in Yerevan. Does that mean Israel recognize Yerevan as Georgia's capital? Nothing in return? How about almost all of the West Bank and Gaza?? Anyway I'm sure Israel would accept these offers. At least Israel's previous government. How do we know this is true? It's from Al Jazeera afterall.
Log in to comment