Hmmm. I am tired so I may have missed it, but I got quite the opposite impression from the article. (Interesting read, btw, thanks).
Particularly from:
The question arose at the time as to whether these acts constituted annexation of the eastern parts of Jerusalem. The then Minister of Foreign Affairs, Abba Eban, informed the U.N. Secretary General in writing in July, 1967 that they did not constitute annexation, but only administrative and municipal integration. On the other hand, from the point of view of Israeli law, it was held in a number of decisions of the Supreme Court that the eastern sectors of Jerusalem had become a part of the State of Israel. The 1970 case of Ruidi and Maches v. Military Court of Hebron illustrates this attitude.
In the opinion of the Government of Israel, Jordan never acquired sovereignty over the eastern part of the city since it took control of it in 1948 by an act of aggression, whereas Israel has a better right, since it conquered east Jerusalem in 1967 during the course of a war of self- defence.
When the fighting was over, the Knesset passed the Law and Administration Ordinance (Amendment No. 11) Law, 1967, authorizing the Government to apply the law, jurisdiction and administration of Israel to any area which was formerly part of Mandatory Palestine. Likewise, the Municipalities Ordinance was amended so as to allow for the extension of the bounds of a municipality where a decision has been made as to the application of Israel's jurisdiction to a certain area, as referred to above. And indeed, the Government issued an appropriate order as a result of which Israeli law was made to apply to the eastern sector of Jerusalem, which was also included within the jurisdiction of the Jerusalem municipality.
A special arrangement has also been followed in matters of nationality. Israeli nationality is not imposed on residents of east Jerusalem, but it can be acquired by application on their part.
Israeli rhetoric for the most part seems to indicate a strong desire to retain Jerusalem undivided under Israeli control in any future agreements. If the Arab Palestinians ever decide they want to talk about anything, that is.
I suggest you read the Palestinian Papers and find out what was really going on:
wikileaks Palestinian style
The Palestine Papers - Al Jazeera English
The enemy of my friend is my enemy also. As was mentioned, if the Palestinians would lay down their weapons. Israel would be forced by public opinion to act in kind (even I would be forced to agree with that kind of action). But since that will never happen, and in fact the two Palestinian groups are planning on joining forces again there will only be more war.
That's not true. 40+ years ago, while Palestinians were unarmed and passive, Israel stole their land. As time as gone by, they grow more militant, but that's out of frustration of watching their land being stolen from them for 40+ years.
It would probably hurt the U.S. I've read that Israel is one of those aid recipients from which the U.S. actually enjoys an ROI.
lol ummm, yeah, that's what the UN resolution was all about. lol The UN said go ahead and build a state. The Jews did. The Arabs didn't. Ergo, there is an Israel. Thre is not a Palestine. That's not asterisked up at all, really. Funny how UN resolutions only seem to matter when thry're AGAINST Istael. lol
That makes no sense. Israel is an anchor dragging the US down. The US will probably collapse whether they continue to fund Israel or not. But after the US goes into default, they will have no choice but to cut Israel off. Thhis is a question of "when" not "if".
This resolution about settlements is a <censored> joke because it takes the focus off the real problem. The Palestinians have no one to blame for their current situation but themselves, they blindly followed Arafat while he robbed them blind to the tune of Billions, they elected Hamas to a position of power rivaling Abbas. If they want real change and a real future they need to rise up against Hamas supporting Abbas.
Its true Arafat robbed Palestinians blind. I disagree with blaming the victim.
On the one hand, I agree the Arabs were wrong in starting that war. On the other, I can also understand why they'd started the war. Clearly the people living there before the foundation of the state of Israel would have found it a scary thought that their map was being so drastically redrawn.
I could see us acknowledging that they would most certainly have been terrified by this and so fought out of fear, but that the past is the past and let's go back to the originally agreed-upon status.
That's not true. The war started in 1947 with Zionist ethnic cleansing, not 1948. Also, few Palestinians fought in that war since they were mostly unarmed civilians.
What would happen if we did cut aid? Would the Palestinians stop their daily battles with Israel, and who would insure that peace? I know the U.S. probably would, but that would anger everyone else, will the U,N. or any other country? I don't think so (by the way, I do think Canada would support the U.S.), talking peace and enforcing it against a strong opponent is not in the UNs book of honor. Wonder what the Palestinians thought when they found out that no other country wanted them within their borders.
When you start a shooting war and lose, expect to lose at least a toe.
This war is about freedom and justice. While Palestinians have neither, Israel won't have peace.
I remember one documentary awhile back showing how many Palestinians, though Muslim, often show customs in common with Jews that are different from other Arabs. This suggested that many of them might very well be descendants of Jewish converts to Islam in history. Of course more research would likely have to be done on this, but if this is the case, then certainly they have a right to that same land too. Maybe we could keep Israel as per its pre-1967 borders, give the rest of the land to neighbouring states, and grant all Palestinians the right to choose their citizenship. Those who feel closer ties to their ancestral homeland might choose Israeli citizenship, while those who feel closer to other Arabs might choose that of neighbouring countries. Just throwing the idea out ther.
Well, seeing that it was international law that gave birth to Israel in the first place, then if it means Jack, then so does Israel, which would therefore mean that Palestinians have every right to fight for their whole land back. Ironically enough though, I thought you defended Israel. Strange that you should oppose international law when that is about the only grounds on which Israel can claim any legal legitimacy on the world stage to begin with.
Jews who trace their ancestors back to this region genetically are closely related to Palestinians. The most likely explanation is that both groups of people used to be the same people at one time. Some fled to Europe and others stayed and converted to Christianity and Islam.
