Brian Ross wrote on Oct 16
th, 2020 at 9:18pm:
Well, Israel came into pre-existence as the consequence of UN fiat.
One of the principles of the UN is that aggressors should not profit from their aggression.Aggressors should not be allowed to engage in "ethnic cleansing".
Israel was guilty of both of those acts and it was allowed to profit from them.
The Palestinians are merely attempting to prevent that from occurring.
The Zionists believe that Israel should be returned to its biblical size as "Eretz Israel" - greater Israel.
You appear to believe that the Palestinians, despite being in occupation of Palestine for over a millennia should have their property rights ignored.
How noble of you, Agatha.
Now, as I have said before,
Israel has a right to exist as defined by the borders established in 1948.It has decided to expand itself to it's present size through conquest.
No !
You are engaging in historic revisionism [i.e. rewriting of history].
In 1948 after the Jews declared the new nation of Israel, ....neighbouring Arab countries broadcast messages, ordering/advising Arabs [moslems] living within the newly declared nation of Israel, to temporarily flee for safety to neighbouring Arab states, because conflict was coming.
The neighbouring Arab countries declared their intentions, and said that they were going to push the Jews into the Mediterranean sea.
Many of the Arabs [moslems] within the newly declared nation of Israel did flee, as they were ordered/advised to do, in order to save themselves from the Arab attack/war upon Israel.
[...and they became, the 'Palestinian refugees', WHO FLED ISRAELI LANDS IN 1948,
at the urging of their brother Arabs.]
Shortly thereafter, six Arab armies attacked Israel.
But the Arab forces were routed, by the meager forces of the nascent Israeli nation.
Boo hoo!!!!!
Boo hoo!!!!!
Boo hoo!!!!!
.
REGARDING INTERNATIONAL LAW, AND THE AGGRESSOR....
Who, is the aggressor ???islam and jews
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1299665041/39#39 Quote:
.....international laws does not prohibit a state which was attacked [e.g. the state of Israel, 1948], from occupying and annexing the lands of an aggressor, so as to prevent further attacks.
BECAUSE;
"...the effect of such (a) prohibition would be to guarantee to all potential aggressors that, even if their aggression failed, all territory lost in the attempt would be automatically returned to them. Such a rule would be absurd to the point of lunacy.""
ISRAEL AND INTERNATIONAL LAW....Israel’s presence in all these areas pending negotiation of new borders
is entirely lawful, since Israel entered them lawfully in self-defence.
International law forbids acquisition by unlawful force, but not where, as in the case of Israel’s self-defence in 1967, the entry on the territory was lawful. It does not so forbid it,....for
the effect of such prohibition would be to guarantee to all potential aggressors that, even if their aggression failed, all territory lost in the attempt would be automatically returned to them. Such a rule would be absurd to the point of lunacy. There is no such rule..."
http://www.melaniephillips.com/diary/?p=1528 WWW search.....
Israel and international law by Melanie Phillips