@diehardbrownsfan said:

As a Jew you really piss me off you anti-semite bastard.

Why am i not surprised.....you've been grousier than usual as of late, price of gefilte skyrocketin? Cant find your fav schmear anymore?

that you can't seem to ever back up what you rant about legitimately.

Lols

There were no such thing as Palestinians. When was there an independent Palestinian people with a Palestinian state? It was either southern Syria before the First World War, and then it was a Palestine including Jordan. It was not as though there was a Palestinian people in Palestine considering itself as a Palestinian people and we came and threw them out and took their country away from them.They did not exist.

• As quoted in Sunday Times (15 June 1969), also in The Washington Post (16 June 1969)

claim to the West Bank. That is where the Jewish settlements USED TO BE,

before war was declared on them, to wipe them out of the Middle East.

Note - Gaza was returned to Egypt in a peace deal...

no peace. and Israel is not creating settlements in Gaza, for that reason -

there is no claim of connections to Gaza as being Jewish settlements/territory

in the beginning.

Israel agreed to the "palestinians" having their own state. The stupiass hateful "palestinians"

were their own worst enemy and have lived in rancor ever since they completely rejected

having their own state, because the Jews would have their own, too.

sick and twisted haters created their own mess. Nothing about them is Israel's fault.

The Israeli government's essential position is that rather than being "occupied territory," the West Bank is "disputed territory." Given that the Arab states prevented the formation of the sovereignty proposed by the 1947 partition resolution, Jordan's subsequent unrecognized annexation of the West Bank in 1950, as well as the fact that there has never been a Palestinian sovereignty in that territory, it has been posited that there is no legally recognized claim to who has sovereignty over the West Bank. Moreover, since the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine, with the intent to form a Jewish state between the sea and the Jordan river, included the area now known as the West Bank, Israel has at least as legitimate claim to the territory as any other state or group. Under the views of Howard Grief and others, according to Article 6 of The Anglo-American Treaty of 1924, Jewish Settlements are not illegal. The rights granted to and guaranteed by Mandate for Palestine survived the League of Nations and the Anglo-American Treaty of 1924 still has the force of law pursuant to Article 80 of the UN Charter by virtue of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Laws of Treaties. Under this reasoning the Fourth Geneva Convention prohibits forced population transfers, something that Israel is not engaged in since Jewish settlers move to the disputed territories on an individual, voluntary basis.

In 1967, Theodor Meron, legal counsel to the Israeli Foreign Ministry stated in a legal opinion to Adi Yafeh, the Political Secretary of the Prime Minister, "My conclusion is that civilian settlement in theadministered territories contravenes the explicit provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention."^[57] The legal opinion, forwarded to Levi Eshkol, was not made public at the time, and the Labor cabinet progressively sanctioned settlements anyway; this action paved the way for future settlement growth. In 2007, Judge Meron stated that "I believe that I would have given the same opinion today."^[58]Nevertheless, Israel considers its settlement policy to be consistent with international law, including the Fourth Geneva Convention, while recognizing that some of the smaller settlements have been constructed "illegally" in the sense of being in violation of Israeli law.^[59] In 1998 the Israeli Minister of Foreign Affairs produced "The International Criminal Court Background Paper".^[60] It concludes

Israel also argues that some of the settlements are built in areas where Jewish settlements existed before the 1948 Arab-Israeli War and violence prior, when many West Bank settlements were destroyed and the residents massacred or expelled, such as Hartuv, Kfar Etzion, Hebron, and the Jewish Quarterof Jerusalem, and therefore the application of the Geneva Convention is an entirely different issue.^[61][62][63]

Some argue that according to international law Israel is the custodian of absentee property in the West Bank and may not give it to settlers. In 1997 the Civil Administration's legal adviser gave his opinion:

Israel contends that the Geneva Convention only applies in the absence of an operative peace agreement and between two powers accepting the Convention. Since the Oslo Accords leave the issue of settlements to be negotiated later, proponents of this view argue that the Palestinians accepted the temporary presence of Israeli settlements pending further negotiation, and that there is no basis for declaring them illegal.^[63][65][66]

Israel has justified its civilian settlements by stating that a temporary use of land and buildings for various purposes appears permissible under a plea of military necessity and that the settlements fulfilled security needs.^[67] It is further argued that United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 calls for "secure and recognized boundaries", and that neither the 1949 armistice demarcation lines, nor the 1967 cease-fire lines have proved themselves secure.^[68]

In 2002, the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs reiterated that the settlements were being developed consistently with international law and that they did not violate any agreements with either the Palestinians or Jordan. They added that the settlements in the West Bank and Gaza Strip were recognised as legitimate by the Mandate for Palestine adopted by the League of Nations, and that the only administration that completely prohibited Jewish settlement was that of Jordan from 1948 to 1967. Regarding the Geneva Convention, they maintained that the Israeli government was not forcibly transferring its population into the territories. Neither had the land that was being settled been under the legitimate sovereignty of any state beforehand. It further highlighted that no clauses in the Convention could be used to prohibit the voluntary return of individuals to towns and villages from which they or their ancestors had been previously ejected by forcible means. It claimed the settlements had only been established after exhaustive investigations making sure none were built on private land.^[15]

The "international court" and the UN are rife with anti-Semitism, and you can take those two orgs and shove em.

The settlements Israel is allowing to be created - is on Israeli land. .

That is wholesale false jew propaganda

Centuries before. That is actually where the nazis got their hate for the Jews -

a right-there-in-front of them scapegoat and "enemy" to rally against.

Long before Israel ever existed.

and, Israel was totally unprovokedly declared war on...

and Israel won that war.

Attacking another country, losing land because you lost, then angrily demanding

the land that used to be yours be returned so you can attack again when you're stronger...

nah. That doesn't happen. But Israel did give back the Gaza Strip. You see what a clusterfook

that turned out to be.

The settlements Israel is allowing to be created - is on Israeli land. If they gave it all back,

they would be sealing their destruction.

In any case its high time for the human race to say goodbye. Been high time for a long time going now