• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The South African elephant in the room ...

rosends

Well-Known Member
That you conquered it in a "defensive war" or not has no bearing. You can't call dibs on land and people through force and there is another sovereign claim to it: the Palestinians disagree and there is this bothering little ight to self determination of people to get by.
Under international law, you can.


That would be fair indeed...if Israel grants right of return to 1.5 million Palestinians living as refugees and recognizes their property rights. Since Israel doesn't then they can't claim any land that was given as compensation. Either everybody gets what they are supposed to have or everybody gets to keep what they currently have. Israel wants to give to its citizen all that they currently have and used to have, but doesn't want to afford the same to Palestinian hence why their move is criminal and also exposes them to accusations of being an apartheid State since that's exactly how apartheid States work: one ethnic/religious group who uses force and a bias legal system to gain power over another.
Why would giving people the right to return have anything to do with land rights in an area with a sovereign power controlling it? Are you suggesting that every nation allow back in all refugees and give them back everything that was lost? If Israel wanted to give its citizens all they used to have the courts wouldn't have found in favor of the Arabs, allowing them to continue living there as protected tenants.
 

epronovost

Well-Known Member
Under international law, you can.

Except the annexation was internationally condemned as illegal in the 80's. So no not legal unless you consider being condemned as being the same as being approved which would require some mental gymnastic. Maybe they could have had the circumstances been different, but that's not the case.

Are you suggesting that every nation allow back in all refugees and give them back everything that was lost?

It's the law. If you flee your home due to war, at the end of it, you can return back to your homeland and have all your property restored to you and if destroyed during the war receive war compensations for your loss. That's international law and it's denied to Palestinians since 1948.

If Israel wanted to give its citizens all they used to have the courts wouldn't have found in favor of the Arabs, allowing them to continue living there as protected tenants.

It's currently doing that little by little as to limit international outrage and losing their carefully building alliance of interest with the Sunni powers of the Arabian peninsula and its neighbors.
 

rosends

Well-Known Member
Except the annexation was internationally condemned as illegal in the 80's. So no not legal unless you consider being condemned as being the same as being approved which would require some mental gymnastic. Maybe they could have had the circumstances been different, but that's not the case.
Well, whether or not it was formally annexed (or just declared de jure unified) is a separate matter. If acquiring the land was not illegal in 1967 then claiming it was would be wrong.


It's the law. If you flee your home due to war, at the end of it, you can return back to your homeland and have all your property restored to you and if destroyed during the war receive war compensations for your loss. That's international law and it's denied to Palestinians since 1948.
Well, that's more than just a touch oversimplified. Not only were offers for return made and money paid, and offers rejected and recognized as untenable, but the terms required by the UN for return were not satisfied. I would recommend Prittie's piece in Curtis's 1975 book (pages 50 to 75 or so IIRC) to start.


It's currently doing that little by little as to limit international outrage and losing their carefully building alliance of interest with the Sunni powers of the Arabian peninsula and its neighbors.
That would be your assessment. Others see it as applying law in the same way that it has been applied during the last 50 years of this legal battle.
 
Top