Duration – 45 minutes
The legal case for Israel
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Menu There is no diplomatic solutionIsrael should declare three nos;
no to nuclear Iran, no to two-state solution, no to bi-national state
no to nuclear Iran, no to two-state solution, no to bi-national state
@ Mitzi Alvin:
the u.n should not be allowed to violate it’s charter. it’s charter are the rules and regulations it should uphold. the u.n charter states that as well as the JEWISH peoples having to live, build grow in any and all parts of land May Not Surrender, Give, Negotiate to other persons. the so called territories are not disputed, JUDAH, SAMAREA and GAZA belong to ISRAEL by all international laws. JUDAH, SAMERIA and GAZA was illegally occupied by egypt and jordan 1948 – 1967 and the u.n and it’s criminal cohorts failed to correct the situation as it was not JEWS occupying others land. now for some 1/2 arsed reason they and the rest of the world do a U turn to deny ISRAEL whats it’s. futher more by All International Law ISRAEL is not allowed to give the arabs political nor citizenship rights. all the arabs and africans arriving on JEWISH land betwen 1922 and 1948 and sluts of their loins are illegals and should now be the resposibility of the british (no longer great nor united) kingdom.
If Jews are permitted to live in all of the mandated territory, they should be able to move wherever they wish in that territory. This is the Jewish Homeland. However, if according to later agreements Israel is commanded by the UN Security Council to decide to negotiate certain areas to hand over to the Arabs for a Palestinian State, in other words these have beoome disputed territories, why should Jews not be allowed to remain and become citizens of an Arab state once the boundries have been agreed on? After all, Israel has over a million Arabs living as citizens within its boundaries. It seems to me that it’s the Arabs who want an apartheid country.
Simple question: why has not the Israeli government internalized and projected the contents of this film??? Based upon the presentation, it is plain to see that the putative “West Bank” is not occupied territory but rather the territory allocated to the Jewish people under the Mandate which, based upon Article 80 of the UN Charter itself, requires that conclusion. The Mandate was and is a matter of international law. Why is the Israeli government giving away territory to which the State of Israel, as the successor in interest to the “Jewish people” mentioned in the Mandate, is legally entitled? If the answer inheres in the non-desire to control the Arab population, then, in a manner of speaking, Israel is throwing out the baby with the bath water. Moreover, demographics, as put forth by Ambassador (ret.) Yoram Ettinger, demonstrate the while the Arab population is on the decline, the Jewish population is increasing. Since, based upon this film, Israel’s legal position is strong and its demographic position constantly strengthening, Judea and Samaria should remain part of Israel, as originally provided in the Mandate which, beyond peradventure, is as legally binding today as it was on the day adopted unanimously by the international community under the auspices of the League of Nations.