dag hammarsjkold wrote:Ricky wrote:

The reaction by Obama is proper, in that the Israelis have been acting with impunity over the settlements. They have no interest in peace, or a two state solution as demonstrated by their actions. And they fully depend on US shielding them from the world opinion. Which isn't fair to the US, who are caught out as hyprocrits if they do not work towards a 2 state solution which recognizes their support for the Geneva Conventions.

I can't remember the last time I agreed with you about anything Ricky. Well said and true.

dag hammarsjkold wrote:Hardly. Broken clocks are correct twice a day.

Doctor Fate wrote:

dag hammarsjkold wrote:Hardly. Broken clocks are correct twice a day.

Not rickyp.

rickyp wrote:Ray, Fate or which ever smartass wants to respond on point?


Which of you disagree with the Fourth Geneva Coventions?
Why?

How are Israelis' settlements defensible under the 4th ?

Ray Jay wrote:How is Palestinian terrorism defensible?... how is not recognizing Israel's right to exist defensible? ... how is starting wars in the first place defensible?

I would say as it relates to Jerusalem it is not occupied territory as it had never been defined as anyone else's territory

How is Palestinian terrorism defensible?... how is not recognizing Israel's right to exist defensible? ... how is starting wars in the first place defensible?

To amplify: if some Native American tribe that lived along the US/Canadian border started a terror campaign in Canada while demanding its sovereignty, would Canada negotiate? If the tribe's charter claimed all of Canada as its rightful home, would Canada negotiate? If the tribe repeatedly broke agreements with Canada and launched campaign after campaign of terror, would Canada negotiate?

The Oka Crisis was a land dispute between a group of Mohawk people and the town of Oka, Quebec, Canada, which began on July 11, 1990, and lasted until September 26, 1990. Sûreté du Québec (SQ) Corporal Marcel Lemay was killed by a bullet whose source has never been officially determined.[5] Rumours circulated that the reason no source had been determined was that it had been a police bullet and that Lemay had been conducting an internal investigation which was connecting the death of two Mohawk men to SQ guns.[6] The dispute was the first well-publicized violent conflict between First Nations and the Canadian government in the late 20th century

rickyp wrote:There have also been significant settlements for land claims and for mistreatment of First Nations people by the government. Most specifically the issue of "Resdential Schools" and the relocation of frst nations into the high arctic.
So I guess the answer to your question is: Yes. We'd negotiate.
Out right terror wouldn't be tolerated. And hasn't been. But we always seem to end up negotiating.

rickyp wrote:rayjay

I would say as it relates to Jerusalem it is not occupied territory as it had never been defined as anyone else's territory

No?
Not by ? :
- The Peel Commission
-the 1947 United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine
East Jerusalum is still considered occupied territory by the UK, the USA and most of the world.
West Jerusalum is considered by some to be in defacto control by Israel. But not dejure.
De facto means a state of affairs that is true in fact, but that is not officially sanctioned. In contrast, de jure means a state of affairs that is in accordance with law (i.e. that is officially sanctioned)
That all contradicts your statement.
Whats your source that proves your statement?

In 1948, during the Arab-Israeli War, the population of the Jewish Quarter counted about 2,000 Jews, who were besieged, defeated, and forced to leave en masse. The defenders surrendered on May 28, 1948. Colonel Abdullah el Tell, local commander of the Jordanian Arab Legion, with whom Mordechai Weingarten negotiated the surrender terms, described the destruction of the Jewish Quarter in his memoirs (Cairo, 1959):"... The operations of calculated destruction were set in motion.... I knew that the Jewish Quarter was densely populated with Jews who caused their fighters a good deal of interference and difficulty.... I embarked, therefore, on the shelling of the Quarter with mortars, creating harassment and destruction.... Only four days after our entry into Jerusalem the Jewish Quarter had become their graveyard. Death and destruction reigned over it.... As the dawn of Friday, May 28, 1948, was about to break, the Jewish Quarter emerged convulsed in a black cloud - a cloud of death and agony."
— Yosef Tekoah (Permanent Representative of Israel to the United Nations) quoting Abdullah el-Tal.[13]
The Jordanian commander is reported to have told his superiors: "For the first time in 1,000 years not a single Jew remains in the Jewish Quarter. Not a single building remains intact. This makes the Jews' return here impossible."[14][15] The Hurva Synagogue, originally built in 1701, was blown up by the Jordanian Arab Legion. During the nineteen years of Jordanian rule, a third of the Jewish Quarter's buildings were demolished.[16] According to a complaint Israel made to the United Nations, all but one of the thirty-five Jewish houses of worship in the Old City were destroyed. The synagogues were razed or pillaged and stripped and their interiors used as hen-houses or stables.

Again, Israel always trades land for peace. If the PA actually wanted peace, they could have it. They want a peace that guarantees Israel will not have defensible borders. That Israel rejects that baseline only surprises those who don't see Israel as having a right to exist

I would say as it relates to Jerusalem it is not occupied territory as it had never been defined as anyone else's territory

Under the 1947 UN Partition Plan Jerusalem and surrounding areas including Bethlehem were not reserved for either state but would be run by an international regime.

Jordan's annexation was recognized by the UK and US and many other countries.

Jerusalem was a majority Jewish city from the late 1880's to present times. Calling it occupied is a charade

I look forward to President Trump recognizing it as the capital of Israel and moving our embassy there.

And, by the way, When Israel captured the West Bank in the 1967 Six-Day War, no Israeli citizens lived in the territory.

Well if one disagrees with the fourth geneva convention, then we return to a time when aggression for the sake of annexation is considered part of states craft. War, and might make right.
I wonder how the Baltic States will feel if the US decides that the Fourth Geneva convention is discarded by the USA. (I'm sure Putin will be pleased.)