…”no nation on earth has the power to dictate where the US places its embassies.”

The British Mandate of Palestine envisioned an Arab and a Jewish State. We have an Arab State - 'Trans-Jordan", later shortened to "Jordan" that comprises 85% of the original Palestine Mandate, and 15% remaining that makes up Israel and the disputed territories.

One solution under discussion is that after Jordan transitions to a parliamentary democracy that they will change their name to Palestine, and of course the capital of the new Palestinian State will remain in Amman. Palestinians will be free to either move to Palestine or remain in the disputed territories or if they are already in Israel, remain in Israel.

 

Total nonsense. Both Jews and Palestinians live in the disputed territories. Your claim that the UNSC has declared the disputed territories to be a Jew Free area is the wildest of fantasies.

 

If you believe they are disputed Territories you believe a LIE
They are OCCUPIED Territories - The term "disputed territory" is a devious LIE
a recent Zionist transparent Canard, a LIE, that they hope careless people will skip by,
A LIE they hope will give them some claim to Land that was never intended to be part
.................................................................................................................. of Israel

The UN, its members in vast majority, the Legality of its Charter, a Charter
Israel signed, and the Legality of its Resolutions, do NOT recognize, neither
Gaza nor the West Bank as disputed, they are OCCUPIED

The only people who want to dispute the status of those Territories
............................................ are the people who want to Steal them

so here is
PROOF _ Israel does NOT want Peace, Israel wants Land
.

 

What’s the difference between Kashmir and the West Bank?

Kashmir, according to news media coverage, is “disputed territory” contested by India, Pakistan and China. The West Bank, on the other hand, is “occupied” by Israel or “the occupied Palestinian territory.”

India, Pakistan and China administer parts of Kashmir. Three Indian-Pakistani wars since the end of British colonial rule in the sub-continent and the violent creation of Muslim Pakistan and predominately Hindu India in 1948 have not changed the region’s disputed status.

The West Bank was widely known as Judea and Samaria until its illegal occupation by Jordan after Israel’s 1948-’49 War of Independence. That war followed the end of Britain’s League of Nations/United Nations Mandate for Palestine. The mandate was created after World War I to facilitate reestablishment of a Jewish national home in a sliver of the former Ottoman Empire.

But following Israel’s conquest of the West Bank during the 1967 Six-Day War the area has been, journalistically speaking, “occupied.” This despite the fact no state has exercised sovereignty over it since the end of Ottoman rule and even though U.N. Security Council Resolution 242 (1967) and subsequent measures anticipate negotiations to resolve its disputed status.

For example:

The Washington Post, in “U.S. puts bounty on alleged terrorist chief; Reward for Pakistani group’s leader adds to tensions with Islamabad” (April 4) refers to “the disputed Himalayan state of Kashmir.”

USA Today, in an Associated Press dispatch headlined “U.S. offers $10 million bounty for suspect in ’08 Mumbai attack” (also April 4) mentions “alleged Pakistani support in the 1980s to pressure India over the disputed territory of Kashmir.”

The Post, in an article provided by The Financial Times and headlined “Sudan is accused of bombing oil fields; Reported airstrikes endanger talks with South on final settlement” (March 2 notes “clashes in disputed border territory” between the new country of South Sudan and Sudan.

The next day, a Post editorial, “Sudan’s brutal moves; A dispute with a new neighbor over oil turns violent” mentioned “one disputed territory, Abiyeh ….”

A year ago, The New York Times reported, in an article headlined “Five Arrests In Attack On Hospital In Kabul” (May 24, 2011), that a suicide bomber had been trained “in the disputed Kashmir region of Pakistan and India.”

Other contested areas have been in the news recently as well. They include the Falkland Islands, a British possession for more than 200 years. Its defeat in the 1982 Falklands War notwithstanding, Argentina still calls them the Malvinas and disputes London’s sovereignty.

So too the Khojaly area of Azerbaijan, lost to Armenia in the 1988 – 1994 war in Azerbaijan’s Nagorno-Karabakh region. Khojaly is “now a political no-man’s land claimed by both Azerbaijan and Armenia …” The Washington Times reported in an article titled “A Horror Not Forgotten; 1992 wartime massacre in Khojaly marked yearly since” (April 10).

Shorthand Default or Bias by Denial?

But when it comes to the West Bank, the press default setting is:

* “in the occupied West Bank” (“Netanyahu Slows Eviction of Settlers From a House,” The New York Times, April 4

* “in the occupied West Bank” (“West Bank settlement’s future could shape Israel,” The Washington Post, March 31);

* “the occupation of Palestinian land” (“Israel bars U.N. team from probing settlements,” an Associated Press article that appeared in The Washington Times March 27);

* “in the occupied West Bank” (“Jordan’s king sees glimmer of hope in Mideast talks,” TheWashington Post, January 17); or,

* “the occupied Palestinian territory” (Israel charges 5 in riot on base; Army Post In West Bank; Settlement dismantling at issue, document says,” January 9, a Reuters dispatch published by The Post).

News consumers are not informed that Israel is the obligatory military occupational authority in the West Bank, having gained control in a war of self-defense, until sovereignty over the area is resolved through negotiations. These negotiations are to proceed according to Resolution 242 (1967), Security Council Resolution 338 (1973) and related diplomatic initiatives including the 1993 Israeli-Palestinian Oslo process and 2003 “road map” sponsored by the United States, Russia, United Nations and European Union.

These measures recognize talks are required just because the status of the territories in question is disputed. Israel has responsibilities of an occupying authority, including maintaining order, but the lands in question are neither Palestinian nor Israeli, not yet. Not that most coverage precisely describes this situation.

Curiously, readers, listeners and viewers could get a sense of "disputed" when it comes to eastern Jerusalem. Major media occasionally refer – correctly, in diplomatic terms – to “disputed East Jerusalem.” For example, The Washington Post at least twice in 2010 so identified that part of Israel’s capital in news briefs:

“in disputed East Jerusalem, the area Palestinians want as the capital of their hoped-for state” (Nov. 30, 2010), and “in disputed East Jerusalem” (May 10, 2010).

Update for 2013

The double standard -- the rest of the world or Israel -- regarding proper use of disputed continued through 2013 and into 2014. An August 9 Washington Post news brief headlined "India hints at retaliation over cross-border ambush" began this way: "India for the first time directly accused the Pakistan army of involvement in a cross-border ambush in the disputed region of Kashmir that killed five Indian soldiers Tuesday."

Another territory said to be the subject of a dispute, not occupation, was Gibraltar, as in the August 13 Washington Times report "British-Spanish ties getting rocky over Gibraltar". The article noted that "although Spain hasn't explicitly threatened a remake of the 1982 Falklands War between Britain and Argentina in its own centuries-old colonial-era dispute over Gibraltar ... Britain sent warships to the Mediterranean on Monday and weighed legal action against Spain."

Associated Press reported that "a nasty spat between Algeria and Morocco over the disputed region of the Western Sahara has boiled over anew, as Morocco recalled its ambassador, angry protesters tore down an Algerian flag, and a Moroccan magazine called for land grabs" ("Africa: Morocco to press U.S. for support in Sahara; Country in land dispute with Algeria," November 11).

On Jan. 3, 2014, Washington Times "Inside China" columnist Miles Yu wrote, under the sub-head "China's Map Problem," that "official Chinese maps did not mention the disputed Senkaku islands until July, 1971, the eve of the U.S. transfer of the islands to Japan, according to Japan's Jiji Press news service, which studied Chinese maps made between 1946 and 2003.

"'China started to claim the islands as its own in 1971. But the name Diaoyu was not found in domestic maps produced by China's state surveying and mapping bureau before then,' Jiji Press reported Dec. 29, using a Chinese name for the islands. ... Beijing has banned from libraries and other archives old maps that do not mention the islands."

Sort of like the news media when it comes to reporting on the disputed West Bank. For example, The Washington Post committed two errors in one sentence ("Kerry cites progress, admits risk of failure in Mideast; Secretary of state ends 3 days of diplomacy in Israel, West Bank," Jan. 6, 2014):

"On Sunday morning, Yuval Steinitz, Israel's intelligence minister and a close ally of [Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu, told Israel Radio that Israel would not accept any peace deal based on the pre-1967 lines -- a reference to the Green Line, a demarcation established after Israel's independence that marks the boundary between Israel and the Palestinian territories."

Palestinian Arabs live in West Bank territories, but the territories are neither Palestinian nor Israeli. Their status is to decided in Arab-Israeli negotiations according to U.N. Security Council Resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973) and related initiatives like the Israeli-Palestinian Oslo accords (1993) and U.S., U.N., E.U. and Russian "road map" (2003). If the territories already were sovereign Palestinian land rather than disputed by parties with acknowledged claims, there would be no need for the diplomacy by the secretary of state on which The Post reported.

The newspaper properly referred to the Green Line as a demarcation established after Israel's independence, rather than a recognized international border. But contrary to the newspaper's assertion, it did not mark a boundary between the Jewish state and Palestinian territories; it was, and is, the 1949 Israeli-Jordanian armistice line, meant to be temporary pending a final agreement. It has persisted because first Jordan, which occupied the land until 1967, and later the Palestinian leadership, refused to reach an agreement with Israel that established a border both "secure and recognized," as called for by Resolution 242.

When the tilt always goes one way
“Occupied” versus “disputed” may echo media practice on “militant” versus “terrorist.” In both cases, when it comes to Israel, the Jewish state’s enemies and opponents get the benefit of journalistic doubt.

Terrorists who target Israel generally are described vaguely and euphemistically as “militants” by news media. But people attempting or committing similar assaults against non-combatants elsewhere, especially against Americans in the United States, often accurately are termed terrorists.

Palestinian Arabs claim eastern Jerusalem; press accounts describe that area as “disputed.” However, notwithstanding legitimate Jewish claims in the West Bank – recognized in the League of Nations’ Palestine Mandate (Article 6) and protected by the U.N. Charter (Article 80) – that area, also sought by Palestinian Arabs, becomes “occupied.” The more precise description, “disputed,” rarely appears

Language reflects assumptions. Assumptions sometimes reflect underlying facts; at other times, they indicate inherent bias.

http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=2&x_outlet=230&x_article=2222

 

there are consequences for these actions, and God is watching

 

^ Brilliant post.

 

^

 

The UNSC declared all that Israel gained after the 6 day war, is not part of Israel. So there is no such thing as disputed territory there. And according to the Geneva Conventions, you may not colonize land that aint yours. And I don't claim a thing. The UNSC makes it a fact.

 

Oh are they?

 

LOL!!!

Its illegal for the govt. to sieze private property in the WB and settle its citizens there.

 

I believe for even those who disagree with Haley's position, she continues to come across as intelligent and strong. She will get more name recognition, but only the hard left with very few exceptions will despise her because of this.

 

She's toast; an exposed panderer without conscience, and for sale to the highest bidder.

 

Israel has not tried to annex either the West Bank nor Gaza, they are disputed territories.

There most certainly is. Until formal international boundaries are drawn, no one knows what parts of areas near the armistice lines will end up in which state.

The Jewish settlements have a history in that area in some cases of 3500 years. They aint colonies.

Israel does exercise authority as the occupying power under the Geneva Conventions of territories used to launch a war of Aggression against the Jewish State. They will continue to administer order in the disputed territories until final international boundaries are draw, as a result of negotiation.

 

The Jewish settlements in the disputed areas are growing with population growth just like the Palestinian settlements are. Is it illegal for the Palestinian settlements to grow with population growth?

 

Saudi Arabia's interest in peace is very practical and compelling. The Arab world has a great deal of work ... and money invested in developing healthcare, education, infrastructure to including clean water, power, roads, housing .. and diversifying their economies.

Conflict destroys all of that.. Like Syria which is in shambles.. where everything from literacy to immunizations has suffered terrible setbacks. Look at Afghanistan and Yemen.

 

The Left hates Conservative Women. I'm sure they are sniffing her sheets going all the way back to middle-school. They see her as a threat to Fauxahontus. She is strong, smart, intelligent and she is a real Indian.

 

We aren't building our Embassy in East Jerusalem, Silly!

 

I thought she was born in Bamberg, SC which makes her a US citizen.. I am VERY disappointed in her.. I really thought she was brighter and able to negotiate Trump's foolishness.

 

You're disappointed that her views differ from your own, more than you realized.

 

Her pandering on the flag was the first clue she's without conscience, but I granted her one bite.

This time, she's revealed herself as Warren-lite, but not as bright.

Oh - and wrong Indian; her birth name is Nimrata Randhawa.

 

No actual sane person in the US believes that about blacks.

 

Actually, I spent a good bit of time in Bamberg and like the people who live there. I am just disappointed that Nikki either has no judgment or that she's weak on principles.

 

We'd have to have an embassy there first don't you think?

 

Non the less. Jerusalem isn't an Israeli city.

 

Um, Israel has repeatedly held out Jerusalem as its capital.

The historic capitals of Palestine were the modern cities of Beirut and Tyre in Lebanon.

East Jerusalem was controlled by Jordan, not Palestine, prior to the 1967 War. Since Jordan has abandoned its claim to East Jerusalem, the annexation is proper.

The embassy will be in West Jerusalem. Regardless, there will be no war.

UN Security Council resolutions adopted under Chapter VI of the UN Charter, such as UNSC 242, are non-binding.