Your claim of illegality does not negate the fact that Jordan did indeed annex the WB. The fact that other people did not like this does not change the fact they did it. Incorrect. As the WB was part of Jordan in 1967, Israel did occupy the WB. That changed in 1988. Clearly then the "issue" exists because of these people. Beats me -- this only serves to further prove the "issue" will remain until these people change their hearts and minds. Sounds to me like the onus is on their leadership.
Of course that Jordan annaxed the WB, I never said otherwise! But what I did say that Jordan did it illegaly, and the annexation was never recognized by the world, and thus Jordan was never "another high contracting part" in the WB in 1967. The WB never was part of Jordan, since the annexation was illegaly and was never recognized by the world. If the annexation was legaly and recognized by the world, then the story was a different one. But that's not the case. So how do you like that the people will change their hearts and minds via their leadership, if their leadership obey their charters that say the total opposite? It's nice to say that they need to change A and B, but if it didnt change for more then 100 years, and they just continue with it, then we need to change the disc.
Haven't you ever been there? All of Palestine was occupied by Arab Christians and Arab Muslims with a minority of Arab Jews.. just like the area that became Transjordan and then Jordan about 1924. They are the same people.. They aren't Europeans of Russians or Poles. Jordan did take in thousands of refugees from Israel in 1948... as did Lebanon. You might read some contemporaneous documents from about 1920 thru 1948.
I've been there plenty. The Land of Israel was occupied by the Arabs in the 7th century, at the time of the Arab conquest. How's that have any to do with what I stated? How's that have any to do with what I wrote? Or are you saying that it is a good thing that Arabs today in Jordan have no citizenship and are facing discrimination, just to maintain a problem that regard to only 700,000 max Arabs? * The 700,000 is only if you are syaing that all of the Arabs were evecuated by Israel. But that is not the case. I read plenty, thanks for the concern!
Arabs as we know them today lived in Saudi Arabia till the Arab conquest in the 7th century, which then they spread the world till parts of France.
Sargon 2 settled 4 Arab tribes in Samaria ... Moses and Abraham both had Arab wives. Your lie is a convenient excuse to steal the ancestral homeland of a people who remained in Palestine.
The fact that people did not like the fact that Jordan annexed the WB does not change the fact that Jordan annexed the WB. This makes the WB part of Jordan, and thus, the other "party" where Israel is concerned. You just said Jordan annexed the WB. This makes it part of Jordan. The fact that some people did not like the fact that Jordan annexed the WB does not change the fact that Jordan annexed the WB. If people refuse to accept the fact that Israel has a right to exist, then these people are the cause of the problem; Israel will have no choice to continue to fight them, and they will continue to die. And how do you propose we "change the disc'?
The wives of Moses and Abrahams were not Arabs. The origin of the wives of Moses is unknown. The origin of the wive of Abraham is the origin of Abraham, which means Babylon. In Babylon were no Arabs. Arabs were barbaric people that settled in Saudi Arabia until the 7th century.
According to international law experts Jordan is not this "another high contracting party", since Jordan controlled this territory illegaly and without no recognition. As I already wrote to you: The WB never was part of Jordan, since the annexation was illegaly and was never recognized by the world. If the annexation was legaly and recognized by the world, then the story was a different one. But that's not the case. Change the terminology of which we use regarding this conflict.
The fact that people did not like the fact that Jordan annexed the WB does not change the fact that Jordan annexed the WB. That is, your response does not in any way negate the truth of my statement. Just as I said. Meaning what, specifically? And, how will doing this move everyone toward resolution?
As I said: the annexation did not happn legaly and was never recognized by the world. Hence, Jordan is not this "another high contracting party" regarding the WB, and therefore the definition of what is "occupied territory" according to the Fourh Geneva Convention is not applicable to the WB. Change the terminology regarding that we need to stop to think that the Arableadership is up for peace, since their leadership and some of the ordinery Arabs dont see Israel as a legitimate state, and think that "Palestine" is whole of the territory, and thus should be liberated. Who ever said that there is resolution for this conflict? There is no happy ending to everything in real life, it's not a movie. How does a religious conflict has resolutions regarding territory? The only resolution according to the Arab leadership and some of the ordinery Arabs is only one solution- Islamic rule over "Palestine" (the territory of Israel + WB + Gaza).
Your response does not in any way negate the truth of my statement, which remains sound. Good to see you understand the conflict is generated and regenerated by the refusal of the Arabs to admit Israel has a right to exist.. I thought the idea here was to find resolution. Guess not.
Which part of what I said dont negate your statements? I always understand it that way. The world wants to find resolution regarding the conflict, but you cant find tengible resolution regarding deviding territory when one side is driven by religious reasons.
Yes, you said it earlier, and yet dont want to say Which part of what I said dont negate your statements.
I did. Nothing you posted negates the truth of what I said. That is, your posts, in their entirety, do nothing to change the fact that everything I said is absolutely true.
Yes, you said it earlier, and yet dont want to say Which part of what I said dont negate your statements. You are saying that my posts entirely do nothing to change what you wrote. Which means all what I worte in whole of my posts do not negate what you wrote. The whole subject of my posts is that there is no "occupation in WB. Something that you agreed with me. And yet you say I didnt negate your claim which is that there is no occupation. But if your comments that states that there is no "occupation" in the WB, like my comments say, then how can it negate each other?
I can only tell you so many times: Nothing you said negates the truth of what I said; your posts, in their entirety, do nothing to change the fact that everything I said is absolutely true. We agree, for entirely different reasons. Your reasons do not reflect the absolute truth of what I said, whereas mine do.
I can only tell you so many times: Yes, you said it earlier, and yet dont want to say Which part of what I said dont negate your statements. You stated that Jordan ceded it's claims in 1988, and I said that Jordan illegaly annexed the WB and which the annexation never got worldwide recognition. Both of those statments are facts.
Do you or do you not accept that Jordan --in fact-- annexed the WB in 1950, making the WB part of Jordan at the time of the 1967 war?
Jordan did annex te WB, but they did it illegaly and without any kind of world recognition. I did visit the WB, but it was hard to do it prior to 1967.
And so, the WB was part of Jordan during the 1967 war. Jordan gave up claim in 1988, which is why the Israelis do not currently occupy the WB. There you go.
You guys that think Israel should give up the West Bank and the ridges that overlook 70% of Israeli population along with most of their essential infrastructure are insane. It is geography dummies.
