Israel announces plan to create 2,500 settlements in Palestinian-controlled territory

Your country congratulated Israel for the offer.

* it was 650,000 which more then 300,000 of them left by choice, as I showed numerous of times here.

 

Unquestionably.
You do understand the difference in the words, right?
Especially when dealing in leaglease?

 

In Jenuary 1949 was the first elections in Israel. Are you saying that no one voted?

"No"? So now are you telling me what I was writting? Thank you for you concern but I know what I wrote. The name "they" refered to the Arab countries not Israel.

The offer did put it forward, and the US congratulated Israel for that.

Israel didnt offered whole of them, since Israel never evecuated all of them. Moreover that the Arab countries rejected the offer since they thought it is a contradiction to Resolution 194 (a non-binding reoslution since it is a UNGA resolution), but left to say something about their own rejection to the resolution.

Correct, it is an offer.

The "Palestinian" refugees are not the Arab countries, and yet Israel proposed it's proposal to them in Lausanne since the Arab refugees were in the Arab countries, so it will be one step toward solution of the refugees.


*let us please not forget that UNGA Resolution 194 is not binding Resolution, but merely a recommendation.

 

Do you agree that UNSC resolutions are legally binding?

 

No cigar. In a legal sense ' should ' and ' must ' have an identical meaning when used as a requirement to honor a duty.
Now- if Israel was NOT a signatory to its United Nations Charter obligations then your , scrabbling, suggestion that ' should ' was used here in an advisory capacity might be taken seriously. However, Israel WAS a signatory and therefore expected to fulfil its duty .
The use of ' must ' would have indicated precisely the same expectation.

UN- 1 Shysters - 0.

' Should '
simple past tense of shall.

' Shall '
(in laws, directives, etc.) must; is or are obliged to:
'The meetings of the council shall be public.'


( Don't even attempt to argue the definitions. You are toast, right here . Sack your hasbara adviser. )

 

Want to stop this then get a UN task force and go into the area and enforce the UN resolution if you don't the Israeli government has the guns, troops and the will to expand them and if they do then the nation "occupied" should fight back but we know how that will turn out. So it seems to me the persons getting settled on need to accept this unless one or the other happens or regional powers intervene.

 

The Palestinians- with the active support of the free world- can defeat Israel legally, commercially and diplomatically. The advent of the Internet is bad, bad news for neoZionism.

 

Resolution 194 is no a UNSC resolution, but just UNGA resolution. UNGA resolutions are not binding, but merely recommendations.

 

thats not what I asked you.

do you acknowledge that UNSC resolutions are legally binding upon all UN members?

 

Commercially? Palestinians have commerce? You're joking

 

By your own admission, Dutch- you don't support Israel, you support Jews. With that in mind it's impossible not to view anything you have to say on the matter as racist. The post above is no exception.

 

UNSC Resolutions that been accepted by the UNSC under Article 7 of the UN Charter are totally binding, but that's not the case in Reslution 194 that it is only a recomendation.

 

I support Israel wholeheartedly, and without reservations.

There.

 

That's not what you confessed to previously. You admitted that it was Jews that you supported, not Israel with any other majority.

I hadn't realised that these so-called supporters of ' Israel ' are simply out-and-out racists . They don't support Israel as a state at all.

 

You seem to confused, moon, so I'll make it easier for you - I support Jewish Israel wholeheartedly and without reservations.

There

 

Again- you don't support the state of Israel at all. You support Jews. Your brand of support is racist.
Not content with simple racist support for Jews exclusively you also denigrate Arabs. Your brand of denigration is also racist.

Look at yourself.

 

As you should, given that Israel is the only open, liberal, Western democracy in the ME.

 

A grotesque parody of Western democracy. A ' democracy ' for Jews.

 

I already replied to this.

They want their properties back, that the Jews thieved from them.
Seems rather normal.

 

Wrong.

Why do Palestinians who hate Israel, hate Jews, vow to destroy Israel, do not recognize Israel, nonetheless wants to come to Israel and live among Jews?

 

Why does a good chunk of a million and a half Palestinian Arabs living in Israel prepared to leave any part of Israel, if it ever comes under control of fella Palestinians? Don't they know, what's good for them?

Do tell, and not weasel for once?

 

Why do you say, I do not support Israel? I do support Israel. I love Israel. Have you ever been to Israel? I think, you should go to Israel. Once you visit Israel I'm confident, you'll fall in love with Israel

 

Nope. That is kind of it.
Why won't Jews return the property that they thieved from Palestinian civilians?
And even worse, when will Jews stop thieving from Palestinian civilians

 

(*)(*)(*)(*) off, my friend, reading your posts gives me nothing other then extreme boredom

 

Jews look the other way when it comes to paying compensations to Palestinians for land lost.

However, when it comes to Jews losing property in the ex Soviet bloc, they can't stop pressuring these nations to pay out to Jews.

It's a huge hypocrisy.

Many people lost land in Eastern Europe, so Jews weren't being singled out.
Many Germans, Poles, Hungarians, Ukrainians etc. had been displaced, and lost their land too.

But, do Jews work with others to create a sort of mutual land compensation method?
Absolutely not.

It's really very two faced, and is a prime example to why people don't care for them.