Who Do The Territories Belong To?

This next video answers the question.

22 thoughts on “Who Do The Territories Belong To?”

  1. Jim from Iowa

    A fun little video, as far as it went. But what exactly happens to the people living in Judea and Samaria who are self-identified as "Palestinians"? Are they a natural part of a Jewish state or must they be expelled as a natural step in the process of resolving the disposition of this disputed land? The fun little video kind of left that part out.

    1. A population transfer like the turks and the greeks (1923), Indians and Pakistanis (1947). This one is just 63 years in the making.

      1. Jim from Iowa

        Oh, is that what the fun little video was actually saying, Ian? If I remember my history lessons, these ethnic/religious mass transfers of peoples were rather traumatic, bloody affairs, failing to fully resolve all territorial claims or eliminating the lasting enmity of the parties. I guess it's not such a fun little video after all.

        1. JimFI,

          Refugee problems are not new – but in only one case is the problem deliberately exacerbated and perpetuated by a UN organization dedicated to keeping them festering and procreating – UNRWA, who decided that ANY Arab who said he lived in Palestine between the years 1946 and 1948 was a refugee, and all of their decendants ad perpetuam. BTW – there is no way to get off UNRWAs roster except by kicking the bucket, joining the Ephemeral Choir, pushing up the daisies etc. Even if you are a 3rd-generation fully-paid-up national of a European country and have never spoken Arabic in your life, you're still a Palestinian Refugee to UNRWA.

          If the ~700,000 refugees who fled the nascent state of Israel had been resettled 60 years ago, there would be no refugee problem today. If they had not fled, they would be Israeli Arabs today – many Palestinians are. But they fled.

          There is a refugee problem – but it is not Israel's problem. It is UNRWAs problem, and I wish them good luck with it.

          J.

          1. Jim from Iowa

            You make a number of valuable points, but to say its not Israel's problem is a bit of wishful thinking. I hope my questioning of this video's failure to address the need for a negotiated settlement resulting in a two-state solution was not too subtle. History is important to be sure, but the disposition of a hostile Arab population living on disputed land is vital to the interests of Israel as a strong, prosperous Jewish state as well.

            1. Jim, you are correct. I did not distinguish between palestinians currently living in Judea and Samaria and those living elsewhere. My comments were made with the latter in mind. The right of return is a non-starter and not simply because it would destroy our Jewish State, but because there is no justification whatsoever for their "return".

              As to those living in Judea and Samaria, I believe that very few Israelis could actually stomach driving a million people from their homes so we need another, more practical solution, where the palestinians agree to forgo all future claims and to actively prevent further violence on their part. Given the levels of hate and anti-semitic propaganda in the pro-palestinian camp this is not likely to happen in this generation.

              The only reasonable alternative is perpetuation of the status quo until the hatred cools down to a smolder, or until war (or terror) forces our hand again.

        2. “these ethnic/religious mass transfers of peoples were rather traumatic, bloody affairs”

          It’s not necessary for such transfers to be bloody affairs. In fact, Jewish Law requires that the safety of the expellees be guaranteed when making those transfers. (But make no mistake: Jewish Law calls for those transfers; so much for all those lefties who shout, “Ethnic cleansing is not a Jewish value.” It most certainly is.)

          “failing to … eliminating the lasting enmity of the parties.”

          Maybe, but the alternative—genocide—is far worse. Nothing is more conducive to genocide than having two or more nations full of hatred toward each other reside under the same political roof. Ethnic cleansing isn’t nice, but then neither are most dental procedures painless.

        3. 500,000 ethnic gemans were removed from czech territory, post ww2…without a peep

          it can be done

          and it will be done

          1. And should anyone argue that this wouldn’t fly in a day of video cameras… then, when the time comes for it to be done (may it be soon), people with video cameras not having the proper clearance need not apply. The world press is the problem? The world press will either work for the Jewish State or hold its silence. Problem solved.

        4. I think you will find the population exchanges that I mentioned avoided large scale massacres (of mainly non muslims) and they followed periods of indiscriminate killing of civilians. For example the Armenian and Black Sea Greek genocides. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_exchange_
          At the risk of spamming more wiki links, here is a list of territorial disputes in the world. There is no perfect solution to any of them. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_territorial_
          “failing to fully resolve all territorial claims or eliminating the lasting enmity of the parties.”
          Just because someone isn’t happy with an outcome doesn’t make it wrong.

    2. the same thing that happened to the ethnic germans residing in czhek territory….most for generations

      asta la vista baby

    3. No. What it is saying is that we have to understand what cards we actually hold before we bargain with them. It's kind of hard to bargian with something that is not yours.

      There is one main problem with the video. And that is that it was not put out by the epopel who should have put it out – the Israeli government.

  2. Jim from Iowa · 28 minutes ago
    A fun little video, as far as it went. But what exactly happens to the people living in Judea and Samaria who are self-identified as "Palestinians"? Are they a natural part of a Jewish state or must they be expelled as a natural step in the process of resolving the disposition of this disputed land protecting the Jews in the Jewish State from the Arab Muslim Nazis who are sworn to the Jews' extermination?

    FIFY

  3. A small point, the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907 are what define an occupation, the Geneva accords set out the duties of the occupier. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_occupation#Mi
    (I don't have a YT account)

    The video needs more prominent english subtitles, I don’t think the target audience is Hebrew speakers.

    Has this letter been posted?
    Attorneys tell UN: Unilateral Declaration of Palestinian State would be Illegal http://israelinsider.net/profiles/blogs/attorneys

    The supremacy of the irrevocable “acquired rights” granted at San Remo and the grandfathering of the League of Nations mandate, are probably the best arguments. It invalidates all of the UN resolutions, including 181.

    San Remo mandate Israel’s “Magna Carta” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ijS8mFP4I1A

  4. Jim the video doesn't need to deal with the solution to the west bank, that's not the point. It deals with Israels legal right to the West Bank because it flies in the face of many nations 'accepted wisdom'.

    I disagree with Ziontruth, a population transfer is not only impossible it would not help anybody in the long run- also some of that the stuff and about the free press, Israel is not rulled by a despot, it isn't a tyranny and should never behave in such a way.

    It should always represent the best of a proud people who have given more to the world than states a 1000X it's size.

    The palestinians at least act as a distraction to hostile Arab states and in that capacity-an entity they can root on- they are a useful buffer.

    IF, all of a sudden they are on the Arab doorstep; they become a problem and would most likely spur on another conflict in the middle east.

    If they wish to carry on the status quo then that should suit Israel, it's manageable, if they wish to declare a state, that's less suitable but allows Israel to make it's own declaration of borders without negotiation.

    The only other path for the palestinians is to accept Israels proposals to keep the main settlement blocks, Jerusalem and no refugees in exchange for their state.

    I can see Jerusalem being a sticking point for western governments, if worse comes to worse then there is one possible solution that would mean that Israel could have defacto control.
    By making sure the demographics are in their favour they could essentially declare Jerusalem a separate state, a few years down the line and Jerusalem, in it's entirety could join Israel.

    That's playing the game and winning. I doubt it's ever been done before but it's an interesting endgame.

    1. Jim from Iowa

      I agree that the intransigence of the Palestinian leadership is the heart of the problem in establishing a negotiated settlement. But in its own self-interest Israel should do what it can to encourage the Palestinians to the bargaining table (ie implement a settlement freeze, be more supportive of American peace initiatives), rather than sit back and watch as the Palestinians proclaim unilaterally their own state through the offices of the United Nations.

  5. Since we have some learned discussion here, perhaps someone can clarify somethign for me?

    My understanding is that somethign changed in international law in 1949, so that suddenly land no longer belonged to the victor. So Jordon's aggressive land grab was legal but our defensive one wasn't? Can someone enlighten me on that?

    "You may be a professor of African American Studies, but I'm a lawyer. And I can tell you that International Law is … like Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny" (Ann Coulter, approx. quote)

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top