Furthermore Israel already claims to have annexed Jerusalem, but have you ever wondered why there are no embassies in Jerusalem? There is this little issue with legally annexing something which require international recognition and acceptance - something Israel is not in a position to get with Jerusalem.
I find the fact that you think israel "requires" any sort of approval regarding it's capital city amusing.
If all states would move their embassies away from Copenhagen and claim it is swedish city, will that make it any less of your captial? will you be willing to give it to sweden??
I find your lack of understanding of international law amusing. And if you ever happen to drop by San Francisco I will be happy to present you with a trophy for the worst analogy of the thread - which is an impressive feat considering the previous candidates.
It wasn't an analogy - it was not supposed to reflect the current situation of Jerusalem, what I did mean to do was to make you feel that the idea I proposed was completely absurd, which I think I managed to do. The way you felt? -people in israel feel exactly the same way about the idea of saying that Jerusalem is not their capital ^^
The only thing you managed to do was to sound like a complete idiot. You stated in your previous post that Israel should just legally annex East Jerusalem - something which I pointed out can not be done without international recognition and acceptance, which is not possible for Israel to obtain and hence the lack of embassies (even Israels biggest ally, USA, does not have an embassy in Jerusalem!)
I never said israel or the palestinians should make anything. I said annexing territories is a possible course of action, never said if I support it or not, and I absolutely never said that israel should annex east Jerusalem.
You can bring the embassy thing as much as you want, but in the end each state decides on it's own capital, Jerusalem is Israel's capital - it has the Knesset, the high-court and all the state offices. Thinking that any other state can change that is absurd just like saying that Copenhagen will cease to be Denmark's capital because israel (and/or other states for that matter) doesn't recognize it as such.
On December 02 2012 16:12 Ranizin wrote: Don't be too happy with the palestinian move about "making the negotiations more equal" - if they do one-sided moves then israel can as well, such as legally annexing territories (like they did with the Golan). It's a double-edged sword.
You were posting bullshit. Once again, because I really do not want you to miss this point for the 4.th time:
On December 02 2012 15:26 sc2superfan101 wrote: how can anyone, with a straight face, condemn Israel for pushing people out of their lands, and then suggest that the only appropriate solution is to push the Israeli's out of their land (settlements)?
it's mind boggling the back-flips that will occur when you ask these questions.
please don't tell me you think what you said is fact?
Furthermore Israel already claims to have annexed Jerusalem, but have you ever wondered why there are no embassies in Jerusalem? There is this little issue with legally annexing something which require international recognition and acceptance - something Israel is not in a position to get with Jerusalem.
I find the fact that you think israel "requires" any sort of approval regarding it's capital city amusing.
If all states would move their embassies away from Copenhagen and claim it is swedish city, will that make it any less of your captial? will you be willing to give it to sweden??
I find your lack of understanding of international law amusing. And if you ever happen to drop by San Francisco I will be happy to present you with a trophy for the worst analogy of the thread - which is an impressive feat considering the previous candidates.
It wasn't an analogy - it was not supposed to reflect the current situation of Jerusalem, what I did mean to do was to make you feel that the idea I proposed was completely absurd, which I think I managed to do. The way you felt? -people in israel feel exactly the same way about the idea of saying that Jerusalem is not their capital ^^
The only thing you managed to do was to sound like a complete idiot. You stated in your previous post that Israel should just legally annex East Jerusalem - something which I pointed out can not be done without international recognition and acceptance, which is not possible for Israel to obtain and hence the lack of embassies (even Israels biggest ally, USA, does not have an embassy in Jerusalem!)
I never said israel or the palestinians should make anything. I said annexing territories is a possible course of action, never said if I support it or not, and I absolutely never said that israel should annex east Jerusalem.
You can bring the embassy thing as much as you want, but in the end each state decides on it's own capital, Jerusalem is Israel's capital - it has the Knesset, the high-court and all the state offices. Thinking that any other state can change that is absurd just like saying that Copenhagen will cease to be Denmark's capital because israel (and/or other states for that matter) doesn't recognize it as such.
It's really not that hard to understand ^^
I will spell this out as clearly as possible:
ISRAEL. CAN'T. ANNEX. EAST. JERUSALEM. LEGALLY.
Now, when you stated:
On December 02 2012 16:12 Ranizin wrote: Don't be too happy with the palestinian move about "making the negotiations more equal" - if they do one-sided moves then israel can as well, such as legally annexing territories (like they did with the Golan). It's a double-edged sword.
You were posting bullshit. Once again, because I really do not want you to miss this point for the 4.th time:
Furthermore Israel already claims to have annexed Jerusalem, but have you ever wondered why there are no embassies in Jerusalem? There is this little issue with legally annexing something which require international recognition and acceptance - something Israel is not in a position to get with Jerusalem.
I find the fact that you think israel "requires" any sort of approval regarding it's capital city amusing.
If all states would move their embassies away from Copenhagen and claim it is swedish city, will that make it any less of your captial? will you be willing to give it to sweden??
I find your lack of understanding of international law amusing. And if you ever happen to drop by San Francisco I will be happy to present you with a trophy for the worst analogy of the thread - which is an impressive feat considering the previous candidates.
It wasn't an analogy - it was not supposed to reflect the current situation of Jerusalem, what I did mean to do was to make you feel that the idea I proposed was completely absurd, which I think I managed to do. The way you felt? -people in israel feel exactly the same way about the idea of saying that Jerusalem is not their capital ^^
The only thing you managed to do was to sound like a complete idiot. You stated in your previous post that Israel should just legally annex East Jerusalem - something which I pointed out can not be done without international recognition and acceptance, which is not possible for Israel to obtain and hence the lack of embassies (even Israels biggest ally, USA, does not have an embassy in Jerusalem!)
I never said israel or the palestinians should make anything. I said annexing territories is a possible course of action, never said if I support it or not, and I absolutely never said that israel should annex east Jerusalem.
You can bring the embassy thing as much as you want, but in the end each state decides on it's own capital, Jerusalem is Israel's capital - it has the Knesset, the high-court and all the state offices. Thinking that any other state can change that is absurd just like saying that Copenhagen will cease to be Denmark's capital because israel (and/or other states for that matter) doesn't recognize it as such.
On December 02 2012 Ranizin wrote: Don't be too happy with the palestinian move about "making the negotiations more equal" - if they do one-sided moves then israel can as well, such as legally annexing territories (like they did with the Golan). It's a double-edged sword.
You were posting bullshit. Once again, because I really do not want you to miss this point for the 4.th time:
On December 02 2012 Ranizin wrote:Unlike many many others in this thread, I try to jump into discussion about topics I know nothing about and doesn't affect me.
Yes, this much has become apparent.
I was wondering if you'll catch those 5 seconds between the post and the edit where I fixed the word "not" which I accidently omitted - glad you did
Furthermore Israel already claims to have annexed Jerusalem, but have you ever wondered why there are no embassies in Jerusalem? There is this little issue with legally annexing something which require international recognition and acceptance - something Israel is not in a position to get with Jerusalem.
I find the fact that you think israel "requires" any sort of approval regarding it's capital city amusing.
If all states would move their embassies away from Copenhagen and claim it is swedish city, will that make it any less of your captial? will you be willing to give it to sweden??
I find your lack of understanding of international law amusing. And if you ever happen to drop by San Francisco I will be happy to present you with a trophy for the worst analogy of the thread - which is an impressive feat considering the previous candidates.
It wasn't an analogy - it was not supposed to reflect the current situation of Jerusalem, what I did mean to do was to make you feel that the idea I proposed was completely absurd, which I think I managed to do. The way you felt? -people in israel feel exactly the same way about the idea of saying that Jerusalem is not their capital ^^
The only thing you managed to do was to sound like a complete idiot. You stated in your previous post that Israel should just legally annex East Jerusalem - something which I pointed out can not be done without international recognition and acceptance, which is not possible for Israel to obtain and hence the lack of embassies (even Israels biggest ally, USA, does not have an embassy in Jerusalem!)
I never said israel or the palestinians should make anything. I said annexing territories is a possible course of action, never said if I support it or not, and I absolutely never said that israel should annex east Jerusalem.
You can bring the embassy thing as much as you want, but in the end each state decides on it's own capital, Jerusalem is Israel's capital - it has the Knesset, the high-court and all the state offices. Thinking that any other state can change that is absurd just like saying that Copenhagen will cease to be Denmark's capital because israel (and/or other states for that matter) doesn't recognize it as such.
It's really not that hard to understand ^^
I will spell this out as clearly as possible:
ISRAEL. CAN'T. ANNEX. EAST. JERUSALEM. LEGALLY.
Now, when you stated:
On December 02 2012 Ranizin wrote: Don't be too happy with the palestinian move about "making the negotiations more equal" - if they do one-sided moves then israel can as well, such as legally annexing territories (like they did with the Golan). It's a double-edged sword.
You were posting bullshit. Once again, because I really do not want you to miss this point for the 4.th time:
ISRAEL. CAN'T. ANNEX. EAST. JERUSALEM. LEGALLY.
EDIT:
On December 02 2012 Ranizin wrote:Unlike many many others in this thread, I try to jump into discussion about topics I know nothing about and doesn't affect me.
Yes, this much has become apparent.
I was wondering if you'll catch those 5 seconds between the post and the edit where I fixed the word "not" which I accidently omitted - glad you did
Well those 5 seconds were the only time in which that statement was true, so figured it was worth keeping - glad we agree
Furthermore Israel already claims to have annexed Jerusalem, but have you ever wondered why there are no embassies in Jerusalem? There is this little issue with legally annexing something which require international recognition and acceptance - something Israel is not in a position to get with Jerusalem.
I find the fact that you think israel "requires" any sort of approval regarding it's capital city amusing.
If all states would move their embassies away from Copenhagen and claim it is swedish city, will that make it any less of your captial? will you be willing to give it to sweden??
I find your lack of understanding of international law amusing. And if you ever happen to drop by San Francisco I will be happy to present you with a trophy for the worst analogy of the thread - which is an impressive feat considering the previous candidates.
It wasn't an analogy - it was not supposed to reflect the current situation of Jerusalem, what I did mean to do was to make you feel that the idea I proposed was completely absurd, which I think I managed to do. The way you felt? -people in israel feel exactly the same way about the idea of saying that Jerusalem is not their capital ^^
The only thing you managed to do was to sound like a complete idiot. You stated in your previous post that Israel should just legally annex East Jerusalem - something which I pointed out can not be done without international recognition and acceptance, which is not possible for Israel to obtain and hence the lack of embassies (even Israels biggest ally, USA, does not have an embassy in Jerusalem!)
I never said israel or the palestinians should make anything. I said annexing territories is a possible course of action, never said if I support it or not, and I absolutely never said that israel should annex east Jerusalem.
You can bring the embassy thing as much as you want, but in the end each state decides on it's own capital, Jerusalem is Israel's capital - it has the Knesset, the high-court and all the state offices. Thinking that any other state can change that is absurd just like saying that Copenhagen will cease to be Denmark's capital because israel (and/or other states for that matter) doesn't recognize it as such.
It's really not that hard to understand ^^
I will spell this out as clearly as possible:
ISRAEL. CAN'T. ANNEX. EAST. JERUSALEM. LEGALLY.
Now, when you stated:
On December 02 2012 16:12 Ranizin wrote: Don't be too happy with the palestinian move about "making the negotiations more equal" - if they do one-sided moves then israel can as well, such as legally annexing territories (like they did with the Golan). It's a double-edged sword.
You were posting bullshit. Once again, because I really do not want you to miss this point for the 4.th time:
I think I figured your problem - it is that I said "legally annex" and not just "annex"? My bad then, I was translating a term from hebrew which might have dual meaning. What I meant was that annexation will put israeli law in effect in the annexed territory. I understand you might understood it as annexing the territory in accordance to the international law - if that is the case then I'm sorry for the misunderstanding.
On December 02 2012 15:26 sc2superfan101 wrote: how can anyone, with a straight face, condemn Israel for pushing people out of their lands, and then suggest that the only appropriate solution is to push the Israeli's out of their land (settlements)?
it's mind boggling the back-flips that will occur when you ask these questions.
Because of this weird idea that Palestinians were pushed off their lands for those settlements. And that it might be wrong. I don't know, it's all so very confusing.
ahhh, I see.
so your solution is to continue pushing people off their land? great idea. one small problem I see with it is that you're talking about people who are backed up by one of the most powerful military's in the world, in a nation composed primarily of a people who have proven to be pretty militant about survival, and who have armed themselves with nuclear weapons and the capabilities of dropping them. oh, and this country you're talking about bullying is also supported by the majority of the most powerful, and wealthy, country on earth (US).
considering the fact that there's maybe... 4-5 nations on this earth that could bully Israel into doing anything at all, I don't know, maybe we should hesitate before we call bullying them our only solution. and we should make no mistake that telling people to leave the homes they were born in to right some prior wrong that may or may not have occurred, is bullying.
Last I checked, might does not make right. I guess that's your morality but I don't care how powerful and rich Israel and it's allies are.
Oh, and how exactly is it bullying to state that taking people's lands is wrong? Bullying is to take people's lands because you're bigger and stronger.
Remember this?
it's mind boggling the back-flips that will occur when you ask these questions.
Now look in a mirror.. figuratively. Really.
Might does not make right... yes. But no one is saying that it's right. It's just the sad reality of the situation. Your naivety does nothing to contributing for the continued survival of the Palestine population.
Now now, don't get me wrong. I'm practical. Palestine has to learn to live with Israel.
But we were discussing the moral condemnation of Israel. Just wanted to get facts straight. The survival of Palestine isn't really a priority for me, so perhaps its naive on your part to make that assumption.
Hmm... maybe. However if you were partaking in this discussion just for the sake of it, perhaps you possess a trait worse than my naivety?
Ah, sorry. Wouldn't presume to know.
Please tell me more about how you're saving the Middle East.
Ah, it seems like I said I was saving the ME... wait.
I am however contributing to the discussion, unlike you?
Edit: Snarky comments don't make you look smart, in case you didn't know.
Furthermore Israel already claims to have annexed Jerusalem, but have you ever wondered why there are no embassies in Jerusalem? There is this little issue with legally annexing something which require international recognition and acceptance - something Israel is not in a position to get with Jerusalem.
I find the fact that you think israel "requires" any sort of approval regarding it's capital city amusing.
If all states would move their embassies away from Copenhagen and claim it is swedish city, will that make it any less of your captial? will you be willing to give it to sweden??
I find your lack of understanding of international law amusing. And if you ever happen to drop by San Francisco I will be happy to present you with a trophy for the worst analogy of the thread - which is an impressive feat considering the previous candidates.
It wasn't an analogy - it was not supposed to reflect the current situation of Jerusalem, what I did mean to do was to make you feel that the idea I proposed was completely absurd, which I think I managed to do. The way you felt? -people in israel feel exactly the same way about the idea of saying that Jerusalem is not their capital ^^
The only thing you managed to do was to sound like a complete idiot. You stated in your previous post that Israel should just legally annex East Jerusalem - something which I pointed out can not be done without international recognition and acceptance, which is not possible for Israel to obtain and hence the lack of embassies (even Israels biggest ally, USA, does not have an embassy in Jerusalem!)
I never said israel or the palestinians should make anything. I said annexing territories is a possible course of action, never said if I support it or not, and I absolutely never said that israel should annex east Jerusalem.
You can bring the embassy thing as much as you want, but in the end each state decides on it's own capital, Jerusalem is Israel's capital - it has the Knesset, the high-court and all the state offices. Thinking that any other state can change that is absurd just like saying that Copenhagen will cease to be Denmark's capital because israel (and/or other states for that matter) doesn't recognize it as such.
It's really not that hard to understand ^^
I will spell this out as clearly as possible:
ISRAEL. CAN'T. ANNEX. EAST. JERUSALEM. LEGALLY.
Now, when you stated:
On December 02 2012 16:12 Ranizin wrote: Don't be too happy with the palestinian move about "making the negotiations more equal" - if they do one-sided moves then israel can as well, such as legally annexing territories (like they did with the Golan). It's a double-edged sword.
You were posting bullshit. Once again, because I really do not want you to miss this point for the 4.th time:
I think I figured your problem - it is that I said "legally annex" and not just "annex"? My bad then, I was translating a term from hebrew which might have dual meaning. What I meant was that annexation will put israeli law in effect in the annexed territory. I understand you might understood it as annexing the territory in accordance to the international law - if that is the case then I'm sorry for the misunderstanding.
East Jerusalem already has Israeli law in effect and has had so since 1967 when Israel tried to annex East Jerusalem the first time which was declared null and void by UNSC. Your initial statement about Israel "annexing" anything still does not make any sense.
EDIT: And just to clarify: I have no problem, but judging from the size of the hole you have dug yourself, perhaps you should quit whilst you are behind or else think really long and hard before trying to retcon again.
On December 02 2012 15:26 sc2superfan101 wrote: how can anyone, with a straight face, condemn Israel for pushing people out of their lands, and then suggest that the only appropriate solution is to push the Israeli's out of their land (settlements)?
it's mind boggling the back-flips that will occur when you ask these questions.
Because of this weird idea that Palestinians were pushed off their lands for those settlements. And that it might be wrong. I don't know, it's all so very confusing.
ahhh, I see.
so your solution is to continue pushing people off their land? great idea. one small problem I see with it is that you're talking about people who are backed up by one of the most powerful military's in the world, in a nation composed primarily of a people who have proven to be pretty militant about survival, and who have armed themselves with nuclear weapons and the capabilities of dropping them. oh, and this country you're talking about bullying is also supported by the majority of the most powerful, and wealthy, country on earth (US).
considering the fact that there's maybe... 4-5 nations on this earth that could bully Israel into doing anything at all, I don't know, maybe we should hesitate before we call bullying them our only solution. and we should make no mistake that telling people to leave the homes they were born in to right some prior wrong that may or may not have occurred, is bullying.
Last I checked, might does not make right. I guess that's your morality but I don't care how powerful and rich Israel and it's allies are.
Oh, and how exactly is it bullying to state that taking people's lands is wrong? Bullying is to take people's lands because you're bigger and stronger.
Remember this?
it's mind boggling the back-flips that will occur when you ask these questions.
Now look in a mirror.. figuratively. Really.
Might does not make right... yes. But no one is saying that it's right. It's just the sad reality of the situation. Your naivety does nothing to contributing for the continued survival of the Palestine population.
Now now, don't get me wrong. I'm practical. Palestine has to learn to live with Israel.
But we were discussing the moral condemnation of Israel. Just wanted to get facts straight. The survival of Palestine isn't really a priority for me, so perhaps its naive on your part to make that assumption.
Hmm... maybe. However if you were partaking in this discussion just for the sake of it, perhaps you possess a trait worse than my naivety?
Ah, sorry. Wouldn't presume to know.
Please tell me more about how you're saving the Middle East.
Ah, it seems like I said I was saving the ME... wait.
I am however contributing to the discussion, unlike you?
Edit: Snarky comments don't make you look smart, in case you didn't know.
This is a discussion forum. I partake in this discussion for the sake of it, yes, I'm a monster. But really let's stop discussing me and keep it on topic yeah?
/edit
My contribution was to refute and present a rebuttal against a very strange and faulty argument re: the moral indignation against Israel.
I will repeat the question i asked yesterday in this post:
Thats why im saying negotiations need to be held. There are 3 sticking points as of the Olmert offer: 1. 3% pf the contested land (this includes east Jerusalem and a few towns, all the rest was agreed on 2. The Refugees, the PA want to allow several hundred thousand the right to return in to Israel, effectively ending it as a Jewish state in several years. 3. The jordan valley and demilitarization. Israel want to keep the valley to prevent weapon smuggling and not allow the PA to have more then light arms. 4. Recognizing Israel as a jewish state. (the irony here is that they said their future state must be free of jews). The thing is while 30 years ago only the Israeli left wanted a 2 sate solution now its pretty much a consensus. The PA, due to the massive international support act as if they have the upper hand and have shown no flexibility over the past years. Most Israelis hope that the PA lower their expectations if peace is to be met.
What condescension have the palestinians made?
all the previous treaties led to violence and same for gestures of goodwill (such as withdrawal from gaza led to rockets fired on Israel)
As to Jerusalem, it was conquered from Jordan in 67, prior to this there were no calls for Palestinian independence from Jordan.
As far as Jerusalem, the majority of Israel are against splitting it, i have posted previously (with sources) that the Israeli Arabs who live in East Jerusalem want to stay under Israeli rule
To add to this, look at Google earth, as someone who lives in Jerusalem i can tell you that there is no possible way to split it, the best offer the palestinians could get was offered in the camp David summit: + Show Spoiler +
Jerusalem and the Temple Mount A particularly virulent territorial dispute revolved around the final status of Jerusalem. Leaders were ill prepared for the central role the Jerusalem issue in general and the Temple Mount dispute in particular would play in the negotiations.[10] Barak instructed his delegates to treat the dispute as "the central issue that will decide the destiny of the negotiations" whereas Arafat admonished his delegation to "not budge on this one thing: the Haram (the Temple Mount) is more precious to me than everything else."[11] The Palestinians demanded complete sovereignty over East Jerusalem and its holy sites, in particular, the Al-Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock, which are located on the Temple Mount, a site holy in both Islam and Judaism, and the dismantling of all Israeli neighborhoods built over the Green Line. The Palestinian position, according to Mahmoud Abbas, at that time Arafat's chief negotiator: "All of East Jerusalem should be returned to Palestinian sovereignty. The Jewish Quarter and Western Wall should be placed under Israeli authority, not Israeli sovereignty. An open city and cooperation on municipal services."[12] Israel proposed that the Palestinians be granted "custodianship," though not sovereignty, on the Temple Mount, with Israel retaining control over the Western Wall, a remnant of the ancient wall that surrounded the Temple Mount, and one of the most sacred sites in Judaism outside of the Temple Mount itself. Israeli negotiators also proposed the Palestinians be granted administration, but not sovereignty, over the Muslim and Christian Quarters of the Old City, with the Jewish and Armenian Quarters remaining in Israeli hands, and indicated readiness to consider total Palestinian sovereignty over the Muslim and Christian Quarters.[13] Palestinians would be granted administrative control over all Islamic and Christian holy sites, and would be allowed to raise the Palestinian flag over them. A passage linking northern Jerusalem to Islamic and Christian holy sites would be annexed by the Palestinian state. The Israeli team proposed annexing to Israeli Jerusalem settlements within the West Bank beyond the Green Line, such as Ma'ale Adumim, Givat Ze'ev, and Gush Etzion. Israel proposed that the Palestinians merge certain outer Arab villages and small cities that had been annexed to Jerusalem just after 1967[14] (such as : Abu Dis, Alezariye, 'Anata, A-Ram, and eastern Sawahre) to create the city of Al-Quds, which would serve as the capital of Palestine. Israeli neighborhoods within East Jerusalem would remain under Israeli sovereignty. Outlying Arab neighborhoods of Jerusalem would come under Palestinian sovereignty, and core Arab neighborhoods would remain under Israeli sovereignty, but would gain autonomous powers. Palestinian Jerusalem would be run by a Palestinian civilian administration, with the possibility of merging it to Israeli Jerusalem, in which case Palestinian Jerusalem would be governed by a Palestinian branch municipality within the framework of an Israeli higher municipal council.[citation needed] Palestinians objected to the lack of sovereignty (they were only offered administrative control) over Islamic holy sites (meaning that those were legally still under Israeli sovereignty), while Israel would be able to retain sovereignty over Jewish holy sites. They also objected to Israel retaining sovereignty over certain culturally or religiously significant Arab neighborhoods in Jerusalem (such as Sheikh Jarrah, Silwan and At Tur), and to the right of Israel to keep Jewish neighborhoods that it built over the Green Line in East Jerusalem, which the Palestinians claimed block the contiguity of the Arab neighborhoods in East Jerusalem.
EDIT: i forgot to add, the call to be recognized in the UN was basically a move done by Abbas as he is slipping in popularity and new information claming he is Corrupt ( i recomend reading this, as the poll also showed that 47% of the population in the west bank and 62% of Gazens support armed attacks against Israeli civilians inside Israel, as opposed to the allegedly legitimate attacks against Israelis outside the Green Line who they believe deserve these attacks for serving as occupiers.) IT is also a violation of the Oslo accords saying that neither side will attempt to change the legal status of the territories in the west bank outside of negotiations. All this will cause is that the Palestinians will not feel the need for flexibility as they have international support (despite the fact that this vote would have passed 20 years ago also.) It dose not bring Palestinian unity any closer, something that will be needed to finalize any negotiation with Israel, although Abbas refuses to negotiate without pre conditions.
I find the fact that you think israel "requires" any sort of approval regarding it's capital city amusing.
If all states would move their embassies away from Copenhagen and claim it is swedish city, will that make it any less of your captial? will you be willing to give it to sweden??
I find your lack of understanding of international law amusing. And if you ever happen to drop by San Francisco I will be happy to present you with a trophy for the worst analogy of the thread - which is an impressive feat considering the previous candidates.
It wasn't an analogy - it was not supposed to reflect the current situation of Jerusalem, what I did mean to do was to make you feel that the idea I proposed was completely absurd, which I think I managed to do. The way you felt? -people in israel feel exactly the same way about the idea of saying that Jerusalem is not their capital ^^
The only thing you managed to do was to sound like a complete idiot. You stated in your previous post that Israel should just legally annex East Jerusalem - something which I pointed out can not be done without international recognition and acceptance, which is not possible for Israel to obtain and hence the lack of embassies (even Israels biggest ally, USA, does not have an embassy in Jerusalem!)
I never said israel or the palestinians should make anything. I said annexing territories is a possible course of action, never said if I support it or not, and I absolutely never said that israel should annex east Jerusalem.
You can bring the embassy thing as much as you want, but in the end each state decides on it's own capital, Jerusalem is Israel's capital - it has the Knesset, the high-court and all the state offices. Thinking that any other state can change that is absurd just like saying that Copenhagen will cease to be Denmark's capital because israel (and/or other states for that matter) doesn't recognize it as such.
It's really not that hard to understand ^^
I will spell this out as clearly as possible:
ISRAEL. CAN'T. ANNEX. EAST. JERUSALEM. LEGALLY.
Now, when you stated:
On December 02 2012 16:12 Ranizin wrote: Don't be too happy with the palestinian move about "making the negotiations more equal" - if they do one-sided moves then israel can as well, such as legally annexing territories (like they did with the Golan). It's a double-edged sword.
You were posting bullshit. Once again, because I really do not want you to miss this point for the 4.th time:
I think I figured your problem - it is that I said "legally annex" and not just "annex"? My bad then, I was translating a term from hebrew which might have dual meaning. What I meant was that annexation will put israeli law in effect in the annexed territory. I understand you might understood it as annexing the territory in accordance to the international law - if that is the case then I'm sorry for the misunderstanding.
East Jerusalem already has Israeli law in effect and has had so since 1967 when Israel tried to annex East Jerusalem the first time which was declared null and void by UNSC. Your initial statement about Israel "annexing" anything still does not make any sense.
That's because you seem to think that the only territory that can be annexed is east jerusalem (which is already annexed^^). Judea & Samaria currently are not annexed, the law in effect regarding those territories is ottomanian - but that's not very interesting, the practical effect is that once an area is annexed, it won't be torn from israel for future palestinian state. That is the case with the Golan, East Jerusalem and so it will be with future annexed areas in Judea & Samaria (which is where the future palestinian state is supposed to be).
EDIT: seeing your edit, I would like to say you give the international law way too much emphasis. In reality, it affects nothing.
I find your lack of understanding of international law amusing. And if you ever happen to drop by San Francisco I will be happy to present you with a trophy for the worst analogy of the thread - which is an impressive feat considering the previous candidates.
It wasn't an analogy - it was not supposed to reflect the current situation of Jerusalem, what I did mean to do was to make you feel that the idea I proposed was completely absurd, which I think I managed to do. The way you felt? -people in israel feel exactly the same way about the idea of saying that Jerusalem is not their capital ^^
The only thing you managed to do was to sound like a complete idiot. You stated in your previous post that Israel should just legally annex East Jerusalem - something which I pointed out can not be done without international recognition and acceptance, which is not possible for Israel to obtain and hence the lack of embassies (even Israels biggest ally, USA, does not have an embassy in Jerusalem!)
I never said israel or the palestinians should make anything. I said annexing territories is a possible course of action, never said if I support it or not, and I absolutely never said that israel should annex east Jerusalem.
You can bring the embassy thing as much as you want, but in the end each state decides on it's own capital, Jerusalem is Israel's capital - it has the Knesset, the high-court and all the state offices. Thinking that any other state can change that is absurd just like saying that Copenhagen will cease to be Denmark's capital because israel (and/or other states for that matter) doesn't recognize it as such.
It's really not that hard to understand ^^
I will spell this out as clearly as possible:
ISRAEL. CAN'T. ANNEX. EAST. JERUSALEM. LEGALLY.
Now, when you stated:
On December 02 2012 16:12 Ranizin wrote: Don't be too happy with the palestinian move about "making the negotiations more equal" - if they do one-sided moves then israel can as well, such as legally annexing territories (like they did with the Golan). It's a double-edged sword.
You were posting bullshit. Once again, because I really do not want you to miss this point for the 4.th time:
I think I figured your problem - it is that I said "legally annex" and not just "annex"? My bad then, I was translating a term from hebrew which might have dual meaning. What I meant was that annexation will put israeli law in effect in the annexed territory. I understand you might understood it as annexing the territory in accordance to the international law - if that is the case then I'm sorry for the misunderstanding.
East Jerusalem already has Israeli law in effect and has had so since 1967 when Israel tried to annex East Jerusalem the first time which was declared null and void by UNSC. Your initial statement about Israel "annexing" anything still does not make any sense.
That's because you seem to think that the only territory that can be annexed is east jerusalem (which is already annexed^^). Judea & Samaria currently are not annexed, the law in effect regarding those territories is ottomanian - but that's not very interesting, the practical effect is that once an area is annexed, it won't be torn from israel for future palestinian state. That is the case with the Golan, East Jerusalem and so it will be with future annexed areas in Judea & Samaria (which is where the future palestinian state is supposed to be).
EDIT: seeing your edit, I would like to say you give the international law way too much emphasis. In reality, it affects nothing.
If international law affected nothing then Israel would have no cause for acting like it is doing now. And international law matters when it is an unanimous decision in which even the major ally says "hey, what you did there was illegal". And no, just because you annex something it will not mean Israel gets to keep that land should a 2-state solution be made. There is a reason why the settlements are such a huge headache whenever there are negotiations.
It wasn't an analogy - it was not supposed to reflect the current situation of Jerusalem, what I did mean to do was to make you feel that the idea I proposed was completely absurd, which I think I managed to do. The way you felt? -people in israel feel exactly the same way about the idea of saying that Jerusalem is not their capital ^^
The only thing you managed to do was to sound like a complete idiot. You stated in your previous post that Israel should just legally annex East Jerusalem - something which I pointed out can not be done without international recognition and acceptance, which is not possible for Israel to obtain and hence the lack of embassies (even Israels biggest ally, USA, does not have an embassy in Jerusalem!)
I never said israel or the palestinians should make anything. I said annexing territories is a possible course of action, never said if I support it or not, and I absolutely never said that israel should annex east Jerusalem.
You can bring the embassy thing as much as you want, but in the end each state decides on it's own capital, Jerusalem is Israel's capital - it has the Knesset, the high-court and all the state offices. Thinking that any other state can change that is absurd just like saying that Copenhagen will cease to be Denmark's capital because israel (and/or other states for that matter) doesn't recognize it as such.
It's really not that hard to understand ^^
I will spell this out as clearly as possible:
ISRAEL. CAN'T. ANNEX. EAST. JERUSALEM. LEGALLY.
Now, when you stated:
On December 02 2012 16:12 Ranizin wrote: Don't be too happy with the palestinian move about "making the negotiations more equal" - if they do one-sided moves then israel can as well, such as legally annexing territories (like they did with the Golan). It's a double-edged sword.
You were posting bullshit. Once again, because I really do not want you to miss this point for the 4.th time:
I think I figured your problem - it is that I said "legally annex" and not just "annex"? My bad then, I was translating a term from hebrew which might have dual meaning. What I meant was that annexation will put israeli law in effect in the annexed territory. I understand you might understood it as annexing the territory in accordance to the international law - if that is the case then I'm sorry for the misunderstanding.
East Jerusalem already has Israeli law in effect and has had so since 1967 when Israel tried to annex East Jerusalem the first time which was declared null and void by UNSC. Your initial statement about Israel "annexing" anything still does not make any sense.
That's because you seem to think that the only territory that can be annexed is east jerusalem (which is already annexed^^). Judea & Samaria currently are not annexed, the law in effect regarding those territories is ottomanian - but that's not very interesting, the practical effect is that once an area is annexed, it won't be torn from israel for future palestinian state. That is the case with the Golan, East Jerusalem and so it will be with future annexed areas in Judea & Samaria (which is where the future palestinian state is supposed to be).
EDIT: seeing your edit, I would like to say you give the international law way too much emphasis. In reality, it affects nothing.
If international law affected nothing then Israel would have no cause for acting like it is doing now. And international law matters when it is an unanimous decision in which even the major ally says "hey, what you did there was illegal". And no, just because you annex something it will not mean Israel gets to keep that land should a 2-state solution be made. There is a reason why the settlements are such a huge headache whenever there are negotiations.
As said, in practice international law has little effect, also if you ream my post you will see why Palestinian control of east Jerusalem wont happen. As to the settlements in general, for every settlement that has in it over 500+ people (or possible 1000, i cant recall) wont be returned instead, the equivalent land was offered in other areas.
The only thing you managed to do was to sound like a complete idiot. You stated in your previous post that Israel should just legally annex East Jerusalem - something which I pointed out can not be done without international recognition and acceptance, which is not possible for Israel to obtain and hence the lack of embassies (even Israels biggest ally, USA, does not have an embassy in Jerusalem!)
I never said israel or the palestinians should make anything. I said annexing territories is a possible course of action, never said if I support it or not, and I absolutely never said that israel should annex east Jerusalem.
You can bring the embassy thing as much as you want, but in the end each state decides on it's own capital, Jerusalem is Israel's capital - it has the Knesset, the high-court and all the state offices. Thinking that any other state can change that is absurd just like saying that Copenhagen will cease to be Denmark's capital because israel (and/or other states for that matter) doesn't recognize it as such.
It's really not that hard to understand ^^
I will spell this out as clearly as possible:
ISRAEL. CAN'T. ANNEX. EAST. JERUSALEM. LEGALLY.
Now, when you stated:
On December 02 2012 16:12 Ranizin wrote: Don't be too happy with the palestinian move about "making the negotiations more equal" - if they do one-sided moves then israel can as well, such as legally annexing territories (like they did with the Golan). It's a double-edged sword.
You were posting bullshit. Once again, because I really do not want you to miss this point for the 4.th time:
I think I figured your problem - it is that I said "legally annex" and not just "annex"? My bad then, I was translating a term from hebrew which might have dual meaning. What I meant was that annexation will put israeli law in effect in the annexed territory. I understand you might understood it as annexing the territory in accordance to the international law - if that is the case then I'm sorry for the misunderstanding.
East Jerusalem already has Israeli law in effect and has had so since 1967 when Israel tried to annex East Jerusalem the first time which was declared null and void by UNSC. Your initial statement about Israel "annexing" anything still does not make any sense.
That's because you seem to think that the only territory that can be annexed is east jerusalem (which is already annexed^^). Judea & Samaria currently are not annexed, the law in effect regarding those territories is ottomanian - but that's not very interesting, the practical effect is that once an area is annexed, it won't be torn from israel for future palestinian state. That is the case with the Golan, East Jerusalem and so it will be with future annexed areas in Judea & Samaria (which is where the future palestinian state is supposed to be).
EDIT: seeing your edit, I would like to say you give the international law way too much emphasis. In reality, it affects nothing.
If international law affected nothing then Israel would have no cause for acting like it is doing now. And international law matters when it is an unanimous decision in which even the major ally says "hey, what you did there was illegal". And no, just because you annex something it will not mean Israel gets to keep that land should a 2-state solution be made. There is a reason why the settlements are such a huge headache whenever there are negotiations.
As said, in practice international law has little effect, also if you ream my post you will see why Palestinian control of east Jerusalem wont happen. As to the settlements in general, for every settlement that has in it over 500+ people (or possible 1000, i cant recall) wont be returned instead, the equivalent land was offered in other areas.
I never said Palestenian control of East Jerusalem was going to happen - merely that the annexation is illegal - but nice attempt at strawmanning. And the issue of settlements are not solved although you might want to make it sound like that with the last half of your post.
It wasn't an analogy - it was not supposed to reflect the current situation of Jerusalem, what I did mean to do was to make you feel that the idea I proposed was completely absurd, which I think I managed to do. The way you felt? -people in israel feel exactly the same way about the idea of saying that Jerusalem is not their capital ^^
The only thing you managed to do was to sound like a complete idiot. You stated in your previous post that Israel should just legally annex East Jerusalem - something which I pointed out can not be done without international recognition and acceptance, which is not possible for Israel to obtain and hence the lack of embassies (even Israels biggest ally, USA, does not have an embassy in Jerusalem!)
I never said israel or the palestinians should make anything. I said annexing territories is a possible course of action, never said if I support it or not, and I absolutely never said that israel should annex east Jerusalem.
You can bring the embassy thing as much as you want, but in the end each state decides on it's own capital, Jerusalem is Israel's capital - it has the Knesset, the high-court and all the state offices. Thinking that any other state can change that is absurd just like saying that Copenhagen will cease to be Denmark's capital because israel (and/or other states for that matter) doesn't recognize it as such.
It's really not that hard to understand ^^
I will spell this out as clearly as possible:
ISRAEL. CAN'T. ANNEX. EAST. JERUSALEM. LEGALLY.
Now, when you stated:
On December 02 2012 16:12 Ranizin wrote: Don't be too happy with the palestinian move about "making the negotiations more equal" - if they do one-sided moves then israel can as well, such as legally annexing territories (like they did with the Golan). It's a double-edged sword.
You were posting bullshit. Once again, because I really do not want you to miss this point for the 4.th time:
I think I figured your problem - it is that I said "legally annex" and not just "annex"? My bad then, I was translating a term from hebrew which might have dual meaning. What I meant was that annexation will put israeli law in effect in the annexed territory. I understand you might understood it as annexing the territory in accordance to the international law - if that is the case then I'm sorry for the misunderstanding.
East Jerusalem already has Israeli law in effect and has had so since 1967 when Israel tried to annex East Jerusalem the first time which was declared null and void by UNSC. Your initial statement about Israel "annexing" anything still does not make any sense.
That's because you seem to think that the only territory that can be annexed is east jerusalem (which is already annexed^^). Judea & Samaria currently are not annexed, the law in effect regarding those territories is ottomanian - but that's not very interesting, the practical effect is that once an area is annexed, it won't be torn from israel for future palestinian state. That is the case with the Golan, East Jerusalem and so it will be with future annexed areas in Judea & Samaria (which is where the future palestinian state is supposed to be).
EDIT: seeing your edit, I would like to say you give the international law way too much emphasis. In reality, it affects nothing.
If international law affected nothing then Israel would have no cause for acting like it is doing now. And international law matters when it is an unanimous decision in which even the major ally says "hey, what you did there was illegal". And no, just because you annex something it will not mean Israel gets to keep that land should a 2-state solution be made. There is a reason why the settlements are such a huge headache whenever there are negotiations.
Going against international law gets you harsh words? my-oh-my... But seriously now, as someone who lives here trust me when I tell you that any action regarding the territories is hardly affected by things like international law, and more by local politics and local media coverage (which is again tied to politics).
As for the your statement about annexed territories (golan & east jerusalem) I can only say that you can believe whatever you want. Just keep in mind that you say that the settlements are "a huge headache in negotiations" and currently they are not in anexxed territories - one can imagine how much bigger of an headache they will be after.
The only thing you managed to do was to sound like a complete idiot. You stated in your previous post that Israel should just legally annex East Jerusalem - something which I pointed out can not be done without international recognition and acceptance, which is not possible for Israel to obtain and hence the lack of embassies (even Israels biggest ally, USA, does not have an embassy in Jerusalem!)
I never said israel or the palestinians should make anything. I said annexing territories is a possible course of action, never said if I support it or not, and I absolutely never said that israel should annex east Jerusalem.
You can bring the embassy thing as much as you want, but in the end each state decides on it's own capital, Jerusalem is Israel's capital - it has the Knesset, the high-court and all the state offices. Thinking that any other state can change that is absurd just like saying that Copenhagen will cease to be Denmark's capital because israel (and/or other states for that matter) doesn't recognize it as such.
It's really not that hard to understand ^^
I will spell this out as clearly as possible:
ISRAEL. CAN'T. ANNEX. EAST. JERUSALEM. LEGALLY.
Now, when you stated:
On December 02 2012 16:12 Ranizin wrote: Don't be too happy with the palestinian move about "making the negotiations more equal" - if they do one-sided moves then israel can as well, such as legally annexing territories (like they did with the Golan). It's a double-edged sword.
You were posting bullshit. Once again, because I really do not want you to miss this point for the 4.th time:
I think I figured your problem - it is that I said "legally annex" and not just "annex"? My bad then, I was translating a term from hebrew which might have dual meaning. What I meant was that annexation will put israeli law in effect in the annexed territory. I understand you might understood it as annexing the territory in accordance to the international law - if that is the case then I'm sorry for the misunderstanding.
East Jerusalem already has Israeli law in effect and has had so since 1967 when Israel tried to annex East Jerusalem the first time which was declared null and void by UNSC. Your initial statement about Israel "annexing" anything still does not make any sense.
That's because you seem to think that the only territory that can be annexed is east jerusalem (which is already annexed^^). Judea & Samaria currently are not annexed, the law in effect regarding those territories is ottomanian - but that's not very interesting, the practical effect is that once an area is annexed, it won't be torn from israel for future palestinian state. That is the case with the Golan, East Jerusalem and so it will be with future annexed areas in Judea & Samaria (which is where the future palestinian state is supposed to be).
EDIT: seeing your edit, I would like to say you give the international law way too much emphasis. In reality, it affects nothing.
If international law affected nothing then Israel would have no cause for acting like it is doing now. And international law matters when it is an unanimous decision in which even the major ally says "hey, what you did there was illegal". And no, just because you annex something it will not mean Israel gets to keep that land should a 2-state solution be made. There is a reason why the settlements are such a huge headache whenever there are negotiations.
Going against international law gets you harsh words? my-oh-my... But seriously now, as someone who lives here trust me when I tell you that any action regarding the territories is hardly affected by things like international law, and more by local politics and local media coverage (which is again tied to politics).
As for the your statement about annexed territories (golan & east jerusalem) I can only say that you can believe whatever you want. Just keep in mind that you say that the settlements are "a huge headache in negotiations" and currently they are not in anexxed territories - one can imagine how much bigger of an headache they will be after.
I'm done feeding the troll. Go find someone else to pester. I'll go to bed.
The only thing you managed to do was to sound like a complete idiot. You stated in your previous post that Israel should just legally annex East Jerusalem - something which I pointed out can not be done without international recognition and acceptance, which is not possible for Israel to obtain and hence the lack of embassies (even Israels biggest ally, USA, does not have an embassy in Jerusalem!)
I never said israel or the palestinians should make anything. I said annexing territories is a possible course of action, never said if I support it or not, and I absolutely never said that israel should annex east Jerusalem.
You can bring the embassy thing as much as you want, but in the end each state decides on it's own capital, Jerusalem is Israel's capital - it has the Knesset, the high-court and all the state offices. Thinking that any other state can change that is absurd just like saying that Copenhagen will cease to be Denmark's capital because israel (and/or other states for that matter) doesn't recognize it as such.
It's really not that hard to understand ^^
I will spell this out as clearly as possible:
ISRAEL. CAN'T. ANNEX. EAST. JERUSALEM. LEGALLY.
Now, when you stated:
On December 02 2012 16:12 Ranizin wrote: Don't be too happy with the palestinian move about "making the negotiations more equal" - if they do one-sided moves then israel can as well, such as legally annexing territories (like they did with the Golan). It's a double-edged sword.
You were posting bullshit. Once again, because I really do not want you to miss this point for the 4.th time:
I think I figured your problem - it is that I said "legally annex" and not just "annex"? My bad then, I was translating a term from hebrew which might have dual meaning. What I meant was that annexation will put israeli law in effect in the annexed territory. I understand you might understood it as annexing the territory in accordance to the international law - if that is the case then I'm sorry for the misunderstanding.
East Jerusalem already has Israeli law in effect and has had so since 1967 when Israel tried to annex East Jerusalem the first time which was declared null and void by UNSC. Your initial statement about Israel "annexing" anything still does not make any sense.
That's because you seem to think that the only territory that can be annexed is east jerusalem (which is already annexed^^). Judea & Samaria currently are not annexed, the law in effect regarding those territories is ottomanian - but that's not very interesting, the practical effect is that once an area is annexed, it won't be torn from israel for future palestinian state. That is the case with the Golan, East Jerusalem and so it will be with future annexed areas in Judea & Samaria (which is where the future palestinian state is supposed to be).
EDIT: seeing your edit, I would like to say you give the international law way too much emphasis. In reality, it affects nothing.
If international law affected nothing then Israel would have no cause for acting like it is doing now. And international law matters when it is an unanimous decision in which even the major ally says "hey, what you did there was illegal". And no, just because you annex something it will not mean Israel gets to keep that land should a 2-state solution be made. There is a reason why the settlements are such a huge headache whenever there are negotiations.
Going against international law gets you harsh words? my-oh-my... But seriously now, as someone who lives here trust me when I tell you that any action regarding the territories is hardly affected by things like international law, and more by local politics and local media coverage (which is again tied to politics).
As for the your statement about annexed territories (golan & east jerusalem) I can only say that you can believe whatever you want. Just keep in mind that you say that the settlements are "a huge headache in negotiations" and currently they are not in anexxed territories - one can imagine how much bigger of an headache they will be after.
Really, the term "International Law" makes it confusing. It's really just International Politics.
Israel cannot take actions that US cannot defensibly support. Well, it can, but doing so can cause Israel to be a liability rather than an asset. And you can see that annexing territory can irritate and cause concern for other countries that US has to deal with. Russia and China are some of the major players that would be concerned. Not to mention credibility when it comes to the idea of spreading 'freedom' through the world.
There is no denying a lot of local politics is at play as well. But to say it is only local isn't true.
There's also the factor of domestic US politics. If Israeli actions erode support domestically in the US, that can become an election issue.
On December 02 2012 06:44 ContrailNZ wrote: An ideal solution is for Palestine to merge with Egypt, and give a decent amount of land from Israel to Egypt at the border.
There will never be peace as long as it is in Iran's benefit to provide weapons through Egypt to Palestine.
The stalemate will just carry on and on until Iran runs out of oil money. Then the middle east goes to hell, with maybe Israel surviving.
That's a terrible solution. The best solution would be along the '67 borders. The majority supports it excluding Israel.
Because its unidentifiable and Israel won it in the war. Not to mention this still wont solve the Refugee issue.
You like to boast about Israel winning the war. You know, by talking to you and other Israeli posters here and in other threads, i got the impression that all of you think the only solution is a military one. Netanyahu thinks too as do 70% of your population (http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/162449#.ULqAJ4ey54M) I'd appreciate you to be honest and say it in full light.
Netanyahu is a warmonger, there is no denying, and when you have a warmonger leading a country with nuclear weapons, things don't tend to end well. With '67 borders the majority of the problems would be solved and it would be a great step toward more stability. Even Hamas accepts 67 borders. Obama too. Guess who doesn't. That sole fact explains how Netanyahu doesn't want peace.
The reason most people think that way is because of the second intifada, the situation in the west bank was the best it had ever been and relation were decent but there was discontent growing among the palestinians about corruption in the PA. It was a massive wave of violence that cost many lives, the Palestinian police that Israel armed and tried turn their guns on us. Not only that, we see what the Palestinian education system teach the children, the shows it broadcasts to it people its full of venom and religious zeal to kill Jews. These are some of the reason the majority dont ever see peace as possible, as the past has given us no reason to be optimistic.
You are demonizing entire people and you seem to silently consent what I said in the beginning. There are even shows and Jews talking about Muslims as if they were the worst of creation. But I am not using that as a reference to make my judgement of the whole nation. Your answers so far have been ''But, they did this'' only, how old are you?
for example:
24, but this isnt endorsed by the government or on national television.
Still it proves that there are extreme elements in your society too and that I do not make prejudices. You should too adopt the same attitude towards palestinians, because as long as you think that you are superior to them, peace will not happen and even if Israel crushes any of their opponents, tyranny can go only so far. It is in the longterm interest of both Israel and Palestine to reach peace as soon as possible.
The "funny" thing about that video is that it doesn't seem any different than my understanding of Radical Islamic people quoting scriptures from the Koran (Quran?) calling for the death of Infidels. Its so crazy to me that, in my assumption, the radical extremes of both groups are more alike than they'd probably care to admit.
This is the message that needs to take root in the hearts of Israel and Palestine, and the world in general.
The only thing you managed to do was to sound like a complete idiot. You stated in your previous post that Israel should just legally annex East Jerusalem - something which I pointed out can not be done without international recognition and acceptance, which is not possible for Israel to obtain and hence the lack of embassies (even Israels biggest ally, USA, does not have an embassy in Jerusalem!)
I never said israel or the palestinians should make anything. I said annexing territories is a possible course of action, never said if I support it or not, and I absolutely never said that israel should annex east Jerusalem.
You can bring the embassy thing as much as you want, but in the end each state decides on it's own capital, Jerusalem is Israel's capital - it has the Knesset, the high-court and all the state offices. Thinking that any other state can change that is absurd just like saying that Copenhagen will cease to be Denmark's capital because israel (and/or other states for that matter) doesn't recognize it as such.
It's really not that hard to understand ^^
I will spell this out as clearly as possible:
ISRAEL. CAN'T. ANNEX. EAST. JERUSALEM. LEGALLY.
Now, when you stated:
On December 02 2012 16:12 Ranizin wrote: Don't be too happy with the palestinian move about "making the negotiations more equal" - if they do one-sided moves then israel can as well, such as legally annexing territories (like they did with the Golan). It's a double-edged sword.
You were posting bullshit. Once again, because I really do not want you to miss this point for the 4.th time:
I think I figured your problem - it is that I said "legally annex" and not just "annex"? My bad then, I was translating a term from hebrew which might have dual meaning. What I meant was that annexation will put israeli law in effect in the annexed territory. I understand you might understood it as annexing the territory in accordance to the international law - if that is the case then I'm sorry for the misunderstanding.
East Jerusalem already has Israeli law in effect and has had so since 1967 when Israel tried to annex East Jerusalem the first time which was declared null and void by UNSC. Your initial statement about Israel "annexing" anything still does not make any sense.
That's because you seem to think that the only territory that can be annexed is east jerusalem (which is already annexed^^). Judea & Samaria currently are not annexed, the law in effect regarding those territories is ottomanian - but that's not very interesting, the practical effect is that once an area is annexed, it won't be torn from israel for future palestinian state. That is the case with the Golan, East Jerusalem and so it will be with future annexed areas in Judea & Samaria (which is where the future palestinian state is supposed to be).
EDIT: seeing your edit, I would like to say you give the international law way too much emphasis. In reality, it affects nothing.
If international law affected nothing then Israel would have no cause for acting like it is doing now. And international law matters when it is an unanimous decision in which even the major ally says "hey, what you did there was illegal". And no, just because you annex something it will not mean Israel gets to keep that land should a 2-state solution be made. There is a reason why the settlements are such a huge headache whenever there are negotiations.
As said, in practice international law has little effect, also if you ream my post you will see why Palestinian control of east Jerusalem wont happen. As to the settlements in general, for every settlement that has in it over 500+ people (or possible 1000, i cant recall) wont be returned instead, the equivalent land was offered in other areas.
I think it hilarious that you went from using international law to claim the naval blockade is legal to saying it doesn't matter. You change your opinion and your "facts" to fit whatever you are trying to argue, and several times you posted stuff to back you up but it really countered your argument. It's a good thing you're not a professional debater. I guess we are wasting our time talking about this with anyone from Israel, they all seem extremely stubborn and refuse to listen to reason.
I never said israel or the palestinians should make anything. I said annexing territories is a possible course of action, never said if I support it or not, and I absolutely never said that israel should annex east Jerusalem.
You can bring the embassy thing as much as you want, but in the end each state decides on it's own capital, Jerusalem is Israel's capital - it has the Knesset, the high-court and all the state offices. Thinking that any other state can change that is absurd just like saying that Copenhagen will cease to be Denmark's capital because israel (and/or other states for that matter) doesn't recognize it as such.
It's really not that hard to understand ^^
I will spell this out as clearly as possible:
ISRAEL. CAN'T. ANNEX. EAST. JERUSALEM. LEGALLY.
Now, when you stated:
On December 02 2012 16:12 Ranizin wrote: Don't be too happy with the palestinian move about "making the negotiations more equal" - if they do one-sided moves then israel can as well, such as legally annexing territories (like they did with the Golan). It's a double-edged sword.
You were posting bullshit. Once again, because I really do not want you to miss this point for the 4.th time:
I think I figured your problem - it is that I said "legally annex" and not just "annex"? My bad then, I was translating a term from hebrew which might have dual meaning. What I meant was that annexation will put israeli law in effect in the annexed territory. I understand you might understood it as annexing the territory in accordance to the international law - if that is the case then I'm sorry for the misunderstanding.
East Jerusalem already has Israeli law in effect and has had so since 1967 when Israel tried to annex East Jerusalem the first time which was declared null and void by UNSC. Your initial statement about Israel "annexing" anything still does not make any sense.
That's because you seem to think that the only territory that can be annexed is east jerusalem (which is already annexed^^). Judea & Samaria currently are not annexed, the law in effect regarding those territories is ottomanian - but that's not very interesting, the practical effect is that once an area is annexed, it won't be torn from israel for future palestinian state. That is the case with the Golan, East Jerusalem and so it will be with future annexed areas in Judea & Samaria (which is where the future palestinian state is supposed to be).
EDIT: seeing your edit, I would like to say you give the international law way too much emphasis. In reality, it affects nothing.
If international law affected nothing then Israel would have no cause for acting like it is doing now. And international law matters when it is an unanimous decision in which even the major ally says "hey, what you did there was illegal". And no, just because you annex something it will not mean Israel gets to keep that land should a 2-state solution be made. There is a reason why the settlements are such a huge headache whenever there are negotiations.
As said, in practice international law has little effect, also if you ream my post you will see why Palestinian control of east Jerusalem wont happen. As to the settlements in general, for every settlement that has in it over 500+ people (or possible 1000, i cant recall) wont be returned instead, the equivalent land was offered in other areas.
I think it hilarious that you went from using international law to claim the naval blockade is legal to saying it doesn't matter. You change your opinion and your "facts" to fit whatever you are trying to argue, and several times you posted stuff to back you up but it really countered your argument. It's a good thing you're not a professional debater. I guess we are wasting our time talking about this with anyone from Israel, they all seem extremely stubborn and refuse to listen to reason.
Rofl - nothing against Israelis and Israeli in general and but stubborness is a defining factor of a typical Israeli. Don't take that as me saying anything about their ability to debate effectively, but your statement is pretty funny due to the typical Israeli personality.
It would be great if we could redirect this discussion to what the PLO actually gets out of the new vote, and how it effects the peace process.
EPT
