No, I don't think so. Why?
Because all land has been gained through war. I thought it was illegal to gain land through war. Aren't you saying that Israel has to give back the land it gained through war? If so, why shouldn't America have to give back ALL of America to it's rightful owners?
Are you saying that Palestinians aren't allowed to live in Israel?
How do you define "claim to"?
http://www.fas.org/irp/world/para/docs/880818a.htm
"Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it." - Preamble

"The Day of Judgment will not come about until Moslems fight Jews and kill them." - Article 7

__________________
In this country, we don't need reasons to make things legal; we need reasons to make things illegal. - Startup

Didnt Germany lose that teritory in a war prior to Oct. 45?
Read again what he said (hint: its in bold).
Bc the law was created after 1945? But ill second the idea of returning land to the natives .

Who made the rules? Just wondering....

And, yes, the US can do whatever they want with Iraq. A big man can punch a smaller man if he wants to. Your idea that the strongest can just take whatever he can "win" sounds a bit weird. If that was true, then couldn't I just go and e.g. take a man's car if he can't resist. The car would be the "spoils of war" and my property.

The fact that something is the way it is doesn't make it right, and also doesn't make it less important to debate the issue. It's a lousy excuse for anything that "that's just the way things are".


According to your logic war seems to be an ok thing. Isn't the Palestinians then only trying to be the group of barbarians to kick Israel out?

__________________

@Bond369 - first, nice to see you again. Second, okay, so Palestinians aren't allowed to return to live on the contested land?
Then who should we give your land back to?
The first big, hairy, Cromagnon who beat his neighbor over the head with a club and took his leg of deer.
Is it my idea? Do you disagree that this is how things are?
Sure, you can do this. Will there be consequences? Probably. Unless you live somewhere there are no authorities.

We're getting way off topic here.
I wasn't debating whether it was right or wrong from a moral perspective. It is how it is.
Again, I never said that. If you are going to argue that since Israel never was given the land they currently occupy, that they obtained this land through an illegal war, then you have to agree that ALL land must be given back to its rightful owners. I'm challenging you to both admit that and to find the "rightful" owners of all land.
Yes.

__________________
In this country, we don't need reasons to make things legal; we need reasons to make things illegal. - Startup

fatboy:

The US, by greenlighting Israel to annex land and deny a right of return to Palestinian refugees is advocating actions that are illegal under international law. The reason I asked if the law should be changed is because if these types of actions are ok, then shouldn't international law reflect this reality?

Well, in my opinion Israel should give up this land. She doesen't have to, though I think it is in her best interest to do so. But the important issue here is that her plan to annex portions of this territory is illegal.

Who are America's rightful owners? The Indians? Don't American Indians have the right to live on their land? Are there a large group of disenfranchised Americans who seek to return to their ancestral homelands?

Yes. Most Palestinians are not allowed to live on the land that is now Israel.

Thats actually kind of a tough question to answer in a complete way. For our purposes here considering the case of the Palestinians, I would have to say that their "claim" to the land has to do with the fact that their ancestors lived on the land for generations, possibly millennia. For Jews, the land has a special spiritual significance, with frequent references to the holy land in the Torah.

With regards to the Hamas charter, I think you are mistaken. The passage you quoted:

is taken from the sayings of the Prophet Muhammad. I think (though I'm not sure) that this is referring to an "end of days" scenario, maybe like a Koranic "revelations"? Are there any Muslims here or Koranic scholars who can shed some light on this?

This is referring to Israel as a JEWISH state. This meme is common among Palestinian resistance groups. The original charter of the PLO (pre-Madrid) also called for the destruction of Israel.

The most explicit mention of how Jews & Christians would be treated in a HAMAS state can be found in article 31: The Hamas is a humane movement

http://www.acpr.org.il/resources/hamascharter.html

First, I would argue with the term "greenlighting". It presumes that the US is the judge and jury of the world. I think many would disagree with that assumption. I know I would.

Second, if there's a law there needs to be some authority which will enforce that law and administer the consequences for breaking the law. Since there is no authority in the world willing or able to enforce such a law it is as good as non existent.
I agree. If Israel wants to grab other sections of land that they didn't gain through the '67 war then they should be stopped. I've read your linked article again and I don't see anything about Bush saying he supports Sharon's plan to take land that's not his. I see Bush slapping Sharon on the back for giving up land that Israel doesn't have to give up.
Who knows? How far back do you go?
That's not true. Nearly 20% of Israel's population is non-Jewish Arab.
The Jews claim that the land was promised to them by God, and they have also had a population there for thousands of years.
I'm confused. Isn't that line in the charter? So what if Muhammed said it?
Are you seriously trying to claim that Hamas is a humane movement?

__________________
In this country, we don't need reasons to make things legal; we need reasons to make things illegal. - Startup

@fatboy: Well ty, nice to see you and others as well.
Contested land would be the one ranging from 1967(?) borders to the land that todays settlements occupy. Palestinians arent alowed to return into Israel(without illegal settlements) and, i think, to occupied(gaza, w .b.) land as well.
My land? You mean that "my" land belongs to some other nation that lived on it before Slovenians moved to it? Well according to the international law that land belongs to Slovenia since the law wasnt in effect when "we" moved to this area. Or did you mean something else?
There is an authority that should enforce such laws (UN), but it has a certain flaw in it - veto (as well as the fact that countries breaching that law have the ability to destroy the entire planet... hence pontless to enforcing such laws through fighting).

I didn't know that. I wonder where the 20% of non-Jewish Arabs in Israel live?
Then I guess I'm safe too, since we took America away from the natives long before 1945.
Then that's a flawed system isn't it? Maybe the other nations should get together and form their own club and put the US under some pressure - either economic or military. Or isn't it worth it?

Look, the point is that several Arab nations decided to "wipe Israel off the map". They thought they could do it, and they didn't. They started a war and lost; they were the agressors. In losing that war they lost some land. A few of those Arab nations decided to sue for peace and, in the process, recovered some of their lost land. A few of those Arab nations insist on continuing the war, and as such, continue to forfeit their land. Now, we're (the West) supposed to come down in favor of the people who started the whole thing and demand that the defender give back the land? That just doesn't make any sense to me. This is the real world, where there are real consequences for the actions you take. If you're not willing to suffer the consequences, then don't go around starting wars.

But to get back on topic, just because Bush pats Sharon on the back for deciding to give some of the land back doesn't mean he's negotiating for the Palestinians or violating international law or human rights.

__________________
In this country, we don't need reasons to make things legal; we need reasons to make things illegal. - Startup

I think greenlighting is a pretty accurate word in this case to describe what the US is saying to Israel. Isn't the US "giving the green light to" Israel to do what she wants in this instance? How does the US giving its approval to the annexation of land and the barring of refugees from returning to their land presume that the US is the judge and jury of the world?

Bush said:

That doesen't change the fact that most Palestinians are excluded from living on the land that is now Israel

Well Hamas is an Islamic movement. It would thus make sense for their charter to have numerous Koranic references. As I've already said, I beleive this line has to do more with an "end of days" scenario rather than the political objectives of HAMAS.

A large part of the HAMAS movement is about providing charity and assistance to poor Palestinians. In this sense Hamas is a humane movement. As for their political objectives, I dont really see how there is any moral difference between the political platform of Hamas as compared to the Jewish state of Israel. One is a Jewish state, the other advocates an Islamic one. To me, the obvious solution here is a secular state in which both parties can live in equality.