lorenzojhwh
our country is so threatened with death by Satanists Tajani Masons Junker EU Shariah Rothschild shadow government Bilderberg: high betrayal the seigniorage bank .. that now, too: the abominations of Nazism and fascism would pass into the background!

lorenzojhwh
Do not be satisfied with small things. God wants them great. If you will be what you need to be, you will set fire all over Italy. St. Catherine of Siena Unius REI the fire of love all over the world!

Bin SALMAN Riad] we must not, ever depend on the supernatural (even if we can have access to it)
because the supernatural is always idolatry:
it is an inevitable mortal sin
that's why, the kabbalah of the Talmud and Koran are one way to hell!
but there is no true prophet or true minister of God
who has access to the supernatural, for his will

Bin SALMAN Riad ] noi non dobbiamo, mai dipendere dal soprannaturale (anche nel caso in cui possiamo averne accesso)
perché il soprannaturale è sempre idolatria:
è un inevitabile peccato mortale
ecco perché,la kabbalah del Talmud e del Corano sono una sola strada per l'inferno!
ma non esiste un vero profeta o un vero ministro di Dio
che ha accesso al soprannaturale a suo piacimento

Bin Salman Riad] when the Wahhabis pushed: all the lay Muslims, of the whole ARABA LEAGUE to become Islamic shariah?
already the Pharisees Enlightened SpA FED Morgan, etc .. they had already created the terrible churches of Satan of the CIA and in NATO, with all their cannibals and every perversionLGBTQ!
but now only Unius REI can raise mankind from the abyss of destruction because of you!

Bin SALMAN Riad] quando i wahhabiti hanno spinto: tutti i musulmani laici, di tutta la LEGA ARABA a diventare islamici?
già i Farisei Enlightened SpA FED Morgan, ecc.. loro avevano già creato le terribili chiese di Satana della CIA e nella NATO, con tutti i loro cannibali ed ogni perversioneLGBTQ!
ma, adesso soltanto Unius REI può risollevare il genere umano dall'abisso della distruzione per colpa vostra!

Bin SALMAN Riad] I do not know how a religion could be saved,
whose principal prophet Muhammad is in hell.
he absolutely contradicts the concept, and it is your main axiom of faith: that is: "God is the source of all good and rational justice!"

non so come potrebbe essere salvifica una religione,
il cui principale profeta Maometto è all'inferno.
lui contraddice assolutamente il concetto che: è un Vostro pincipale assioma di fede: cioè che: " Dio è la fonte di ogni bene e di ogni giustizia razionale!"

I know it's easy to believe, but if we have "Fort Trump" in Poland, the "Bolshevik Indians" must certainly exist too

questione-risolta-creazione-base-fort-trump-polonia-varsavia-spese-milioni-usa/
so che è facile da potersi credere, ma, se in Polonia noi abbiamo "Fort Trump" certo dovranno pur esistere gli "indiani bolscevichi"

It really is a shame to see this response from Israel. The action by AIRbnb is long overdue. To carry out a business in territory that is illegally occupied where illegal colonial settlemets exist is immoral.
This withdrawl from the West Bank should also be applied to the Golan and East Jerusalem where the Israeli occupation is also illegal.

Show me the law which states the settlements are illegal.

The Geneva convention which explicitly forbids civilian settlements of the occupier in militarily occupied territories.

Wow, you changed the topic quickly...........

Terry, you are making the mistake of the attacking the messenger. That is a typical Zionist tactic. Abe Simhoney state the illegal Jewish settlement violates international law. Harvel asked to proof it. She then sited the Geneva Convention for you two dummy. Now you are ganging against her like the pack of hungry hyenas like in the movie the Lion King, who encircled cub Simba and wanted to
make a cub sandwich out of him. By frequently calling everyone with whom you disagree names, you proved to me that you are intellectually lazy.

"By frequently calling everyone with whom you disagree names, you proved to me that you are intellectually lazy."
Let's see if we can spot the hypocrisy in that statement...

FORCED transfer dear boy . Israelis were not forced to transfer to their own land . That is why the GC does not apply . Back to the drawing board for you .

Israel does not have and never has had any legitimate or moral claim til land in Palestine so Israelis are not transfering to their own land they are transfering to land that they has stolen from the Palestinians.

If the ‘ Palestinians ‘ are indigenous to the area, then what wars or
battles were waged by Palestinians against various historical invaders
from 3000 BC to 1948.

If such battles or wars occurred, who were the Palestinian leaders during these skirmishes?

It wasn't really occupied. It was liberated.

It is illegally occupied by Israel. That it was illegally occupied by Jordan before that does not change that fact.

Really?! Why nobody objected to "illegal" occupation of Jordan?
Lets summarize what you are saying. Jordan occupied it illegally. Before that (lets forget about the British occupation), it was occupied by Ottomans. Was that legal? If not, before them it was occupied by Crusaders. Was that legal? Before them, it was occupied by Roman. Was that Legal? Before Romans, it was occupied by Greeks. Was that Legal? How about Persians? Babylonians? And before them, it was occupied by Jews. And before Jews, it was occupied by.....whom? So who can occupy it legally? You just pick the point in history that suits your narrative? It doesn;t work that way

It does no such thing.

The most sound and intelligent post I read on this website. Bravo Abe!

Shame shame shame is all I can say to you

Dude, you are as dumb as a rock, you propably think the Dead Sea was killed by an Arab.

israel knew from day one that settlements would be, were and are illegal.:

" Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Jerusalem, 13 Elul 5727
18 September 1967

TOP SECRET

To : Mr Adi Yafeh, Political Secretary to the Prime Minister
From : Legal Adviser, Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Subject: Settlement in the Administered Territories

At your and Mr Raviv’s request, I am enclosing herewith a
copy of my memorandum of 14.9.67 on the above subject, which I
submitted to the Minister of Foreign Affairs. My conclusion is that
civilian settlement in the administered territories contravenes
explicit provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention.

Regards,
[signed]
T. Meron

Copy: Mr A. Shimoni, Head of the Minister’s Office

Whats illegal about it? Before Israel, Judea and Samaria was occupied by Jordan. Was that illegal too? Who should Israel return the territories to? Jordan gave up any claims so should Israel return it to Turkey?!

It should be returned to its inhabitants, to the Palestinian people.

If the Jewish inhabitants? LOL, you are truly stupid.

How many, if any, Jewish inhabitants, Israeli ones, were there before the Israeli occupation in 1967? Am I stupid because I seem to disagree with you?

Jews were expelled from the West Bank by Jordan in 1948 dope!!

Most of those Jews were immigrants or descendants of immigrants that had come to this area less than 70 years before. That does not give Israel any legitimate or moral claim to this area or put any legality to those illegal settlements.

Same time a bunch of Arabs came to Palestine to work since the Jews were building up the land.

The 'palestinians' are an ersatz group created by the Russians during the Cold War (PLO and such...) The arabs can' t even pronounce the 'p'. At best they are balestinians... before 1948 they were Syrians, Egyptians, Iraquis, etc. There is already one 'balestinian' state. It's called Jordan.

In 1820, it was reported that there were about 1,000 Jews in Hebron,[229]
In 1838, Hebron had an estimated 1,500 taxable Muslim households, in
addition to 41 Jewish tax-payers. Taxpayers consisted here of male heads
of households who owned even a very small shop or piece of land. 200
Jews and one Christian household were under 'European protections'. The
total population was estimated at 10,000.[123]
In 1842, it was estimated that about 400 Arab and 120 Jewish families
lived in Hebron, the latter having been diminished in number following
the destruction of 1834.[230]

Well, in case you are not up to date on news, it was returned to original palestinians. Also brush up on history, it will help you make sense of the world

When and how. I think it’s you who has to brush up on history.

The acquisition of territory by bellicose means is illegal. It does not matter if it is a war of agression, a war of defence or whatever the hasbara flavour of the month tells you....it is illegal.

Both Israel and the Palestinians claim the territory but the best claim lies firmly at the feet of the Palestinians. All of the territory called the West Bank, taken illegally by Israel in the war of 1967, rigtfully and legally belongs to the Palestinians.

Also as you well know all territory taken by Israel in the war of 1967 is illegally occupied and that includes all of East Jerusalem.

PS: the occupation by Jordan was also illegal according to law.

Prior to 1967 there was no such thing as the West Bank. I challenge anyone to produce an internationally recognised atlas from 1700, 1800, 1900, 1918, 1945, 1949, or even 1966 that discloses anything known as the West Bank. To say that Israel took over the West Bank and remains in occupation of it presupposes that there was such a thing called the West Bank and that Israel captured it. If it didn’t exist, it could not be captured. So who did this area belong to prior to the 1967 Six Day War. Jordan. Israel arttemptrd to give it back to Jordan but the Arabs went to Khartoum and announced “no recognition, no negotiation, no peace.” So the Arabs actually gave it up. They gave it up. So it now belongs to Israel. Please. Look at UN resolution 242 and you will not find any reference to Palestine or Palestinians. They were not parties to the dispute. The parties to the dispute (the Six Day War) were the nation states that fought the war. The Palestinians who fought alongside the Allies in WW11 were all Jews. It’s just a nonsense to talk about Palestinians as if there was ever such a people who inhabited such a land. The land belongs to Israel. And what’s more, @the Palestinians were offered their own state in 1949, 1967, 2001 and in 2098. Each time, they refused. Put simply, you cannot get today what you could have got70 years ago, or even 10 years ago. It’s not possible. That is the International Law. Israel is not going to give it back unless watertight agreements can be entered into that guarantee Israel’s security. These agreements can only come about through negotiations. If one party refuses to negotiate, there will not be any agreement and the land will remain Israeli forever. And if you don’t like the sound of that, you had better get used to it.

It is referred to by many as the West Bank and by a few reference is made to ancient biblical names. It does not matter because UNSCR 242 clearly states that Israel has to withdraw from the territories (West Bank) illegally taken in the war of 1967.
So what are you trying to say?

Your opinion on this matter holds no weight on the international legal stage.

Israel is the illegal occupier .....period.

Treaty of Sevres, Article 95 ratified by all League of Nations August 10, 1920.

he High Contracting Parties agree to entrust, by application of the provisions of Article 22, the administration of Palestine, within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers, to a Mandatory to be selected by the said Powers. The Mandatory will be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2, 1917, by the British Government, and adopted by the other Allied Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.

The Mandatory undertakes to appoint as soon as possible a special Commission to study and regulate all questions and claims relating to the different religious communities. In the composition of this Commission the religious interests concerned will be taken into account. The Chairman of the Commission will be appointed by the Council of the League of Nations.

" the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people" : Please note it says a "national home" not a state.
Added to which the "national home " was to be "IN" Palestine not in place of it.

So what are you trying to say?

What was the area now called Jordan called before it became an independent state (before Trans-Jordan in case you try to be smart about it)? What percentage of the former area does it represent?

Once again what point are you trying to make?

We both know full well that there was a Mandate for Trans-Jordan and a Mandate for Palestine..... so what?

Please stop making up facts. There was no such thing as a "Mandate for Trans-Jordan". The mandate for Palestine covered the area that now includes Israel and Jordan.

Stop being pendantic. We both know what you have written but the reality was different as the British treated them as separate identities etc.

Once again where are you going in your comments?
Israel is the illegal occupier of all of the West Bank, including East Jerusalem.
The colonial settlements are also illegal. Airbnb did the right thing.
If you can't defend whatever position is then don't answer my comments.

You see, now you have finally completely discredited yourself. when you are backed into a corner with verifiable facts you go and make up things. Being pedantic in this case is being accurate. You can't just will a "mandate for trans-jordan" into existence after the fact!
I thought you may have been some sort of AI, just copy 'n' pasting the phrases that you know would troll the majority of viewers of this forum, but you have indeed showed a creative streak with your fantasy inventions.
Just repeating over and over again the usual "illegal occupation" nonsense doesn't convince anyone. If you want to claim something is illegal, quote directly which law it contravenes and which court applied that law to the case. If you can't do that, then that might give you a clue that you need to reassess your attitude and do some studying outside your echo chamber.

In 1922 the Mandate for Palestine was divided into two parts One was the Mandate for Palestine and the other was a separate administration for trans Jordan. This was legaised by the L of N in the same year. Inother words two seperate identities. The palestinian Mandate was to allw Jews to have a "homeland" (not a state) "IN" the territory. You then cry foul because thweword "mandate" was used with reference to Jordan. It just demonstrates the paucity of your position and desperation on your part to defend a lost cause.

Regarding the illegality of the Israeli ocupaion of the West Bank the law clearly states the following :

""Brownlie's Principles of Public International Law", by James Crawford.

" ( A ) Transfer by an Aggressor

The Modern Law forbids conquest and regards a treaty of cession imposed by force as a nullity, a logical extension of the prohibition on the use of force contained in Article 2 (4) of the UN Charter. Even if the vice in title can be cured by recognition of third states, it is clear that the loser is not precluded from challenging and title based upon a transfer from the aggressor. It is the force of a powerful prohibition , the stamp of illegality, which operates here rather than the principle 'nemo dat uod non habet'. In the event , the Charter era has been attended by far less acquisition of territory by force by periods before it. This is reflected in the terms of the SC resolution 242 (1967) which highlighted the inadmissabiltiy of the acquisition of territory by force , and more emphatically the Friendly Relations Declaration of 1970 which stipulates that :
No territorial acquisition resulting from the threat or use of force shall be recognised as legal. "

The occupation is illegal.

The Jewish colonial settlements are also illegal which was recognised from day one by the Jewish government of Israel in 1967.

"" Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Jerusalem, 13 Elul 5727
18 September 1967

TOP SECRET

To : Mr Adi Yafeh, Political Secretary to the Prime Minister
From : Legal Adviser, Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Subject: Settlement in the Administered Territories

At your and Mr Raviv’s request, I am enclosing herewith a
copy of my memorandum of 14.9.67 on the above subject, which I
submitted to the Minister of Foreign Affairs. My conclusion is that
civilian settlement in the administered territories contravenes
explicit provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention.

Regards,
[signed]
T. Meron

Copy: Mr A. Shimoni, Head of the Minister’s Office"

if you were to read the whole document you will see that the Israeli government immediately looks for ways to circumvent the illegality of creating settlements and how to decieve and corrupt the existing law upon which illegality is based.

All of my points stand and are firmly based upon international law.

Israel is the illegal occupier of all of the West Bank including East Jerusalem.
The Jewish colonial settlements are illegal.

The territory in question was occupied by Jordan when Israel "acquired" it. "war of defence" is not flavor of month, its reality and historical fact. What is "flavor of month" is the fiction of Arabs calling themselves "Palestinian", when in reality true Palestinians are Jews.
And re you PS, read my comment to your other foreign sounding handle down below

Jorda did occupy the West Bank but as I wrote, which you seem to have ignored, that too was illegal.
Uou have also ignore the core of the matter. The Israeli occupation according to international law is illegal.
So too are the colonial settlements....illegal.

In other words accept the truth and deal with the issue when you respond.

Your ignorance is your bliss. Ignorance loves company - too bad there are so many more out there like you.