Your suggesting The Oslo agreement was a sale of the land of Palestine, by the Palestinians to the founders of Israel.
Sorry but The Oslo agreement was 70 years later, in 1993. It was an agreement for the two sides to talk. Nothing more.
Israel did not buy the land. It is a lie to suggest it.
I am not using the oslo agreement to show the jews have ownership of that land greg, like a lawyer I am using everything I have from oslo agreements.....to the UN mandate.....to the transfer of that land from the british to the UN which then gave it to Israel to show the Israeli didnt come in illegally like a conquering army.this is important, as it shows that I'm looking at things in a legal means and your looking at things in an emotional way which isnt legal. the palestinians didnt have ownership...the israel didnt have ownership......the UN did. its decision was LEGAL
besides,one thing thats noticeable, you seem to be ignorant of the fact that like its name, it was called the oslo AGREEMENT.I'm using it as further proof that agreements were made in the history of these 2 groups on legal means between Israel/palestinian as far as relations.not about ownership of land.
The Accords were finalized in Oslo, Norway on 20 August 1993, and subsequently officially signed at a public ceremony in Washington D.C. on 13 September 1993, with Yasser Arafat signing for the Palestine Liberation Organization and Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin signing for the State of Israel. It was witnessed by Warren Christopher for the United States and Andrei Kozyrev for Russia, in the presence of US
once again, though, an agreement apparently means nothing if only one party is interested in follwoing the agreement.hey, I dont like all laws either. but its part of life greg. it shouldnt be an excuse for violence.
Of course Jewish people lived there in biblical time. So did another people the "Philistines" which the name Palestine is derived from.
If you use the bible to legitimise things, then there should be a muti-ethnic Palestine.
You quote Wiki to imply Jews lived in Palestine continuously. But the article says the opposite
not clear on your meaning of "continously."on one hand your saying "of course" the jews lived there during biblical time, then you switch gears and say they didnt. which is it?
in the sense they were pushed out from their land,and as thus couldnt live there continously? well thats a big duh greg.
You quote the 1948 act of the UN to divide Palestine into two states.
So you are saying the legal border of Israel is the 1948 border ?
what are you sayin? seeing as egypt, jordan and syria seized lands the UN designated in 1947 for the independent Palestinian Arab state.
and further if your going to mention the mandate, 3 days before the british mandate was to end, Israel had to go to war
The war was declared by the Arabs, after their rejection of the 1947 United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine (UN General Assembly Resolution 181) that would have created an Arab state and a Jewish state
you know why I bring up these things greg, its because I am showing,every...step of the way,the Israeli were trying to find a way to live with the palestinians legally and every step of the way,they....or their neighbors attacked Israel when they could have made it work.
That's a rash thing for an American to say. After WW2 the holocuast survivors wanted to emigrate to America.
The U.S. did not want them and so threw its support into the creation of Israel
your a laugh riot greg,I'll give you that. its true some people wanted to emigrate to america,not unlike they were emigrating whevere they could for lack of their own home. that was NEVER going to be anything to replace having their holy land back.
like I said to patrick, in this world, there is law....or there is unlawful.....there is authority....there is legal and illegal.
the british who had control over that land gave it to the UN who gave it to Israel.
that was a LEGAL action. they had the right to do so whether emotionally you think its not right to do that to the palestinians.
your arument is an emotional one, and as such can be done away with, as unfair as you think it is, the tenant isnt in control over the landlord.