Haifa Court Rules Against Rachel Corrie

Buck8/29/2012 9:57:12 am PDT

re: #186 Destro

You are right, there was a shift from calling it “occupied to disputed” in an attempt to legitimize a land grab but international law says otherwise.

That is YOUR biased opinion on why.

However you are only entitled to your opinion not your own facts.

The land was returned to the Jews. It was occupied by Jordan in 1948 and real ethnic cleansing took place. An actual war crime. The land was recovered by Israel in 1967. At no time was the title or deed transferred to anyone else. According to international law, it is Israel. It was part of the land that Britain had a mandate to help the Jews turn into a country.

There is nothing in international law that says otherwise.

No UN resolution, no judgement.

In fact International law says what is done cannot be undone. That land was in 1920 transferred (returned) to the historical owners.

After that time, many Arabs immigrated en masse to the desolate region to take advantage of the economic development created by the Zionists. Arabs constituted 37 percent of the total immigration to pre-state Israel. The descendants of Arabs who immigrated in pursuit of jobs and economic opportunity are not the indigenous people of the region. The Jews are.

Why is it that in your opinion only Jews are not allowed to live there? How can you justify rewarding a continuing a policy of ethnic cleansing?