PA minister claims Western Wall as Palestinian land

[Mosby]

Jerusalem, including the Western Wall, rightfully belongs to the Palestinians, PA Minister of Religious Affairs Mahmoud al Habbash stated in a Channel 10 interview Monday.

"There will not be peace without putting an end to the Israeli occupation that began in 1967. Every piece of land that Israel conquered then belongs to the Palestinians," claimed Habbash.

http://www.jpost.com/Diplomacy-and-Politics/PA-minister-claims-Western-Wall-as-Palestinian-land-341040

[madaboutharry]

1. That isn't going to be helpful.

[sabbat hunter]

2. There are ministers in teh PA

that say that the Western Wall is not really part of any Jewish temple and it is a falsehood that jews made up after the Balfour Declaration.
They also say that the wall is actually part of the Al-asqa mosque, thus belongs to Islam and not to ISrael or Jews.

[Scootaloo]

3. And?

As of this moment? It is Palestinian. Just as the rest of the city is. Along with the rest of the west bank. And quite a bit more besides.

Turns out shoving your gun in someone's face doesn't actually give you legal right to their territory. Who knew, right?

[sabbat hunter]

4. Because

it shows that the PA leadership will not protect rights of Jews to access their holy site, furthering the idea that they should not control the old city. Even beyond the fact that it never belonged to them in the first place. No political control = not belonging to you.

And we have gone back and forth on this before. There was never a country of Palestine, just a Mandate/province. Therefore nothing is automatically under their control until a country is formed. Living on land does not equal automatically it being under your political control.
If it was, then we would already have a Kurdistan.

Despite your claims, Jordan controlled the WB for its own benefit, it was a full and complete annexation (one that they did not give up on until 1988). Until 1988 for 40 years Jordan claimed the WB as integral part of its country.



Jerusalem was supposed to be internationalized under 181. Just because one side rejected that, does not mean that they get rewarded for their rejection and mistake.

So quite a bit more than the WB belongs to a Palestine? Do you mean that you believe that Israel should withdraw to the 181 lines?
What else besides the WB (and Gaza) belongs to a Palestine?



Do you also believe that east Prussia, Danzig (now called Gdańsk) should go back to Germany, after it was taken by force from Germany after WW2 and truly ethnically cleansed (all germans were removed from that area, forced to relocate or killed). Germany was not given a choice in this matter. Russia made the decision for them.

[Scootaloo]

5. Actually, it shows the opposite, Sabbat

it shows that the PA leadership will not protect rights of Jews to access their holy site

This is where i have to point out that you step over the line from "being wrong" to "lying out your fucking ass." The worst thing is, it's not even a halfway decent lie, because if we click on the link, and read the article...

When asked whether Jews will be able to pray at the Western Wall, Habbash said that politics and religion are two separate things and that there will be no religious limitations.

"Ahalan Wasahalan! (Welcome, Welcome!) All may worship as they wish under the Palestinian Authority," exclaimed Habbash.

Tadaa, your claim is bogus, baseless, and a complete - and deliberate - mischaracterization.

Even beyond the fact that it never belonged to them in the first place. No political control = not belonging to you.

Might makes right, once again. Your argument is that being politically weak strips away all rights, except those that the powerful kick down. While I suppose you haven't thought of these concepts beyond the momentary need of defending an indefensible position by Israel, I want you to think long and hard.

How could this concept backfire? How could granting the powerful the sole privilege to determine who has rights, come back to bite you in the ass?

Here's a hint: "History of the Jews."

And we have gone back and forth on this before. There was never a country of Palestine, just a Mandate/province. Therefore nothing is automatically under their control until a country is formed. Living on land does not equal automatically it being under your political control.

And as we've been over before, political control does not translate into territorial rights. If it does, I don't think I'd see Zionists so often squawking on about Western Sahara, Cyprus, or Tibet (not that any of them seem to actually care about these cases, but whatever.)

I've also covered that nation-states are optional methods of territorial organization. I understand it can be a difficult concept to understand, given the prevalence of the nation-state today, but it's not mandatory for territorial rights.

If it was, then we would already have a Kurdistan.

I've already explained this one to you as well. Seriously it is not a hard concept to grasp.

Kurdistan is a thing. It exists. However it happens to exist within the legal boundaries of other states. That being the case, those states have the territorial rights to the lands that make up Kurdistan.

Palestine also exists, is also a thing. The difference is that it exists outside the boundaries of any other state. it is under a military occupation by one of its neighbors, but that does not cause Palestine to lose territorial rights in the way that Kurdistan does.

The only point where the two cross is the subject of independent statehood - which is a question of politics, not territorial rights. Neither can declare themselves an independent state while under someone else's rule. However the difference is, even if the Kurds were to throw off the power of other states... they would still not actually have legal right to the land under their claim. This is where politics come in - some nations would recognize their territorial claims, others would not, and there would have to be wrangling to secure that territory through politics. Palestine on the other hand already has legal claim to Palestine, and if, however it happens the Israeli occupation ends, they can declare as they like.

Despite your claims, Jordan controlled the WB for its own benefit, it was a full and complete annexation (one that they did not give up on until 1988). Until 1988 for 40 years Jordan claimed the WB as integral part of its country.

of course it controlled the west bank for its own benefit, just as Israel does. The only difference between the two occupations is that Jordan was not a hostile force towards the Palestinians. I'm sorry thatyou're not intellectually capable of grasping the concept of what "trusteeship" means in this situation - it doesn't mean in the manner a parent is in trusteeship of their kids' finances until the age of majority, or some other cuddly aw-shucks stuff. Internationally trusteeship is just an occupation without guns being pointed at the occupied. And whatever Jordan's king prattled on about was clearly just words. were it an annexation, it would not have been handed over, much less to an organization that was based in Tunis at the time.

It continues to be strange that you insist that Israel has every right, through the force of rapine and plunder, to claim all that it likes of Palestine, yet decry the Jordanians for taking through politics. Again - you clearly hold Arabs and jews to very different standards.

Jerusalem was supposed to be internationalized under 181. Just because one side rejected that, does not mean that they get rewarded for their rejection and mistake.

That's not how it works. I'm pretty certain you know this. I don't know why you keep trying to convince me of something we clearly both know is bullshit.

1) 181 was not "word of god" handed down from on high. It was a suggestion. The UN does not actually have the power to divest and divide territory like that.

2) No rights were conditional on accepting the suggestion, territorial or otherwise. Nor was there any requirement that both sides sign on.

3) being that Jerusalem was not the UN's to take and throw around as it felt, and being as it lay outside of Israel's internationally-declared and recognized borders (it's not even close to them, really) Jerusalem is legally belonging to the territory in which it lay - Palestinian territory.

You're casting someone keeping what's theirs as "being rewarded." Perhaps you feel they should be punished for not forking over their rightful territory?

So quite a bit more than the WB belongs to a Palestine? Do you mean that you believe that Israel should withdraw to the 181 lines?
What else besides the WB (and Gaza) belongs to a Palestine?

The 181 lines are what Israel declared as its borders on May 14 1948, and had recognized as such by the rest of the world in the days after. Everything beyond that line is legally outside of Israel's territory. Legally yes, large expanses of "Israel" are legally Palestinian territory under occupation.

The question of "should" is an interesting one, mostly because the PA is willing to cede all claims to territory occupied prior to 1967 as part of a peace deal. If that's what they want to do well, it's their call. Legally they have no obligation to do so, so it's actually a sweet deal for Israel - they get to finally legally annex all that turf and all the yhave to do is less than what israel is legally obligated to do anyway!

Now who's being rewarded for being a refusenik?

Do you also believe that east Prussia, Danzig (now called Gdańsk) should go back to Germany, after it was taken by force from Germany after WW2 and truly ethnically cleansed (all germans were removed from that area, forced to relocate or killed). Germany was not given a choice in this matter. Russia made the decision for them.

Germany formally ceded all territories lost in WW2 under the Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany in 1991. This was in addition to the German-Polish Border treaty, also signed in 1991. There's also the treaty of Warsaw (1970) where west germany recognized the Oder-Neisse line.

So that's not just one but three treaties where Germany affirmed that that territory belongs to Poland.

So no, I don't think it should go back to Germany. As for resettlement and compensation... I infite you to investigsate the notions yourself. Apparently there is a rather... erm... lively debate between the two nations about legal settlements of the issue, including lawsuits which could cost Poland billions of euros.

[sabbat hunter]

6. Germany

Had no choice in giving up that land. Their Russian puppet masters made the decision for them. It was at the point of a gun aka by force. IF a gun were held to the PA leadership and they were forced to sign a similar agreement, would it then be ok?

Once the above happened in Germany, everything after that fell in to place.

People in the PA leadership has said that Jews have no right to pray at the western wall as it is part of the Al-asqa mosque, not a jewish holy site.

The five-page Palestinian study states that the Western Wall has no link to Judaism. He says it is holy Muslim property. Al-Mutawakil Taha, deputy Palestinian information minister, said Wednesday that the document is the official position of the Palestinian Authority.

The five-page Palestinian study states that the Western Wall has no link to Judaism. He says it is holy Muslim property.
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3989443,00.html
That is the OFFICIAL position of the PA. That is why I do not trust the PA leadership one inch on the old city.

Since you believe that land inside the green line (and maybe the entirety of Israel?) belongs to Palestine, and giving up any of it is a concession on their part speaks volumes.

Due to that I do not believe we have anything do argue about any longer.

[Scootaloo]

7. Your history is really bad

No, the Russians didn't force the Germans to sign it over. The treaties signed took place well after the end of active hostilities (though legally, World War 2 didn't end until 1991... but I digress.) Once the land was signed over, yes, it is legally binding. Doesn't matter if there were threats involved or not (there weren't.)

Since you believe that land inside the green line (and maybe the entirety of Israel?) belongs to Palestine, and giving up any of it is a concession on their part speaks volumes.

Due to that I do not believe we have anything do argue about any longer.

It's not a matter of belief, Sabbat...

http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/israel/large/documents/newPDF/49.pdf

Israel formally declared its borders to follow the lines drawn in Res. 181, and those are the borders which every nation at the time recognized Israel under. Everything outside of those lines is not Israel. it has never been ceded by the Palestinians who were occupied by Israel, Israel has never moved for a legal annexation of that land. It is outside of Israel. Whatever is within those borders is Israel.

Seems like a pretty basic concept to me. I'm not sure what took you so long to catch up with this elementary principle of international interaction, but it looks like you've finally caught up with the basics. Huzzah.

If I had to wager, I'd guess you've been going off whatever "feels right" at a given moment, rather than what is actually correct?

[sabbat hunter]

8. Potsdam Agreement

forced upon Germany to give up a large swath of land, and those people of German descent living there, were forced by Soviet troops to move to the Soviet Occupation Zone (aka East German). Germany had no say in giving up this land or having is people moved.

Anything after that just confirmed the facts on the ground.

[King_David]

9. News flash

With 100% certainty , the Kotel will never be relinquished... Ever .
That's not opinion .