Reply #43: Of course it's relevant...

[Violet_Crumble]

I don't know all that much about it, but I don't think East Timor was ever populated by Indonesians, or that Indonesians draw so much of their cultural history from ET.

Now those points are what are absolutely irrelevant. Y'know, there's lots and lots of people that draw much of their cultural history from the West Bank but don't insist that they have some claim to the territory...

Well why is it considered occupied territory and not merely disputed territory? What about specific areas, like East Jerusalem or Hebron make it exclusively Palestinian by right? I chose those places because they best illustrate my point.

First question. That's been explained many times now and rather than repeat myself (I'm heading off for dinner in a bit), if you can't remember, I'll go back into the archives and search for a previous discussion.

Second question. I don't get what yr point is. Are you claiming that because some Jews lived in a place, that means Israel has some claim to it via extremist settlers, some of who were born and raised in the US, yet claim they have more of a tie to the place than Palestinians who've lived there all their lives? If so, that thinking would also apply to many parts of Israel when it comes to Palestinians...

Terra Nullius is land belonging to no one. That's not my point.

But I thought you were arguing it doesn't belong to anyone, and that Israel has some bizarre equal right to Palestinian territory. Y'know, people can feel a connection to a place or a thing without having to have sovereignty over it or take it for themselves. Is there some reason why this wouldn't apply to places in the West Bank?

Yes but every agreement referred to the fact that the final borders were TBD. These agreements ARE the international law. That's it.

No, agreements like that aren't international law. They're a bilateral agreement between two parties which in the case of Oslo was ignored by both parties when it suited their purposes...