Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
There you go again using the term "the Jewish people." Which Jews are you talking about? The native Jews of Palestine, or the colonizing Jews out of Europe?
If you look at the way that the universal rights are written, those rights belong to the people of the place.There you go again using the term "the Jewish people." Which Jews are you talking about? The native Jews of Palestine, or the colonizing Jews out of Europe?
Let's put this another way -- I'm talking about the Jewish people collectively. All of them. The Jewish people collectively have inalienable rights. Including the right to self-determination. Which includes the right to welcome immigration.
because that was part of the deal...And again, like I said on the other thread, why do the Jewish people have to constantly defend our own self-definition? Gak. Arrrrggh.
Numerous collectives of people have this 'right',thats the job of every government.If you look at the way that the universal rights are written, those rights belong to the people of the place.There you go again using the term "the Jewish people." Which Jews are you talking about? The native Jews of Palestine, or the colonizing Jews out of Europe?
Let's put this another way -- I'm talking about the Jewish people collectively. All of them. The Jewish people collectively have inalienable rights. Including the right to self-determination. Which includes the right to welcome immigration.
The people from someplace else cannot violate those. Nobody has the right to violate the rights of others.
There you go again using the term "the Jewish people." Which Jews are you talking about? The native Jews of Palestine, or the colonizing Jews out of Europe?OK, but the "Jewish National Home" was not a land transfer.
Even if its not -- still, according to your own "rules" -- the Jewish people have an inalienable human right to self-determination and sovereignty. That right -- according to your own "rules" -- is identical to that of the Arab "Palestinians".
You always speak of power politics where international law is not a consideration.P F Tinmore, Phoenall,
Your logic is sound and valid to a point. But you do not carry it to a conclusion.
(COMMENT)OK, but the "Jewish National Home" was not a land transfer. It was for Jews to get Palestinian citizenship. And like all other Palestinians, they would be allowed to live anywhere in Palestine.Like thisQuote the part that says that Palestinian land was given to the Jews?But the LoN mandate of Palestine does, and you deny that this exists even when given valid links to it. WHY IS THIS ?
Delineating the final geographical area of Palestine designated for the Jewish National Home on September 16, 1922, as described by the Mandatory:
Are you now going to deny the actual words of the INTERNATIONAL LAW because you want to deny the Jews the same rights as the arab muslims ?
You keep saying that the "Right of Self-Determination" is inalienable. So even if your assumption that a Jewish National Home was a component of a (non-existent Article 22 Arab leadership) "Palestine" --- it would not preclude the Jewish National Home and its constituents from exercising the "Right of Self-Determination!"
But let their be no mistake. The Mandate Territories of the Middle East (all of them) were transferred to the Allied Powers all titles and rights to the entire area, in the Treaty of Lausanne (Article 16). All the Treaty of Lausanne afforded the Arabs is the assurance that they would not be "stateless." But the future of the territories were in the hands of the Allied Powers.
The issue of citizenship for the Jewish People traveling to the territory was never an issue. It was decided in the San Remo Agreement and then articulation in the Mandate, how that would be accomplished. The Order in Council (Given Authority by the Allied Powers) and the Mandate, were the vehicles by which issues and decisions were documented. The League Covenant was NOT a Barrier or Limitation to the authority of the Allied Powers.
(CONTEMPORARY VIEW)
As it turned-out, the three principle documents (not including the UN Charter) that gave legitimacy to the modern state of Israel today were:
The territorial and habitual residents of the territory in question were not (repeat not) a signatory any of these decisive documents. At the time of the San Remo Agreement, the territory in question was was under the effective control of the Enemy Occupied Territory Administration as "Enemy Territory."
• San Remo Resolution of April 25, 1920,
• Mandate for Palestine conferred on Britain by the Allied Powers and confirmed by the League of Nations on July 24, 1922,
• Franco-British Boundary Convention of December 23, 1920.
Whether we can look back nearly a century ago and determine if the word “home” (in the phrase Jewish National Home) (as used in the Balfour Declaration and subsequently in the San Remo Resolution) was simply a euphemism for "state" is irrelevant and overtaken by events.
Just as today, the Israelis cannot claim that it was an illegal abrogation of Jewish legal rights and title of sovereignty to the whole of Palestine and the Land of Israel, so it is similar that the Arabs had on claim to the legal rights and title of sovereignty to the whole of Palestine. It was an issue and political question for the Allied Powers to resolve (as holders of the title and rights to the territory).
It should be noted and understood that it was the "ALLIED POWERS" that designated the Council of the League of Nations as the supervisor of the Mandatory and not the other way around.
The authority for Israel declaring independence comes from two sources: Chapter 1 of the UN Charter and inherent right of all people to self-determination.
No matter the claim by the Arab Palestinian or the external Area League aggressors attempting to prevent the Israeli right to self-determination from becoming a reality, the Israeli right of self-determination was as strong as any claim against them. And the Israeli successfully defended that right.
The validity of that right was born out by the lack of performance in development by any of the Area League Aggressors that choose Jihad over Peace; and the lack of political stability by and of the immediate Arab Neighbors. Palestinians that base their existence of generation promotion of jihad, are not inherently peaceful people.
GLOSSARY OF TERMS:
DEFINITION OF PRINCIPAL TERMS IN INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
1, State: a large social system with a set of rules that are enforced by a permanent administrative body (government). That body claims and tries to enforce sovereignty. That is, the state claims to be the
highest source of decision-making of the social system within its jurisdiction, and it rejects outside interference in making or enforcing its set of rules. The many smaller systems within the state are not
sovereign, nor are large international organizations like the United Nations, since states routinely reject their authority. The state is a political concept that refers to the exercise of power or the ability to make and enforce rules.
2. Sovereign: ultimate power to control people and events within the area of the state.
3. Nation: a group of individuals who feel that they have so much in common (interests, habits, ways of thinking, and the like) that they should all become a particular state. Unlike the term state, the term
nation refers to the subjective feelings of its people. By this definition almost all the present nations would like to become nation-states, but many nations are actually parts of other states, and many states are not nation-states. On the whole, nation-states can count on much greater loyalty from their citizens than states that contain many nations, and this gives them greater strength in their inter-national dealings. (As you can see, the term “international” should really be “interstate”).
4. Society: the population controlled by a state, or the population that forms a nation, or both. Some societies are territorially limited to a single geographical area and a single state while others are not.
5. Country: a well-defined geographical area. The term simply refers to a spatial concept.
Most Respectfully,
R
The civilized world is trying to move past what happened to the Native Americans or the Aboriginals in Australia.
If you look at the way that the universal rights are written, those rights belong to the people of the place.
The people from someplace else cannot violate those. Nobody has the right to violate the rights of others.
The civilized world is trying to move past what happened to the Native Americans or the Aboriginals in Australia.
What the hell does that mean? How, exactly, are First Nations peoples meant to "move past what happened to them"?
because that was part of the deal...And again, like I said on the other thread, why do the Jewish people have to constantly defend our own self-definition? Gak. Arrrrggh.
there's a midrash ive heard about Moshe: before entering the promised land Moshe told the sons of Israel about their future, that they would settle and be fruitful, enjoy and grow roots in the promised land. But as they get used to it great nations will conquer, kill, torture and spread them throughout the earth...so that one doesn't know what the next day brings!
All this was passed to them on Moshe's deathbed so to speak.
So the sons of Israel were shocked, why would Moshe reveal this and discourage them?
But there was a point, as it was followed by his blessing onto them to LIVE and forget about EXISTING. Moshe blessed us to live vibrantly while barely existing in numbers and carrying our message.
So ask the UN today: is there a Jewish nation/ state in the middle east? Of course not...but who causes all the problems of the world in their opinion?
As the Jews kept living people at the same time got used to pushing them around as promised by Moshe; So little but so loud and now with a vibrant state and a strong army..we live now even stronger while others ask whether they'll survive the next immigrant wave or a change in the economy the next 20 years.That's btw why we say 'Lchaim' before drinking wine
If you look at the way that the universal rights are written, those rights belong to the people of the place.
The people from someplace else cannot violate those. Nobody has the right to violate the rights of others.
Oh come on! What is your criteria for who are the "people of the place"? The people who were there 5000 years ago and are still there now? The people who invaded and militarily conquered the place in 586BC? Or in 70CE? Or in 132? Or in 638? Or in 1099? Or in 1517? Or in 1948? Or in 1967? Or in 2016? Who are the people of the place?
Of all the people who have lived there why do you EXCLUDE the Jewish people and only the Jewish people as "people of the place"? Why would the Jewish people not be "people of the place"?
Look we HAVE risen,just look wider and a bit more backwards, our people had much more difficulties with the identity and used Frankists' attacks to leverage a great advancement. The settlement wave was renewed significantly earlier than the time the Zionist movement started, and the Hassidut has spread quickly melting the different diaspora schools. In the last 100 yrs alone we've managed to modernize, live through a genocide and re-establish a state in Jerusalem.because that was part of the deal...And again, like I said on the other thread, why do the Jewish people have to constantly defend our own self-definition? Gak. Arrrrggh.
there's a midrash ive heard about Moshe: before entering the promised land Moshe told the sons of Israel about their future, that they would settle and be fruitful, enjoy and grow roots in the promised land. But as they get used to it great nations will conquer, kill, torture and spread them throughout the earth...so that one doesn't know what the next day brings!
All this was passed to them on Moshe's deathbed so to speak.
So the sons of Israel were shocked, why would Moshe reveal this and discourage them?
But there was a point, as it was followed by his blessing onto them to LIVE and forget about EXISTING. Moshe blessed us to live vibrantly while barely existing in numbers and carrying our message.
So ask the UN today: is there a Jewish nation/ state in the middle east? Of course not...but who causes all the problems of the world in their opinion?
As the Jews kept living people at the same time got used to pushing them around as promised by Moshe; So little but so loud and now with a vibrant state and a strong army..we live now even stronger while others ask whether they'll survive the next immigrant wave or a change in the economy the next 20 years.That's btw why we say 'Lchaim' before drinking wine
Yes. Yes. The demands put upon the Jewish people require us to rise, don't they? This is how we repair the world, don't you think?
If you look at the way that the universal rights are written, those rights belong to the people of the place.There you go again using the term "the Jewish people." Which Jews are you talking about? The native Jews of Palestine, or the colonizing Jews out of Europe?
Let's put this another way -- I'm talking about the Jewish people collectively. All of them. The Jewish people collectively have inalienable rights. Including the right to self-determination. Which includes the right to welcome immigration.
The people from someplace else cannot violate those. Nobody has the right to violate the rights of others.
If you look at the way that the universal rights are written, those rights belong to the people of the place.
The people from someplace else cannot violate those. Nobody has the right to violate the rights of others.
Oh come on! What is your criteria for who are the "people of the place"? The people who were there 5000 years ago and are still there now? The people who invaded and militarily conquered the place in 586BC? Or in 70CE? Or in 132? Or in 638? Or in 1099? Or in 1517? Or in 1948? Or in 1967? Or in 2016? Who are the people of the place?
Of all the people who have lived there why do you EXCLUDE the Jewish people and only the Jewish people as "people of the place"? Why would the Jewish people not be "people of the place"?Of all the people who have lived there why do you EXCLUDE the Jewish people
I don't. You haven't followed my posts.
If you look at the way that the universal rights are written, those rights belong to the people of the place.
The people from someplace else cannot violate those. Nobody has the right to violate the rights of others.
Oh come on! What is your criteria for who are the "people of the place"? The people who were there 5000 years ago and are still there now? The people who invaded and militarily conquered the place in 586BC? Or in 70CE? Or in 132? Or in 638? Or in 1099? Or in 1517? Or in 1948? Or in 1967? Or in 2016? Who are the people of the place?
Of all the people who have lived there why do you EXCLUDE the Jewish people and only the Jewish people as "people of the place"? Why would the Jewish people not be "people of the place"?Of all the people who have lived there why do you EXCLUDE the Jewish people
I don't. You haven't followed my posts.
That is the problem we have and you seem to think that the arab muslims ensconced in Israel have been there as long as the Jews have, when the evidence all points to them being recent illegal immigrants. The Jews were invited to migrate by the Ottoman empire and then the LoN making them palestinians. The arab muslims were not making them illegal invaders and colonisers, so all your links pertaining to colonisers apply only to the arab muslims.
You constantly claim that the Jews after the creation of zionism have no rights to live in palestine which is rtabid racism and nazi ideology at it's worst.
If you look at the way that the universal rights are written, those rights belong to the people of the place.There you go again using the term "the Jewish people." Which Jews are you talking about? The native Jews of Palestine, or the colonizing Jews out of Europe?
Let's put this another way -- I'm talking about the Jewish people collectively. All of them. The Jewish people collectively have inalienable rights. Including the right to self-determination. Which includes the right to welcome immigration.
The people from someplace else cannot violate those. Nobody has the right to violate the rights of others.
I don't. You haven't followed my posts.
OK, but the "Jewish National Home" was not a land transfer. It was for Jews to get Palestinian citizenship. And like all other Palestinians, they would be allowed to live anywhere in Palestine.
Why should the Palestinians need to get permits from foreign assholes to build in Palestine?
I don't. You haven't followed my posts.
Alright then. You agree that the Jewish people are a people of the place and have full rights to sovereignty on that territory (or at least a part of it).
Can you now start applying that to your arguments? Today would be nice.
