Israel's Legal Right To Exist

[Shusha]

Israel was established when the acquisition of land by force was illegal.

Okay. So FINALLY, after twelve pages or so, you give us your core argument as to why Israel has no legal status and is prohibited from being a State. That is: Israel acquired territory by military force, which is illegal in international law.

Please provide references to the language, wording and legal instruments you are using to support this claim. (i.e. Hague Conventions, League of Nations Covenant, Geneva Conventions, UN Charter, etc).

Please confirm exactly which territory Israel "acquired". (i.e. do you mean the entire territory or simply portions of it?)

Please be prepared to compare and contrast other instances of "acquisition of territory by conquest" and their legality. For examples: Morocco/Western Sahara, Indonesia/East Timor, Ethiopia/Eritrea.

On to the counter-arguments then:

The Jewish people had the existing right to self-determination on their ancestral territory.

Israel was established in 1924. She was established under the same rights, conventions and legal instruments which established Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Jordan. These were legal instruments and treaties and not military force.

Israel only used force to protect the Jewish inhabitants of the territory, and to defend herself from foreign invasion, which is permissible, even obligatory, in international law.

 

[Shusha]

Acquisition of land by conquest was deemed illegal after WW2. And, Israel is an illegal Apartheid state.

Israel was established between 1922-1925. By treaty. And not by conquest.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Israel was established when the acquisition of land by force was illegal.

Okay. So FINALLY, after twelve pages or so, you give us your core argument as to why Israel has no legal status and is prohibited from being a State. That is: Israel acquired territory by military force, which is illegal in international law.

Please provide references to the language, wording and legal instruments you are using to support this claim. (i.e. Hague Conventions, League of Nations Covenant, Geneva Conventions, UN Charter, etc).

Please confirm exactly which territory Israel "acquired". (i.e. do you mean the entire territory or simply portions of it?)

Please be prepared to compare and contrast other instances of "acquisition of territory by conquest" and their legality. For examples: Morocco/Western Sahara, Indonesia/East Timor, Ethiopia/Eritrea.

On to the counter-arguments then:

The Jewish people had the existing right to self-determination on their ancestral territory.

Israel was established in 1924. She was established under the same rights, conventions and legal instruments which established Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Jordan. These were legal instruments and treaties and not military force.

Israel only used force to protect the Jewish inhabitants of the territory, and to defend herself from foreign invasion, which is permissible, even obligatory, in international law.

WOW, following you is like trying to dribble a football.

Can you pull out one of my points and refute it.

 

[Shusha]

WOW, following you is like trying to dribble a football.

Can you pull out one of my points and refute it.

I'll go slow for you then.

1. What legal instruments, specifically, are you using to claim that it is illegal to acquire land by conquest?

2. When discussing territory Israel has illegally required -- what territory do you mean? (ie all of it, or just a portion of the territory defined as the Mandate for Palestine.

3. Did the existing Jewish residents/inhabitants/indigenous peoples of Palestine have rights to self-determination, sovereignty and self-government? Yes or no?

 

[montelatici]

Acquisition of land by conquest was deemed illegal after WW2. And, Israel is an illegal Apartheid state.

Israel was established between 1922-1925. By treaty. And not by conquest.

Israel was not established in 1922-1925. 90% of the native population was Muslim and Christian in Palestine at the time. Why would the native Muslims and Christians sign such a treaty?

 

[Shusha]

Israel was not established in 1922-1925. 90% of the native population was Muslim and Christian in Palestine at the time. Why would the native Muslims and Christians sign such a treaty?

Are you arguing only majorities have rights? That doesn't seem very Christian-like of you.

 

[P F Tinmore]

1. What legal instruments, specifically, are you using to claim that it is illegal to acquire land by conquest?

UN Charter

All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

 

[P F Tinmore]

When discussing territory Israel has illegally required -- what territory do you mean? (ie all of it, or just a portion of the territory defined as the Mandate for Palestine.

Funny question. The Mandate for Palestine possessed no territory.

I cannot find any documentation of Israel legally acquiring any territory.

 

[Shusha]

When discussing territory Israel has illegally required -- what territory do you mean? (ie all of it, or just a portion of the territory defined as the Mandate for Palestine.

Funny question. The Mandate for Palestine possessed no territory.

I cannot find any documentation of Israel legally acquiring any territory.

Okay, so you mean all the territory, then.

 

[Shusha]

UN Charter

All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

Israel (Palestine) already existed as a State in 1924, remember? So the formation of the State antedates the UN Charter. The UN Charter therefore does not apply, nor does it restrict the creation of the State.

 

[P F Tinmore]

UN Charter

All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

Israel (Palestine) already existed as a State in 1924, remember? So the formation of the State antedates the UN Charter. The UN Charter therefore does not apply, nor does it restrict the creation of the State.

Do you have any links for that? Israel was a separate entity from Palestine.

 

[P F Tinmore]

When discussing territory Israel has illegally required -- what territory do you mean? (ie all of it, or just a portion of the territory defined as the Mandate for Palestine.

Funny question. The Mandate for Palestine possessed no territory.

I cannot find any documentation of Israel legally acquiring any territory.

Okay, so you mean all the territory, then.

Indeed, all of Palestine. The Mandate had nothing to do with it so don't confuse the Issue.

 

[Shusha]

Israel was a separate entity from Palestine.

Do YOU have any links for that? That they are two separate entities? When did they separate? Under what agreements did they separate? How can we tell the difference between "Palestine" and "Israel"? Palestine was intended to be the National Homeland for the Jewish people (by treaty and international agreement, aka law.) Palestine became able to stand alone. Palestine came under self-governing institutions. Palestine became a State. That State is called Israel.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Israel was a separate entity from Palestine.

Do YOU have any links for that? That they are two separate entities? When did they separate? Under what agreements did they separate? How can we tell the difference between "Palestine" and "Israel"? Palestine was intended to be the National Homeland for the Jewish people (by treaty and international agreement, aka law.) Palestine became able to stand alone. Palestine came under self-governing institutions. Palestine became a State. That State is called Israel.

The military conquest of Palestine was a pre planned and stated goal of the Zionists. You can't refute that so you just blow smoke at it.

 

[Shusha]

Well, no. Its easy enough to refute. I have BEEN refuting it.

By treaty and by international agreement (law), Palestine became the Jewish National Homeland (Israel). There was no NEED for military conquest because it existed by right and in law. The need for military force came only with defending its existing rights.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Well, no. Its easy enough to refute. I have BEEN refuting it.

By treaty and by international agreement (law), Palestine became the Jewish National Homeland (Israel). There was no NEED for military conquest because it existed by right and in law. The need for military force came only with defending its existing rights.

Not so. You need to start reading some real history.

You cannot show where any land was given to Israel.

 

[Shusha]

Not so. You need to start reading some real history.

You cannot show where any land was given to Israel.

Palestine IS Israel. The territory was intended (by existing right, by treaty, by international agreement, aka law) to be the Jewish National Homeland.

It is you who is trying to prove that a Jewish government was prohibited by international law from forming and governing a State on that territory. My job is easy. Its all over the treaties, agreements and documents in legal force at the time.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Not so. You need to start reading some real history.

You cannot show where any land was given to Israel.

Palestine IS Israel. The territory was intended (by existing right, by treaty, by international agreement, aka law) to be the Jewish National Homeland.

It is you who is trying to prove that a Jewish government was prohibited by international law from forming and governing a State on that territory. My job is easy. Its all over the treaties, agreements and documents in legal force at the time.

You are still trying to confuse the issue. The Jewish national Home had nothing to do with the transfer of land.

 

[Shusha]

Nothing has anything to do with the transfer of land. That is a red herring you brought to the party and are passing around like it was caviar.

It has to do with the rights of indigenous peoples to self-determine and self-govern. It has to do with the rights of peoples to sovereignty. It has to do with the rights of people to return to their ancestral homeland.

You keep trying to assert that there are some sort of special rules for the Jewish people. The latest one being that a Jewish government over a State is somehow prohibited in international law.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Nothing has anything to do with the transfer of land. That is a red herring you brought to the party and are passing around like it was caviar.

It has to do with the rights of indigenous peoples to self-determine and self-govern. It has to do with the rights of peoples to sovereignty. It has to do with the rights of people to return to their ancestral homeland.

You keep trying to assert that there are some sort of special rules for the Jewish people. The latest one being that a Jewish government over a State is somehow prohibited in international law.

My post still stands. Israel's Legal Right To Exist and I posted a link to back up my claim. Here is another: http://www.whale.to/b/Pappe, The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine.pdf