Israel's Legal Right To Exist

[Hollie]

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

Your post has fallen down and bumped its head.

Review of The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine

Pappé's Polemics

Ilan Pappé has now seized on what the New Historians started and brought it to new heights by promoting revisionist arguments that place exclusive blame on early Zionists for victimizing Arabs and destroying opportunities for peace and reconciliation. Indeed, it has become the strategy by which Pappé has salvaged his turbulent career: He left Haifa University in 2007 after the exposure of his research errors undercut his master's thesis and his endorsement of the British boycott of Israeli universities prompted the president of the university to call for his resignation.[8]

 

[Challenger]

Oooh, a "review" by a Zionist polemicist, Seth J. Frantzman who has a PhD in Geography, and teaches American studies. Clearly he know a lot about history to be able to review Pappe's book, or is that due to his marketing background...

 

[Hollie]

Oooh, a "review" by a Zionist polemicist, Seth J. Frantzman who has a PhD in Geography, and teaches American studies. Clearly he know a lot about history to be able to review Pappe's book, or is that due to his marketing background...

Oh, my. Obviously, no ability on your part to do anything but offer a hysterical diatribe.

 

[MJB12741]

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

Your post has fallen down and bumped its head.

Review of The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine

Pappé's Polemics

Ilan Pappé has now seized on what the New Historians started and brought it to new heights by promoting revisionist arguments that place exclusive blame on early Zionists for victimizing Arabs and destroying opportunities for peace and reconciliation. Indeed, it has become the strategy by which Pappé has salvaged his turbulent career: He left Haifa University in 2007 after the exposure of his research errors undercut his master's thesis and his endorsement of the British boycott of Israeli universities prompted the president of the university to call for his resignation.[8]

Oh no, Ilan Pappe. That does it. Israel is doomed. Heh Heh!

 

[montelatici]

MJB sabotages his own, heh heh, heh!

 

[MJB12741]

MJB sabotages his own, heh heh, heh!

Poor Monte. What a life he has living here in the USA with all those Christian Zionists supporting Israel.

 

[montelatici]

MJB sabotages his own, heh heh, heh!

Poor Monte. What a life he has living here in the USA with all those Christian Zionists supporting Israel.

Poor, poor MJB, his stupidity gets the best of him. Firstly, Christian support for Israel is waning in the U.S. secondly, with friends like Christian Zionists, the Jews don't need enemies. You haven't quite figured out why those nutcases support Israel, have you? If I actually hated Jews I would be encouraging the Christian Zionists. heh, heh



"The most striking moment in the brief video, however, is when a Christian Zionist admits that his diehard support of Israel is ultimately rooted in a form of eschatological Christian anti-Semitism that sees Jews as future potential Christians. In this fundamentally anti-Semitic view, Christian Zionists believe Jesus will (imminently) return and, upon his Second Coming, Jews will either accept him as their savior or die and burn in Hell for all eternity."


(Christian Zionist) “It says in the bible we need to support Israel.”
(Takruri) “So that’s important to you as a Christian?”
(Christian Zionist) “As a Christian.”
(Takruri) “Even though it’s a Jewish state?”
(Christian Zionist) “Correct. … Because in the end, they will see the light and they will become Christians.”
(Takruri) “The Jews in Israel will become Christians in the end?”
(Christian Zionist) “Yes.”

Christian Zionists Expose Their Anti-Semitism on Video

 

[Shusha]

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

None of this has anything to do with your claim that Israel has no legal status. You have made a claim about law. You need to back it up with law. Again, Palestine (Jewish National Homeland -- Israel) became a State in 1924.

You can't use anything which post-dates that as evidence that Palestine had no legal status in 1924. You have to use the law of the time.

In addition, actions of a State, even if abhorrent, do NOT remove the legal status of Statehood. States don't become non-States through military actions.


Israel's legal claim to Palestine is found in the documents of the time --San Remo, LoN, UN Charter, Mandate for Palestine -- they entrench Israel's legal claim in law in the 1920s.

 

[P F Tinmore]

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

None of this has anything to do with your claim that Israel has no legal status. You have made a claim about law. You need to back it up with law. Again, Palestine (Jewish National Homeland -- Israel) became a State in 1924.

You can't use anything which post-dates that as evidence that Palestine had no legal status in 1924. You have to use the law of the time.

In addition, actions of a State, even if abhorrent, do NOT remove the legal status of Statehood. States don't become non-States through military actions.


Israel's legal claim to Palestine is found in the documents of the time --San Remo, LoN, UN Charter, Mandate for Palestine -- they entrench Israel's legal claim in law in the 1920s.

You are bouncing all over the place. You are not going by actual history. You are merely parroting Israeli talking points.

 

[Shusha]

You are bouncing all over the place. You are not going by actual history. You are merely parroting Israeli talking points.

Oh boy. San Remo wasn't actual history? The League of Nations? The Mandate for Palestine? The UN Charter? Come on.


(And if I'm bouncing all of the place -- its because I'm following you who can't decide on a legal argument and stick with it for more than a post.)

 

[P F Tinmore]

You are bouncing all over the place. You are not going by actual history. You are merely parroting Israeli talking points.

Oh boy. San Remo wasn't actual history? The League of Nations? The Mandate for Palestine? The UN Charter? Come on.


(And if I'm bouncing all of the place -- its because I'm following you who can't decide on a legal argument and stick with it for more than a post.)

OK, pick one of your points and justify your conclusion.

 

[Shusha]

Here's a video to help you out. Made by, you know, lawyers. Experts on international law.

You like videos, right?

 

[Shusha]

OK, pick one of your points and justify your conclusion.

Oh, the irony. My point is that you have failed to demonstrate your claim (Israel has no legal status) and have failed to justify your conclusion. I am merely pointing that out.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Here's a video to help you out. Made by, you know, lawyers. Experts on international law.

You like videos, right?

Before I look at it, it isn't Grief, is it?

 

[Shusha]

Here's a video to help you out. Made by, you know, lawyers. Experts on international law.

You like videos, right?

Before I look at it, it isn't Grief, is it?

Jacques Gauthier primarily. But I can get you Dershowitz. Or Kontorovitch. If you'd prefer.

 

[P F Tinmore]

But I can get you Dershowitz. Or Kontorovitch.

Oh, jeese.

What did you get out of San Remo?

 

[Shusha]

What did you get out of San Remo?

The San Remo Resolution is a binding treaty in which the High Contracting Parties, who were responsible for the dispensation of the territories previously under the sovereignty of the Ottoman Empire as per Treaties of Sevres and Lausanne, resolved to put into effect the Balfour Declaration to re-constitute a National Homeland for the Jewish people in Palestine.

 

[MJB12741]

What did you get out of San Remo?

The San Remo Resolution is a binding treaty in which the High Contracting Parties, who were responsible for the dispensation of the territories previously under the sovereignty of the Ottoman Empire as per Treaties of Sevres and Lausanne, resolved to put into effect the Balfour Declaration to re-constitute a National Homeland for the Jewish people in Palestine.

All legal. But what about all the Muslim conquests of land by force? Let's ask Tinmore if that is legal.

 

[Shusha]

All legal. But what about all the Muslim conquests of land by force? Let's ask Tinmore if that is legal.

Pssshhh. Little things like sovereignty, borders, territorial integrity, invasion, occupation and international law?! Those things don't apply to Muslims.

 

[P F Tinmore]

What did you get out of San Remo?

The San Remo Resolution is a binding treaty in which the High Contracting Parties, who were responsible for the dispensation of the territories previously under the sovereignty of the Ottoman Empire as per Treaties of Sevres and Lausanne, resolved to put into effect the Balfour Declaration to re-constitute a National Homeland for the Jewish people in Palestine.

You need to look at this in context.

1. The Jewish National home was to be in Palestine with the Palestinians. There was no transfer of territory.
2. The Allied Powers, including the LoN and the Mandate, did not annex or otherwise claim sovereignty over any territory. They had no authority to dispose of any territory because it was not theirs to give away. None of them did. This also applies to the UN.
   
3. Inherent, universal, inalienable rights are for the people of the place. International law marries the people and the land. These rights cannot be denied nor can they be passed out like candy by people in power.

Just a few things to think about.