This Is Israel, cnt...

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

It is in all that 'blabber."

All of that blabber aside, where was it stated anywhere in the LoN Covenant, Or the Mandate Charter that they were to create a Jewish state?

(COMMENT)

The question is: Where does it say a Jewish State is Prohibited?

Just because the League Council or the leaders of the San Remo Convention did not use your language choice, does not mean that your interpretation is correct. If these authors choose to give themselves a greater flexibility towards a solution, then so be it.

Most Respectfully,
R

The Mandate of Palestine very clearly states that they will bring about the Jewish national home in Palestine as agreed in the Balfour papers.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

It is in all that 'blabber."

All of that blabber aside, where was it stated anywhere in the LoN Covenant, Or the Mandate Charter that they were to create a Jewish state?

(COMMENT)

The question is: Where does it say a Jewish State is Prohibited?

Just because the League Council or the leaders of the San Remo Convention did not use your language choice, does not mean that your interpretation is correct. If these authors choose to give themselves a greater flexibility towards a solution, then so be it.

Most Respectfully,
R

ARTICLE 22.​

​

To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant.

Avalon Project - The Covenant of the League of Nations​

Britain violated the basic principle of the LoN covenant. Creating a Jewish state in Palestine flies in the face of the LoN Covenant.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

It is in all that 'blabber."

All of that blabber aside, where was it stated anywhere in the LoN Covenant, Or the Mandate Charter that they were to create a Jewish state?

(COMMENT)

The question is: Where does it say a Jewish State is Prohibited?

Just because the League Council or the leaders of the San Remo Convention did not use your language choice, does not mean that your interpretation is correct. If these authors choose to give themselves a greater flexibility towards a solution, then so be it.

Most Respectfully,
R

ARTICLE 22.

To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant.

Avalon Project - The Covenant of the League of Nations​

Britain violated the basic principle of the LoN covenant. Creating a Jewish state in Palestine flies in the face of the LoN Covenant.

Wrong as the British had nothing to do with creating a Jewish state, in fact they tried their hardest to stop one from being formed. And the covenant was fulfilled when Palestine was partitioned 78%/22% in favour of the arab muslims. So the creation of wholly arab muslim states under the covenant must also be in breach of the covenant, or do the arabs somehow get a free go ?

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You are not applying this correctly.

Whether this is Israeli Propaganda is unknown to me and unimportant to me. It does not change the facts or the ground truth.

Why do you always pimp Israeli propaganda crap? What is in it for you?

ARTICLE 4
States are juridically equal, enjoy the same rights, and have equal capacity in their exercise. The rights of each one do not depend upon the power which it possesses to assure its exercise, but upon the simple fact of its existence as a person under international law.

It is about rights not about power.

(COMMENT)

First --- a question: Is this binding law? This (Article 4 - Montevideo Convention) presuppose that juridically equal, wherein each country --- each culture --- and each people --- enjoy the same rights and that they are NOT selectively enforced by the international community. We absolutely know for a fact that each country --- each culture --- and each people --- do NOT actually enjoy judicial equality. The cultures and peoples of the US, Belgium, China, Nigeria, Russia, Saudi Arabia and Yemen all experience differences in judicial equality.

No people, culture, community or authority of any type or kind can lay claim to any territory to which is has never controlled, or which they cannot establish territorial control and maintain the integrity of the border that another people, culture, community or authority has already claimed. The Palestinians cannot lay claim to the US (any more then it can claim to sovereignty over Israeli territory) because they have never established control over it --- and cannot maintain control over any defined territory pertaining to it.

Second, customary law pertaining to sovereignty and territorial acquisition does not work like you imply. The real-world realities are very different. Ask the people of the Crimea. In March 2014, the Russian Federation annexed the Crimea. Without regard to whether the international community recognizes the Russian annexation of the Crimea does not alter the fact that it is a reality. Many would cite the Russian Annexation of the Crimea as similar to the Israeli annexation of the Palestinian territories in 1967; and one of the most significant territorial acquisitions in the latter half of the 20th Century. The difference between the acquisition of the Crimea and the West Bank being that the West Bank was annexed once and occupied once in the last half of the 20th Century using the mode; once by Jordan (1950 annexation) and once by Israel (1967 generally occupied and very small portions annexed). The international community, while verbally objecting, did not take enforcement action against the Hashemite Kingdom, and has not taken enforcement action against either the Russian Federation (2014 annexation) or the State of Israel. It is not likely that the UN or any other international body is going to selectively enforce an ambiguous international law against any of the three nations. Nor is it likely that the International Community will take enforcement action against any of a dozen countries that have deprived people of their nationality as did the Jordanian with the people of the West Bank in 1988.

Finally, with minor exceptions, Israel has not demonstrated any intention of annexing either the West Bank or the Gaza Strip in the same fashion as the Russian Federation has established control and annexed the Crimea. While the Israeli Settlements were established legal under the Oslo Accords in Area "C" jurisdiction, remain inside the State of Palestine; the same cannot be said for the Crimea, now considered and treated as sovereign Russian territory.

The use of the term "rights" must be accompanied with the source of those "rights" and the enforceability of the right being stipulated. There are "rights" which are vocalized --- BUT --- which the international justice system will not enforce and the international community will not compel performance if the nation does not voluntarily comply.

No international consortium of powers, either in the Black Sea Region or the Middle East Region, will take such enforcement action to compel a nation to adopt an action that will end in an expansion of more trouble than it has by doing nothing. No international consortium is going to compel an action which will destabilize Israel in the Middle East, causing the conflict to expand and set the conditions for the creation of another failed state --- where none existed before. There is absolutely no reason for any of the regional powers in the Middle East to assume that the selective enforcement of political considerations (territorial sovereignty and the mode of acquisition) in favor of the Arab Palestinians, (having no other history than that of criminal behavior, constant asymmetric conflict, and terrorism) will result in the creation of a culture, people and nation that will contributed more to peace/stability --- humanity, science, commerce and industry --- than the Jewish State of Israel.

Most Respectfully,
R

First --- a question: Is this binding law? This (Article 4 - Montevideo Convention) presuppose that juridically equal, wherein each country --- each culture --- and each people --- enjoy the same rights and that they are NOT selectively enforced by the international community.​

The goal of BDS is to see the application of law. So maybe we can blow away some of that smoke.

No it isn't as it only applies to those states that were present at the time as the convention states.

The laws of my country make it illegal to segregate one part of society and to introduce illegal constraints on them. By hindering the free passage of individuals because of racial, national or religious difference is actually a breach of Law. So BDS as an organisation is in breach of National law, Civil law and International law and should be proscribed as a RACIST ORGANISATION

What does opposition to government policy have to do with racism?

because of the way they go about it in nations other than Israel. As I said in the UK it is illegal to show any outward preference to a particular group as it is against the law. It is not opposition to the UK government it is a racist attack on Jews.

It has nothing to do with a group of people. It is about government policies.

The Jews are irrelevant. If Palestine was occupied by Hindus you would see the same results.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You are not applying this correctly.

Whether this is Israeli Propaganda is unknown to me and unimportant to me. It does not change the facts or the ground truth.

(COMMENT)

First --- a question: Is this binding law? This (Article 4 - Montevideo Convention) presuppose that juridically equal, wherein each country --- each culture --- and each people --- enjoy the same rights and that they are NOT selectively enforced by the international community. We absolutely know for a fact that each country --- each culture --- and each people --- do NOT actually enjoy judicial equality. The cultures and peoples of the US, Belgium, China, Nigeria, Russia, Saudi Arabia and Yemen all experience differences in judicial equality.

No people, culture, community or authority of any type or kind can lay claim to any territory to which is has never controlled, or which they cannot establish territorial control and maintain the integrity of the border that another people, culture, community or authority has already claimed. The Palestinians cannot lay claim to the US (any more then it can claim to sovereignty over Israeli territory) because they have never established control over it --- and cannot maintain control over any defined territory pertaining to it.

Second, customary law pertaining to sovereignty and territorial acquisition does not work like you imply. The real-world realities are very different. Ask the people of the Crimea. In March 2014, the Russian Federation annexed the Crimea. Without regard to whether the international community recognizes the Russian annexation of the Crimea does not alter the fact that it is a reality. Many would cite the Russian Annexation of the Crimea as similar to the Israeli annexation of the Palestinian territories in 1967; and one of the most significant territorial acquisitions in the latter half of the 20th Century. The difference between the acquisition of the Crimea and the West Bank being that the West Bank was annexed once and occupied once in the last half of the 20th Century using the mode; once by Jordan (1950 annexation) and once by Israel (1967 generally occupied and very small portions annexed). The international community, while verbally objecting, did not take enforcement action against the Hashemite Kingdom, and has not taken enforcement action against either the Russian Federation (2014 annexation) or the State of Israel. It is not likely that the UN or any other international body is going to selectively enforce an ambiguous international law against any of the three nations. Nor is it likely that the International Community will take enforcement action against any of a dozen countries that have deprived people of their nationality as did the Jordanian with the people of the West Bank in 1988.

Finally, with minor exceptions, Israel has not demonstrated any intention of annexing either the West Bank or the Gaza Strip in the same fashion as the Russian Federation has established control and annexed the Crimea. While the Israeli Settlements were established legal under the Oslo Accords in Area "C" jurisdiction, remain inside the State of Palestine; the same cannot be said for the Crimea, now considered and treated as sovereign Russian territory.

The use of the term "rights" must be accompanied with the source of those "rights" and the enforceability of the right being stipulated. There are "rights" which are vocalized --- BUT --- which the international justice system will not enforce and the international community will not compel performance if the nation does not voluntarily comply.

No international consortium of powers, either in the Black Sea Region or the Middle East Region, will take such enforcement action to compel a nation to adopt an action that will end in an expansion of more trouble than it has by doing nothing. No international consortium is going to compel an action which will destabilize Israel in the Middle East, causing the conflict to expand and set the conditions for the creation of another failed state --- where none existed before. There is absolutely no reason for any of the regional powers in the Middle East to assume that the selective enforcement of political considerations (territorial sovereignty and the mode of acquisition) in favor of the Arab Palestinians, (having no other history than that of criminal behavior, constant asymmetric conflict, and terrorism) will result in the creation of a culture, people and nation that will contributed more to peace/stability --- humanity, science, commerce and industry --- than the Jewish State of Israel.

Most Respectfully,
R

First --- a question: Is this binding law? This (Article 4 - Montevideo Convention) presuppose that juridically equal, wherein each country --- each culture --- and each people --- enjoy the same rights and that they are NOT selectively enforced by the international community.​

The goal of BDS is to see the application of law. So maybe we can blow away some of that smoke.

No it isn't as it only applies to those states that were present at the time as the convention states.

The laws of my country make it illegal to segregate one part of society and to introduce illegal constraints on them. By hindering the free passage of individuals because of racial, national or religious difference is actually a breach of Law. So BDS as an organisation is in breach of National law, Civil law and International law and should be proscribed as a RACIST ORGANISATION

What does opposition to government policy have to do with racism?

because of the way they go about it in nations other than Israel. As I said in the UK it is illegal to show any outward preference to a particular group as it is against the law. It is not opposition to the UK government it is a racist attack on Jews.

It has nothing to do with a group of people. It is about government policies.

The Jews are irrelevant. If Palestine was occupied by Hindus you would see the same results.

Very poor attempt at deflection becacuse the thread was getting out of your control, and your BDS buddies were being shown to be rabid racist Nazi's

Maybe to you seeing as you hate them so much, but to civilised people the BDS movement is RACIST in the extreme. Even the Palestinians have complained about the detrimental effect the BDS movement is having of Palestinian livelihoods and want it to stop. Palestine is occupied by arab muslims who have no legal right to be there under international law that placed the land in Jewish ownership. The arab muslims have shown they are not prepared to be civilised and act as human beings so the UN should be looking at evicting those nations that side with the Palestinians from the UN until such a time as they can can abide by the UN charter. Doing this would not affect the UN income one iota as the majority of these nations are the biggest drain of the common purse, with the Palestinians being the worst offenders.

 

[flacaltenn]

Moderation Note:

The last several pages have completely lost sight of the topic. And the same ole discussion that ends most of the I/P threads is gonna end no differently than the others. Gonna close it..

Please stay on the topics and if you want -- start a thread on any of the issues dealing with the founding of Israel or the history of the land.