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.
And "obviously because of the intention to make possible the creation of the Jewish National Home there. Actually, it may well be said that the Jewish National Home and the sui generis Mandate for Palestine run counter to that principle."
As the UN Resolution stated: The creation of a Jewish National Home in Palestine ran counter to that principle as stated in the Covenant of the League of Nations and the UN Charter. Palestine was not the ancestral homeland of Europeans, it was the home of the Muslim and Christian inhabitants whose ancestors had lived there for thousands of years. Ancestors who practiced various religions prior to converting to Christianity as required by the Roman/Byzantine Empire and eventually many to Islam.
As the UN resolution stated: "(1) The placing of the country "under such political, administrative arid economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish National Home, as laid down in the preamble . . ." .
Your issue is with the UN and resolving your IJH which obviously consumes your every waking moment.
Originally posted by Shusha
I'm going to go take a shower.
Yours are just cheap excuses that we've read frequently. You obviously miss understanding the very concept of the principle that befuddles you so. No group favored the Jewish people in their establishment of self-determination. In fact, the Arabs-Moslems initiated a war attempting to prevent the goal of self-dermination that established the Jewish state.And "obviously because of the intention to make possible the creation of the Jewish National Home there. Actually, it may well be said that the Jewish National Home and the sui generis Mandate for Palestine run counter to that principle."
As the UN Resolution stated: The creation of a Jewish National Home in Palestine ran counter to that principle as stated in the Covenant of the League of Nations and the UN Charter. Palestine was not the ancestral homeland of Europeans, it was the home of the Muslim and Christian inhabitants whose ancestors had lived there for thousands of years. Ancestors who practiced various religions prior to converting to Christianity as required by the Roman/Byzantine Empire and eventually many to Islam.
As the UN resolution stated: "(1) The placing of the country "under such political, administrative arid economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish National Home, as laid down in the preamble . . ." .
Your issue is with the UN and resolving your IJH which obviously consumes your every waking moment.
And, they said about this this National Home "obviously because of the intention to make possible the creation of the Jewish National Home there. Actually, it may well be said that the Jewish National Home and the sui generis Mandate for Palestine run counter to that principle."
No one is saying that the UN did not support and facilitate the creation of the Jewish National Home. It did so by ignoring the principle of self-determination for the Muslim and Christian inhabitants favoring the European Jews. Totally contrary to the terms Covenant of the LON and the UN Charter.
Just facts. The UN stated that self-determination was withheld from the native Muslims and Christians in writing in Resolution A/364. You just can't handle the truth.
"176. With regard to the principle of self-determination, although international recognition was extended to this principle at the end of the First World War and it was adhered to with regard to the other Arab territories, at the time of the creation of the "A" Mandates, it was not applied to Palestine, obviously because of the intention to make possible the creation of the Jewish National Home there. Actually, it may well be said that the Jewish National Home and the sui generis Mandate for Palestine run counter to that principle."
Keep making things up, it is entertaining.
Just facts. The UN stated that self-determination was withheld from the native Muslims and Christians in writing in Resolution A/364. You just can't handle the truth.
"176. With regard to the principle of self-determination, although international recognition was extended to this principle at the end of the First World War and it was adhered to with regard to the other Arab territories, at the time of the creation of the "A" Mandates, it was not applied to Palestine, obviously because of the intention to make possible the creation of the Jewish National Home there. Actually, it may well be said that the Jewish National Home and the sui generis Mandate for Palestine run counter to that principle."
Keep making things up, it is entertaining.
Keep re-writing the articles you cut and paste. They get more incoherent as your lack of articulation tends toward befuddled writing.
Odd, don't you think? The very article you cut and pasted identified the goal of a Jewish National Home.
Keep editing the articles you cut and paste. It's a laughable joke as you stutter and mumble with revising those articles. LOL
I gave you the facts from the article you cut and pasted. You were either too lazy or incompetent to review what you cut and pasted.Just facts. The UN stated that self-determination was withheld from the native Muslims and Christians in writing in Resolution A/364. You just can't handle the truth.
"176. With regard to the principle of self-determination, although international recognition was extended to this principle at the end of the First World War and it was adhered to with regard to the other Arab territories, at the time of the creation of the "A" Mandates, it was not applied to Palestine, obviously because of the intention to make possible the creation of the Jewish National Home there. Actually, it may well be said that the Jewish National Home and the sui generis Mandate for Palestine run counter to that principle."
Keep making things up, it is entertaining.
Keep re-writing the articles you cut and paste. They get more incoherent as your lack of articulation tends toward befuddled writing.
Odd, don't you think? The very article you cut and pasted identified the goal of a Jewish National Home.
Keep editing the articles you cut and paste. It's a laughable joke as you stutter and mumble with revising those articles. LOL
You just can't accept the facts. There are no "articles" they are parts of a UN Resolution you idiot.
You have been reading my posts for a year and this is what you think?The Jews were not the first people there nor were they ever the only people there.Yes, I fully understand that. The oldest surviving "people of the place", as Tinman calls them, are the Jewish people.
There is no historic precedence for an exclusive Jewish state. History call for a multi religious place.
So, in the context of this thread, then, you are arguing that States which are homogeneous and built around a specific culture or ethnicity should not exist. Or are you applying this only to Jews?
Those are a lot of questions.There ya go José
Here's the questions again:
It is morally correct to exclude people from movement or immigration based on their ethnicity or former nationality. Yes or no?
It is morally correct to create borders between nations. Yes or no?
It is morally correct to segregate people based on their race, religion, or ethnicity. Yes or no?
It is morally correct to protect a nation's citizens from hostile actors through the use of checkpoints, walls, no-go zones and LEO's. Yes or no?
Everything always depends. Everything.1. Depends.
2. Yes.
3. Depends on the circumstances.
4. Yes.
What a bunch of mental crap.Originally posted by Shusha
It is morally correct to exclude people from movement or immigration based on their ethnicity or former nationality. Yes or no?
Despite decades of multiculturalist indoctrination in America the fact remains that nations are
an aggregation of persons of the same ethnic family, often speaking the same language or cognate languages.
the definition of nation
China and Japan are in their most basic definition asian tribes/countries/nation-states.
A China with a white or black majority would not be China anymore it would be another country.
The United States is in its essence a white, european country.
One of the reasons the United States is classified as part of the West is exactly its white majority... otherwise, extremely westernized countries like Japan would be part of the western civilization as well.
Preventing mass immigration from destroying the asian identity of China, the black identity of Nigeria, the pre-Columbian Indian majority of North America and the United States european identity was/is, therefore, not only morally correct but also an absolute imperative to guarantee the survival of one of the core components of those peoples/nations.
Even racial dictatorships like 19th century America, South Africa under apartheid and Israel have the right to protect their racial composition against FOREIGNERS, individuals whose historical homeland is not comprised by the territory of the state, like when Israel deports illegal Somalis, Nigerians, etc... but never against the NATIVES OF THE LAND, this is no longer immigration control, this is dehumanization, supremacism ethnic, moral depravation.
It is morally correct to create borders between nations. Yes or no?
Borders between real countries, yes.
Fake borders separating ethnocratic states from ethnic enclaves, no.
Even supremacist states can have real borders with neighboring countries like the ones South Africa under Apartheid had with Mozambique and Zimbabwe, and Israel has with Egypt and Jordan (a de facto border).
The "pseudo-borders" South Africa had with the bantu homelands and Israel has with Gaza and the WB do not qualify as real borders, they are just the limits of the ethnic enclaves imposed by the ethnocratic state to preserve their artificial ethnic majorities.
It is morally correct to segregate people based on their race, religion, or ethnicity. Yes or no?
As Pete has pointed out in a previous post the government cannot promote racial, religious segregation but individuals must have a reasonable degree of freedom of association.
It is morally correct to protect a nation's citizens from hostile actors through the use of checkpoints, walls, no-go zones and LEO's. Yes or no?
Checkpoints, walls and no-go zones separating real nations yes.
Despite all the global commotion, America would be well within her rights to build a wall along the mexican border because there is no ethnic supremacism involved.
But if the "hostile actor" is not a foreign country or national but displaced natives of the land then the checkpoints and walls serve a clearly supremacist, dehumanising purpose.
Everything always depends. Everything.1. Depends.
2. Yes.
3. Depends on the circumstances.
4. Yes.
And "obviously because of the intention to make possible the creation of the Jewish National Home there. Actually, it may well be said that the Jewish National Home and the sui generis Mandate for Palestine run counter to that principle."
As the UN Resolution stated: The creation of a Jewish National Home in Palestine ran counter to that principle as stated in the Covenant of the League of Nations and the UN Charter. Palestine was not the ancestral homeland of Europeans, it was the home of the Muslim and Christian inhabitants whose ancestors had lived there for thousands of years. Ancestors who practiced various religions prior to converting to Christianity as required by the Roman/Byzantine Empire and eventually many to Islam.
As the UN resolution stated: "(1) The placing of the country "under such political, administrative arid economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish National Home, as laid down in the preamble . . ." .
Your issue is with the UN and resolving your IJH which obviously consumes your every waking moment.
And, they said about this this National Home "obviously because of the intention to make possible the creation of the Jewish National Home there. Actually, it may well be said that the Jewish National Home and the sui generis Mandate for Palestine run counter to that principle."
No one is saying that the UN did not support and facilitate the creation of the Jewish National Home. It did so by ignoring the principle of self-determination for the Muslim and Christian inhabitants favoring the European Jews. Totally contrary to the terms Covenant of the LON and the UN Charter.
Just facts. The UN stated that self-determination was withheld from the native Muslims and Christians in writing in Resolution A/364. You just can't handle the truth.
"176. With regard to the principle of self-determination, although international recognition was extended to this principle at the end of the First World War and it was adhered to with regard to the other Arab territories, at the time of the creation of the "A" Mandates, it was not applied to Palestine, obviously because of the intention to make possible the creation of the Jewish National Home there. Actually, it may well be said that the Jewish National Home and the sui generis Mandate for Palestine run counter to that principle."
Keep making things up, it is entertaining.
You have been reading my posts for a year and this is what you think?The Jews were not the first people there nor were they ever the only people there.Yes, I fully understand that. The oldest surviving "people of the place", as Tinman calls them, are the Jewish people.
There is no historic precedence for an exclusive Jewish state. History call for a multi religious place.
So, in the context of this thread, then, you are arguing that States which are homogeneous and built around a specific culture or ethnicity should not exist. Or are you applying this only to Jews?
WOW!