Anti-BDS Bill - Bravo

[Hollie]

LIAR you are told why every week when you ask the same question.

Now here is one for you, under what international law are you declaring Israel's existence to have no legitimacy ?

Song and dance is not an answer.

Territorial integrity. Self determination without external interference. The illegality of acquiring territory by force.

The mandate was not acquired by force.

All of your appeals to ignorance regarding the history surrounding establishment of Israel have been addressed more times than anyone can recall.

You simply drone on with silly spam because you're unwilling to accept the failure of Islamists to build anything resembling a functioning society.

The mandate was not acquired by force.​

The Mandate did not create Israel.

Correct. As usual, that has all been explained to you before.

What other questions / pointless babble are you going to spam this thread with that has already been explained to you in tedious, excruciating detail.

Bullshit Israeli talking points don't explain anything.

Your pointlesness derives from your inability to resolve your hurt feelings.

 

[Phoenall]

No you are ducking the answers because you don't want Israel to exist. The Jews followed the rules and declared independence on may 15 1948, this was accepted by the UN in full council in 1949 giving Israel legitimacy. When did the state of Palestine get its legitimacy, and under what circumstances ? Because some nations don't see Palestine as a state yet, just muslim shenanigans

The Jews followed the rules and declared independence on may 15 1948,​

Did they? What was Israel's legal procedure to acquire the land it sits on?

How many times has that been addressed for you?

Never.

LIAR you are told why every week when you ask the same question.

Now here is one for you, under what international law are you declaring Israel's existence to have no legitimacy ?

Song and dance is not an answer.

Territorial integrity. Self determination without external interference. The illegality of acquiring territory by force.

They have it They showed it They stamped it out 4 times and gave the arab muslims a bloody nose every time.


You lose again because your hatred of the Jews clouds your thoughts

 

[Phoenall]

How many times has that been addressed for you?

Never.

LIAR you are told why every week when you ask the same question.

Now here is one for you, under what international law are you declaring Israel's existence to have no legitimacy ?

Song and dance is not an answer.

Territorial integrity. Self determination without external interference. The illegality of acquiring territory by force.

The mandate was not acquired by force.

All of your appeals to ignorance regarding the history surrounding establishment of Israel have been addressed more times than anyone can recall.

You simply drone on with silly spam because you're unwilling to accept the failure of Islamists to build anything resembling a functioning society.

The mandate was not acquired by force.​

The Mandate did not create Israel.

Read it again, and don't confuse it with the British mandate this time

 

[Phoenall]

LIAR you are told why every week when you ask the same question.

Now here is one for you, under what international law are you declaring Israel's existence to have no legitimacy ?

Song and dance is not an answer.

Territorial integrity. Self determination without external interference. The illegality of acquiring territory by force.

The mandate was not acquired by force.

All of your appeals to ignorance regarding the history surrounding establishment of Israel have been addressed more times than anyone can recall.

You simply drone on with silly spam because you're unwilling to accept the failure of Islamists to build anything resembling a functioning society.

The mandate was not acquired by force.​

The Mandate did not create Israel.

Correct. As usual, that has all been explained to you before.

What other questions / pointless babble are you going to spam this thread with that has already been explained to you in tedious, excruciating detail.

Bullshit Israeli talking points don't explain anything.

In other words the truth is not acceptable because it supports and defends the Jews. Something that you want to make illegal

 

[P F Tinmore]

Never.

LIAR you are told why every week when you ask the same question.

Now here is one for you, under what international law are you declaring Israel's existence to have no legitimacy ?

Song and dance is not an answer.

Territorial integrity. Self determination without external interference. The illegality of acquiring territory by force.

The mandate was not acquired by force.

All of your appeals to ignorance regarding the history surrounding establishment of Israel have been addressed more times than anyone can recall.

You simply drone on with silly spam because you're unwilling to accept the failure of Islamists to build anything resembling a functioning society.

The mandate was not acquired by force.​

The Mandate did not create Israel.

Read it again, and don't confuse it with the British mandate this time

OK, prove your point.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, Phoenall, et al,

The question of: "What legal procedure?"

You ask about "legal vs illegal" quite often. Yet you have no idea what the question implies.

A stipulation to an "illegal procedure" --- implies --- that there is a "legal procedure;" and vice-versa. We might say that, in layman's terms, rules of international law that govern the acquisition of sovereignty over territory. This is very different from the pro-Palestinian advocacy that sovereignty is inherited and passed on from one generation of inhabitants to the next. In the means of Acquisition of Territorial Sovereignty, as previously discussed several times, we've noted that there are five, very common and understood modes; of which, the use of Armed Force (conquest) was considered no longer considered internationally legal ---UN Charter Article 2(4). And of the five traditional modes of acquisition of territory, "conquest" is the most relevant.

The pro-Palestinians movements generally point to Article 22 of the League of Nations Covenant, where they claim that by agreement between the member nations and Allied Powers (and not a contract or promise involving the Arab Palestinians as a party), the inhabitants have some generational claim to the sovereignty. However, the only record of passing the Title and Rights of the territories was that of “Cession" (one of the five modes) wherein the transfer of territory, from one state to another, was accomplished through the Treaty of Lausanne (Article 16).

The Pro-Palestinian armed jihad renders the opinion that all rights and title to the territory ARE self-evident, because they were inhabitants. Nowhere in the Middle East is this the case. The Nations of Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Jordan and Egypt were granted sovereignty and independence on the basis of some other criteria.

• Lebanon: 22 November 1943 (from League of Nations mandate under French administration)
• Syria: 17 April 1946 (from League of Nations mandate under French administration)
• Iraq:

√ 3 October 1932 (from League of Nations mandate under British administration);
√ 28 June 2004 (Coalition Provisional Authority transferred sovereignty to the Iraqi Interim Government)
​

• Jordan: 25 May 1946 (from League of Nations mandate under British administration)
• Egypt:

√ 28 February 1922 (from UK protectorate status)
√ 23 July 1952 (The revolution forming the Republic)
√ 18 June 1956 (British troops withdrawn on 18 June 1956)​

The Jews followed the rules and declared independence on May 15 1948,

Did they? What was Israel's legal procedure to acquire the land it sits on?

(COMMENT)

In the case of Israel, the Jewish Immigrants followed the Steps Preparatory to Independence adopted by the UN General Assembly.

In the last 100 years, a plethora of new sovereignties have arose: nearly all of which as an outcome of some major conflict:

• Finland
• Austria
• Czechoslovakia
• Yugoslavia
• Poland
• Hungary
• Latvia
• Lithuania
• Estonia
• Bosnia
• Herzegovina

• Czech Republic

• Slovakia

• Eritrea

• Palau

• East Timor

• Serbia

• Montenegro

• Kosovo

• South Sudan

Relative to the concept of "conquest" -- the actual prohibition reads:

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.
​

As you can follow, it is not a prohibition of "conquest;" but, has several components:

• Prohibits the threat of forces
• Prohibits The use of force
• Prohibits The violation of territorial integrity,
• Prohibits interference in domestic independence,
• Prohibits the contamination of international peace and security, and justice,
​

This is actually a prohibition against the use of aggression to acquire sovereign territory. Formally, the acts of aggression began with the attempts by the Arab League to extend their control and governance over the territory formerly under the Mandate.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Phoenall]

LIAR you are told why every week when you ask the same question.

Now here is one for you, under what international law are you declaring Israel's existence to have no legitimacy ?

Song and dance is not an answer.

Territorial integrity. Self determination without external interference. The illegality of acquiring territory by force.

The mandate was not acquired by force.

All of your appeals to ignorance regarding the history surrounding establishment of Israel have been addressed more times than anyone can recall.

You simply drone on with silly spam because you're unwilling to accept the failure of Islamists to build anything resembling a functioning society.

The mandate was not acquired by force.​

The Mandate did not create Israel.

Read it again, and don't confuse it with the British mandate this time

OK, prove your point.

The Palestine Mandate
The Council of the League of Nations:
Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have agreed, for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, to entrust to a Mandatory selected by the said Powers the administration of the territory of Palestine, which formerly belonged to the Turkish Empire, within such boundaries as may be fixed by them; and

Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country; and

Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country; and

Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have selected His Britannic Majesty as the Mandatory for Palestine; and

Whereas the mandate in respect of Palestine has been formulated in the following terms and submitted to the Council of the League for approval; and

Whereas His Britannic Majesty has accepted the mandate in respect of Palestine and undertaken to exercise it on behalf of the League of Nations in conformity with the following provisions; and

Whereas by the afore-mentioned Article 22 (paragraph 8), it is provided that the degree of authority, control or administration to be exercised by the Mandatory, not having been previously agreed upon by the Members of the League, shall be explicitly defined by the Council of the League Of Nations;

confirming the said Mandate, defines its terms as follows:

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, Phoenall, et al,

The question of: "What legal procedure?"

You ask about "legal vs illegal" quite often. Yet you have no idea what the question implies.

A stipulation to an "illegal procedure" --- implies --- that there is a "legal procedure;" and vice-versa. We might say that, in layman's terms, rules of international law that govern the acquisition of sovereignty over territory. This is very different from the pro-Palestinian advocacy that sovereignty is inherited and passed on from one generation of inhabitants to the next. In the means of Acquisition of Territorial Sovereignty, as previously discussed several times, we've noted that there are five, very common and understood modes; of which, the use of Armed Force (conquest) was considered no longer considered internationally legal ---UN Charter Article 2(4). And of the five traditional modes of acquisition of territory, "conquest" is the most relevant.

The pro-Palestinians movements generally point to Article 22 of the League of Nations Covenant, where they claim that by agreement between the member nations and Allied Powers (and not a contract or promise involving the Arab Palestinians as a party), the inhabitants have some generational claim to the sovereignty. However, the only record of passing the Title and Rights of the territories was that of “Cession" (one of the five modes) wherein the transfer of territory, from one state to another, was accomplished through the Treaty of Lausanne (Article 16).

The Pro-Palestinian armed jihad renders the opinion that all rights and title to the territory ARE self-evident, because they were inhabitants. Nowhere in the Middle East is this the case. The Nations of Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Jordan and Egypt were granted sovereignty and independence on the basis of some other criteria.

• Lebanon: 22 November 1943 (from League of Nations mandate under French administration)
• Syria: 17 April 1946 (from League of Nations mandate under French administration)
• Iraq:

√ 3 October 1932 (from League of Nations mandate under British administration);
√ 28 June 2004 (Coalition Provisional Authority transferred sovereignty to the Iraqi Interim Government)
​

• Jordan: 25 May 1946 (from League of Nations mandate under British administration)
• Egypt:

√ 28 February 1922 (from UK protectorate status)
√ 23 July 1952 (The revolution forming the Republic)
√ 18 June 1956 (British troops withdrawn on 18 June 1956)​

The Jews followed the rules and declared independence on May 15 1948,

Did they? What was Israel's legal procedure to acquire the land it sits on?

(COMMENT)

In the case of Israel, the Jewish Immigrants followed the Steps Preparatory to Independence adopted by the UN General Assembly.

In the last 100 years, a plethora of new sovereignties have arose: nearly all of which as an outcome of some major conflict:

• Finland
• Austria
• Czechoslovakia
• Yugoslavia
• Poland
• Hungary
• Latvia
• Lithuania
• Estonia
• Bosnia
• Herzegovina

• Czech Republic

• Slovakia

• Eritrea

• Palau

• East Timor

• Serbia

• Montenegro

• Kosovo

• South Sudan

Relative to the concept of "conquest" -- the actual prohibition reads:

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.
​

As you can follow, it is not a prohibition of "conquest;" but, has several components:

• Prohibits the threat of forces
• Prohibits The use of force
• Prohibits The violation of territorial integrity,
• Prohibits interference in domestic independence,
• Prohibits the contamination of international peace and security, and justice,
​

This is actually a prohibition against the use of aggression to acquire sovereign territory. Formally, the acts of aggression began with the attempts by the Arab League to extend their control and governance over the territory formerly under the Mandate.

Most Respectfully,
R

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.​

Indeed, you constantly misinterpret this passage. On several occasions, the UN has said that it is the Palestinians who have the right:

• To self determination without external interference.
• To independence and sovereignty.
• To territorial integrity.

Also that the Palestinians have the right to return to their homes.

I have seen no such designations for the Israelis.

 

[Hollie]

P F Tinmore, Phoenall, et al,

The question of: "What legal procedure?"

You ask about "legal vs illegal" quite often. Yet you have no idea what the question implies.

A stipulation to an "illegal procedure" --- implies --- that there is a "legal procedure;" and vice-versa. We might say that, in layman's terms, rules of international law that govern the acquisition of sovereignty over territory. This is very different from the pro-Palestinian advocacy that sovereignty is inherited and passed on from one generation of inhabitants to the next. In the means of Acquisition of Territorial Sovereignty, as previously discussed several times, we've noted that there are five, very common and understood modes; of which, the use of Armed Force (conquest) was considered no longer considered internationally legal ---UN Charter Article 2(4). And of the five traditional modes of acquisition of territory, "conquest" is the most relevant.

The pro-Palestinians movements generally point to Article 22 of the League of Nations Covenant, where they claim that by agreement between the member nations and Allied Powers (and not a contract or promise involving the Arab Palestinians as a party), the inhabitants have some generational claim to the sovereignty. However, the only record of passing the Title and Rights of the territories was that of “Cession" (one of the five modes) wherein the transfer of territory, from one state to another, was accomplished through the Treaty of Lausanne (Article 16).

The Pro-Palestinian armed jihad renders the opinion that all rights and title to the territory ARE self-evident, because they were inhabitants. Nowhere in the Middle East is this the case. The Nations of Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Jordan and Egypt were granted sovereignty and independence on the basis of some other criteria.

• Lebanon: 22 November 1943 (from League of Nations mandate under French administration)
• Syria: 17 April 1946 (from League of Nations mandate under French administration)
• Iraq:

√ 3 October 1932 (from League of Nations mandate under British administration);
√ 28 June 2004 (Coalition Provisional Authority transferred sovereignty to the Iraqi Interim Government)
​

• Jordan: 25 May 1946 (from League of Nations mandate under British administration)
• Egypt:

√ 28 February 1922 (from UK protectorate status)
√ 23 July 1952 (The revolution forming the Republic)
√ 18 June 1956 (British troops withdrawn on 18 June 1956)​

The Jews followed the rules and declared independence on May 15 1948,

Did they? What was Israel's legal procedure to acquire the land it sits on?

(COMMENT)

In the case of Israel, the Jewish Immigrants followed the Steps Preparatory to Independence adopted by the UN General Assembly.

In the last 100 years, a plethora of new sovereignties have arose: nearly all of which as an outcome of some major conflict:

• Finland
• Austria
• Czechoslovakia
• Yugoslavia
• Poland
• Hungary
• Latvia
• Lithuania
• Estonia
• Bosnia
• Herzegovina

• Czech Republic

• Slovakia

• Eritrea

• Palau

• East Timor

• Serbia

• Montenegro

• Kosovo

• South Sudan

Relative to the concept of "conquest" -- the actual prohibition reads:

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.
​

As you can follow, it is not a prohibition of "conquest;" but, has several components:

• Prohibits the threat of forces
• Prohibits The use of force
• Prohibits The violation of territorial integrity,
• Prohibits interference in domestic independence,
• Prohibits the contamination of international peace and security, and justice,
​

This is actually a prohibition against the use of aggression to acquire sovereign territory. Formally, the acts of aggression began with the attempts by the Arab League to extend their control and governance over the territory formerly under the Mandate.

Most Respectfully,
R

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.​

Indeed, you constantly misinterpret this passage. On several occasions, the UN has said that it is the Palestinians who have the right:

• To self determination without external interference.
• To independence and sovereignty.
• To territorial integrity.

Also that the Palestinians have the right to return to their homes.

I have seen no such designations for the Israelis.

What you consistently get befuddled with are the goals and objectives of the three bullet points. It was, and is, Arab-Moslem intransigence, incompetence and ineptitude that prevents them, still, from meeting those bullet points.

And once again, all of this has been spelled out to you before but you insist on dumping the same pointless comments again and again into thread after thread.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

The UN has said "all peoples" have these rights.

Indeed, you constantly misinterpret this passage. On several occasions, the UN has said that it is the Palestinians who have the right:

• To self determination without external interference.
• To independence and sovereignty.
• To territorial integrity.

Also that the Palestinians have the right to return to their homes.

I have seen no such designations for the Israelis.

(COMMENT)

As I've said before:

No one has denied the rights.

The Palestinians have not been able to carry through, and cry over their inabilities to achieve their objectives.

To have a "right" is not the same as a command to hand it (the right to something) over on a silver platter. I have a right to hold money. It does not mean that you must give me money. I must earn it.

You assertion that "have seen no such designations for the Israelis" is utterly and totally ridiculous. If the Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP) have such rights, then all peoples have such rights. There is absolutely nothing so unique or special about the HoAP that grants them something beyond al other people. The right to self-determination is the same for all peoples, not something special just for the HoAP.

It all is derived from the same source: Chapter I of the UN Charter.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

 

[Hollie]

A Common Fight: Why Christians and Jews are Coming Together to Defeat Hate and Intolerance
04/12/2016 02:01 pm ET | Updated Apr 19, 2016

A Common Fight: Why Christians and Jews are Coming Together to Defeat Hate and Intolerance

Co-authored by Pastor Carlos Ortiz, president/founder of Hispanics Allied for Israel

For the first time in 1,600 years, there are no Christians left in Mosul. This once-thriving Christian community in Iraq has been completely decimated by radical Islamists - like so many others across the Middle East - with thousands fleeing their families’ ancient homes when faced with death or brutal persecution at the hands of ISIS.

...


Israel is the only country in the Middle East where the Christian community is thriving and growing. It is the one place in the region where Christians can practice their religion freely and openly.

Why do Christians find a welcoming home in Israel? First and foremost, Israel is the one place in the Middle East where democracy is enshrined, where human rights are respected, and where all minorities are protected, including Christians, Druze, Baha’is, and Samaritans. Yet, beyond this, Jews and Christians share a common history, heritage, and set of values.

Indeed, Judeo-Christian principles form the basis for all of Western Civilization - and define the way that we live in America. Today these values are under assault, not only in the Middle East, but also in Europe and America.

The same hateful ideology that causes radical Islamists to massacre Christians in Iraq, to bar Christians from citizenship in Saudi Arabia, to burn Coptic churches Egypt and Christian churches in Syria, comes from a tradition that is now driving the demonization of the world’s one and only Jewish State.

The Boycott, Divestment, and Sanction Movement (BDS) purports to levy economic and political pressure against Israel in order to seek alleged justice for the Palestinian people. In reality, BDS is a global crusade seeded in anti-Semitic and anti-Western hatred that not only blindly attacks Israel, but also attacks our country’s commitment to our core liberal values of freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of the press.

One of the most insidious features of the BDS movement is its smokescreen as a progressive, social justice movement. For that very reason, it has had great success steadily advancing its poisonous rhetoric of anti-Israel and anti-Semitic hate across our college campuses, labor unions, corporations, and academic institutions, and even our churches. But we must not be fooled: BDS was born from a radical Islamic ideology in the Middle East that not only hates Judaism, but also Christianity and America. In the same breath, those behind this wave of hate frequently chant Death to Israel and Death to America. For them, Israel is the small Satan. America is the great Satan.

The top-listed signatory on the foundational document for today’s BDS Movement - a declaration issued in 2005 - is the Council of National and Islamic Forces in Palestine, which includes representatives of terrorist organizations such as Hamas, Fatah, and Palestinian Islamic Jihad.

Many of the leaders of the BDS movement are linked to international terrorist groups that oppress Christians in the Middle East. Hatem Bazian - one of the chief architects of BDS and the founder of “Students for Justice in Palestine,” the largest on-campus BDS organization - has been connected to a range of groups shut down by the Justice Department for raising money on behalf of the Hamas terrorist organization and other radical Islamist groups. Bazian has called for a violent uprising, in his words “an Intifada,” not only in Israel but also in the United States, and vocalized support for attacks on American troops in Iraq.




http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/gorilla-cincinnati-zoo-video-shot_us_5749f024e4b03ede44150165

 

[Kondor3]

OK, but BDS will still be able to boycott those companies.

As if that made one tiny bit of difference, you silly Palestinian propaganda shill...

BDS is a fart in a hurricane...

 

[montelatici]

OK, but BDS will still be able to boycott those companies.

As if that made one tiny bit of difference, you silly Palestinian propaganda shill...

BDS is a fart in a hurricane...

Then why is there so much effort being exerted to ban BDS, you ridiculous little Zionist propagandist. Maybe the lady doth protest too much.

 

[P F Tinmore]

OK, but BDS will still be able to boycott those companies.

As if that made one tiny bit of difference, you silly Palestinian propaganda shill...

BDS is a fart in a hurricane...

Israel does not share your mirth.

 

[Hollie]

OK, but BDS will still be able to boycott those companies.

As if that made one tiny bit of difference, you silly Palestinian propaganda shill...

BDS is a fart in a hurricane...

Then why is there so much effort being exerted to ban BDS, you ridiculous little Zionist propagandist. Maybe the lady doth protest too much.

There actually isn't that much effort, you ridiculous Islamic terrorist Pom Pom flailer.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, Phoenall, et al,

The question of: "What legal procedure?"

You ask about "legal vs illegal" quite often. Yet you have no idea what the question implies.

A stipulation to an "illegal procedure" --- implies --- that there is a "legal procedure;" and vice-versa. We might say that, in layman's terms, rules of international law that govern the acquisition of sovereignty over territory. This is very different from the pro-Palestinian advocacy that sovereignty is inherited and passed on from one generation of inhabitants to the next. In the means of Acquisition of Territorial Sovereignty, as previously discussed several times, we've noted that there are five, very common and understood modes; of which, the use of Armed Force (conquest) was considered no longer considered internationally legal ---UN Charter Article 2(4). And of the five traditional modes of acquisition of territory, "conquest" is the most relevant.

The pro-Palestinians movements generally point to Article 22 of the League of Nations Covenant, where they claim that by agreement between the member nations and Allied Powers (and not a contract or promise involving the Arab Palestinians as a party), the inhabitants have some generational claim to the sovereignty. However, the only record of passing the Title and Rights of the territories was that of “Cession" (one of the five modes) wherein the transfer of territory, from one state to another, was accomplished through the Treaty of Lausanne (Article 16).

The Pro-Palestinian armed jihad renders the opinion that all rights and title to the territory ARE self-evident, because they were inhabitants. Nowhere in the Middle East is this the case. The Nations of Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Jordan and Egypt were granted sovereignty and independence on the basis of some other criteria.

• Lebanon: 22 November 1943 (from League of Nations mandate under French administration)
• Syria: 17 April 1946 (from League of Nations mandate under French administration)
• Iraq:

√ 3 October 1932 (from League of Nations mandate under British administration);
√ 28 June 2004 (Coalition Provisional Authority transferred sovereignty to the Iraqi Interim Government)
​

• Jordan: 25 May 1946 (from League of Nations mandate under British administration)
• Egypt:

√ 28 February 1922 (from UK protectorate status)
√ 23 July 1952 (The revolution forming the Republic)
√ 18 June 1956 (British troops withdrawn on 18 June 1956)​

The Jews followed the rules and declared independence on May 15 1948,

Did they? What was Israel's legal procedure to acquire the land it sits on?

(COMMENT)

In the case of Israel, the Jewish Immigrants followed the Steps Preparatory to Independence adopted by the UN General Assembly.

In the last 100 years, a plethora of new sovereignties have arose: nearly all of which as an outcome of some major conflict:

• Finland
• Austria
• Czechoslovakia
• Yugoslavia
• Poland
• Hungary
• Latvia
• Lithuania
• Estonia
• Bosnia
• Herzegovina

• Czech Republic

• Slovakia

• Eritrea

• Palau

• East Timor

• Serbia

• Montenegro

• Kosovo

• South Sudan

Relative to the concept of "conquest" -- the actual prohibition reads:

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.
​

As you can follow, it is not a prohibition of "conquest;" but, has several components:

• Prohibits the threat of forces
• Prohibits The use of force
• Prohibits The violation of territorial integrity,
• Prohibits interference in domestic independence,
• Prohibits the contamination of international peace and security, and justice,
​

This is actually a prohibition against the use of aggression to acquire sovereign territory. Formally, the acts of aggression began with the attempts by the Arab League to extend their control and governance over the territory formerly under the Mandate.

Most Respectfully,
R

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.​

Indeed, you constantly misinterpret this passage. On several occasions, the UN has said that it is the Palestinians who have the right:

• To self determination without external interference.
• To independence and sovereignty.
• To territorial integrity.

Also that the Palestinians have the right to return to their homes.

I have seen no such designations for the Israelis.

AND what does this tell you.

Could it be that the Israelis have excercised self determination, attained independence and sovereignty and have territorial integrity because they are so much better and more able than the Palestinians. Why do the Palestinians demand that the world gives them self determination with external influence, independence and sovereignty over another nations lands and weapons to enable them territorial integrity

 

[Phoenall]

The best you have is a montage put together by the BDS islamonazi oallywood production media group. Nothing even remotely official showing any actual apartheid in Israel proper, just the effects of response to terrorism in the occupied territory.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, Phoenall, et al,

The question of: "What legal procedure?"

You ask about "legal vs illegal" quite often. Yet you have no idea what the question implies.

A stipulation to an "illegal procedure" --- implies --- that there is a "legal procedure;" and vice-versa. We might say that, in layman's terms, rules of international law that govern the acquisition of sovereignty over territory. This is very different from the pro-Palestinian advocacy that sovereignty is inherited and passed on from one generation of inhabitants to the next. In the means of Acquisition of Territorial Sovereignty, as previously discussed several times, we've noted that there are five, very common and understood modes; of which, the use of Armed Force (conquest) was considered no longer considered internationally legal ---UN Charter Article 2(4). And of the five traditional modes of acquisition of territory, "conquest" is the most relevant.

The pro-Palestinians movements generally point to Article 22 of the League of Nations Covenant, where they claim that by agreement between the member nations and Allied Powers (and not a contract or promise involving the Arab Palestinians as a party), the inhabitants have some generational claim to the sovereignty. However, the only record of passing the Title and Rights of the territories was that of “Cession" (one of the five modes) wherein the transfer of territory, from one state to another, was accomplished through the Treaty of Lausanne (Article 16).

The Pro-Palestinian armed jihad renders the opinion that all rights and title to the territory ARE self-evident, because they were inhabitants. Nowhere in the Middle East is this the case. The Nations of Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Jordan and Egypt were granted sovereignty and independence on the basis of some other criteria.

• Lebanon: 22 November 1943 (from League of Nations mandate under French administration)
• Syria: 17 April 1946 (from League of Nations mandate under French administration)
• Iraq:

√ 3 October 1932 (from League of Nations mandate under British administration);
√ 28 June 2004 (Coalition Provisional Authority transferred sovereignty to the Iraqi Interim Government)
​

• Jordan: 25 May 1946 (from League of Nations mandate under British administration)
• Egypt:

√ 28 February 1922 (from UK protectorate status)
√ 23 July 1952 (The revolution forming the Republic)
√ 18 June 1956 (British troops withdrawn on 18 June 1956)​

The Jews followed the rules and declared independence on May 15 1948,

Did they? What was Israel's legal procedure to acquire the land it sits on?

(COMMENT)

In the case of Israel, the Jewish Immigrants followed the Steps Preparatory to Independence adopted by the UN General Assembly.

In the last 100 years, a plethora of new sovereignties have arose: nearly all of which as an outcome of some major conflict:

• Finland
• Austria
• Czechoslovakia
• Yugoslavia
• Poland
• Hungary
• Latvia
• Lithuania
• Estonia
• Bosnia
• Herzegovina

• Czech Republic

• Slovakia

• Eritrea

• Palau

• East Timor

• Serbia

• Montenegro

• Kosovo

• South Sudan

Relative to the concept of "conquest" -- the actual prohibition reads:

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.
​

As you can follow, it is not a prohibition of "conquest;" but, has several components:

• Prohibits the threat of forces
• Prohibits The use of force
• Prohibits The violation of territorial integrity,
• Prohibits interference in domestic independence,
• Prohibits the contamination of international peace and security, and justice,
​

This is actually a prohibition against the use of aggression to acquire sovereign territory. Formally, the acts of aggression began with the attempts by the Arab League to extend their control and governance over the territory formerly under the Mandate.

Most Respectfully,
R

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.​

Indeed, you constantly misinterpret this passage. On several occasions, the UN has said that it is the Palestinians who have the right:

• To self determination without external interference.
• To independence and sovereignty.
• To territorial integrity.

Also that the Palestinians have the right to return to their homes.

I have seen no such designations for the Israelis.

AND what does this tell you.

Could it be that the Israelis have excercised self determination, attained independence and sovereignty and have territorial integrity because they are so much better and more able than the Palestinians. Why do the Palestinians demand that the world gives them self determination with external influence, independence and sovereignty over another nations lands and weapons to enable them territorial integrity

Actually it is because they can mooch more money and weapons.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, Phoenall, et al,

The question of: "What legal procedure?"

You ask about "legal vs illegal" quite often. Yet you have no idea what the question implies.

A stipulation to an "illegal procedure" --- implies --- that there is a "legal procedure;" and vice-versa. We might say that, in layman's terms, rules of international law that govern the acquisition of sovereignty over territory. This is very different from the pro-Palestinian advocacy that sovereignty is inherited and passed on from one generation of inhabitants to the next. In the means of Acquisition of Territorial Sovereignty, as previously discussed several times, we've noted that there are five, very common and understood modes; of which, the use of Armed Force (conquest) was considered no longer considered internationally legal ---UN Charter Article 2(4). And of the five traditional modes of acquisition of territory, "conquest" is the most relevant.

The pro-Palestinians movements generally point to Article 22 of the League of Nations Covenant, where they claim that by agreement between the member nations and Allied Powers (and not a contract or promise involving the Arab Palestinians as a party), the inhabitants have some generational claim to the sovereignty. However, the only record of passing the Title and Rights of the territories was that of “Cession" (one of the five modes) wherein the transfer of territory, from one state to another, was accomplished through the Treaty of Lausanne (Article 16).

The Pro-Palestinian armed jihad renders the opinion that all rights and title to the territory ARE self-evident, because they were inhabitants. Nowhere in the Middle East is this the case. The Nations of Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Jordan and Egypt were granted sovereignty and independence on the basis of some other criteria.

• Lebanon: 22 November 1943 (from League of Nations mandate under French administration)
• Syria: 17 April 1946 (from League of Nations mandate under French administration)
• Iraq:

√ 3 October 1932 (from League of Nations mandate under British administration);
√ 28 June 2004 (Coalition Provisional Authority transferred sovereignty to the Iraqi Interim Government)
​

• Jordan: 25 May 1946 (from League of Nations mandate under British administration)
• Egypt:

√ 28 February 1922 (from UK protectorate status)
√ 23 July 1952 (The revolution forming the Republic)
√ 18 June 1956 (British troops withdrawn on 18 June 1956)​

The Jews followed the rules and declared independence on May 15 1948,

Did they? What was Israel's legal procedure to acquire the land it sits on?

(COMMENT)

In the case of Israel, the Jewish Immigrants followed the Steps Preparatory to Independence adopted by the UN General Assembly.

In the last 100 years, a plethora of new sovereignties have arose: nearly all of which as an outcome of some major conflict:

• Finland
• Austria
• Czechoslovakia
• Yugoslavia
• Poland
• Hungary
• Latvia
• Lithuania
• Estonia
• Bosnia
• Herzegovina

• Czech Republic

• Slovakia

• Eritrea

• Palau

• East Timor

• Serbia

• Montenegro

• Kosovo

• South Sudan

Relative to the concept of "conquest" -- the actual prohibition reads:

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.
​

As you can follow, it is not a prohibition of "conquest;" but, has several components:

• Prohibits the threat of forces
• Prohibits The use of force
• Prohibits The violation of territorial integrity,
• Prohibits interference in domestic independence,
• Prohibits the contamination of international peace and security, and justice,
​

This is actually a prohibition against the use of aggression to acquire sovereign territory. Formally, the acts of aggression began with the attempts by the Arab League to extend their control and governance over the territory formerly under the Mandate.

Most Respectfully,
R

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.​

Indeed, you constantly misinterpret this passage. On several occasions, the UN has said that it is the Palestinians who have the right:

• To self determination without external interference.
• To independence and sovereignty.
• To territorial integrity.

Also that the Palestinians have the right to return to their homes.

I have seen no such designations for the Israelis.

AND what does this tell you.

Could it be that the Israelis have excercised self determination, attained independence and sovereignty and have territorial integrity because they are so much better and more able than the Palestinians. Why do the Palestinians demand that the world gives them self determination with external influence, independence and sovereignty over another nations lands and weapons to enable them territorial integrity

Actually it is because they can mooch more money and weapons.

When you look at the evidence you find that it is the arab muslims that do most of the mooching, so much so that the UN budget is taken up by supporting islam. Over $30billion in aid is given to muslim nations in the area, along with double that in military equipment .


How Much Foreign Aid Does the U.S. Give Away?

Indeed, while foreign aid is well under 1 percent of the total U.S. federal budget, it's still counted in the multiple tens of billions of dollars – around $23 billion this year, or a total of $37 billion if you include assistance to foreign militaries.



Only $3 billion of this goes to Israel, most of the rest goes to islamonazi terrorists