Best response ever to the stupidest question ever: Does Israel have the right to exist?

[Rigby5]

I support the sovereignty (self-determination) of all indigenous peoples. Indigeneity has a clear and understandable meaning that can be applied reasonably to all peoples. The Jewish people are indigenous to the lands of Israel, Judea, and Samaria.

That is a lie.
The Jewish people claim to be the native Hebrew, but clearly are not.
And the Hebrew are only known to be native to the Sinai, where they lived before spending 400 years in Egypt.
Israel, Judea, and Samaria are tiny city states that were the result of the illegal invasion of the Land of Canaan by the Hebrew who stole Egyptian weapons.
Israel, Judea, and Samaria only have a history from about 1000 BC to 800 BC.
That is because all neighboring cultures hated their arrogance, violence, greed, etc.
That is why they were constantly defeated by the Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians, Greeks, Seleucids, and Romans.
There is no legitimate Jewish claim to any land in the Mideast.
If there were Mideast Jewish cultures, then where is the evidence?
Where are the buildings, roads, maps, libraries, written documents, etc.?
The facts are there is not a single Jewish building, road, map, library, written document, etc., from any Jewish kingdom.
The closest one can come is from Judea, that was a fake kingdom created by the Romans, as a puppet.
But it is easily proven fake because King Herod was a Roman, and only claimed to convert.
There was no Hebrew script until the Romans created on around 100 BC.
The exploits of the Old Testament are totally fake, written by the Byzantine Romans, around 200 to 400 AD.

 

[Shusha]

Palestine existed first in 1920, by the treaty of San Remo and Treaty of Sevres.

Neither San Remo nor Sevres created a State. It doesn't work that way. San Remo is the precursor to the Mandate for Palestine 1922.

Israel was created much later in n1948,

Correct. Israel became a State at its Declaration of Independence in 1948, having fulfilled the requirements of population, government, territory, recognition. It remains the only one to do so.

 

[Rigby5]

Eyeroll. Words have actual meanings. International law is not "legislation". There are two primary sources of international law. 1. Treaty law, where States agree to be bound by the conditions outlined within the treaty itself. 2. Customary law, where repeated actions by States lead to "customs" which become recognized.

"Inherently right" is an ill-defined concept. Your own words prove this. You claim that any and all actions committed by the people of Gaza against Israel are justified (inherently right). You mean to say, then, that strangling babies and mutilating their bodes is "inherently right". You mean to say, then, that raping women is "inherently right". You mean to say, then, that taking hostages is "inherently right". I most vehemently disagree.

Wrong.
Treaties are contracts, and are not really law at all, in any way.
What you actually mean by "customary law" is that our DNA has a set of built in ethics which criminals and dictators like Israel, constantly violate. That is what happens when one culture gets so arrogant that they consider themselves to be the "Chosen People" so then justified in mass murder in order to take whatever they claim is their "Promised Land".

And your lies about "strangling babies" is just ridiculous propaganda that makes you appear the total fool. Same with the lie of "rape". Moslems are so repressed that obviously anyone should know they are incapable of rape.

But clearly taking hostages is more than justified when the whole point is to get the Palestinians illegally held hostage by Israel, released. And Israel illegally has held tens of thousands of Palestinians hostage for decades, and you say nothing at all. Which again shows how totally biased and corrupt your claims are.

 

[Rigby5]

Neither San Remo nor Sevres created a State. It doesn't work that way. San Remo is the precursor to the Mandate for Palestine 1922.

Correct. Israel became a State at its Declaration of Independence in 1948, having fulfilled the requirements of population, government, territory, recognition. It remains the only one to do so.

Wrong.
Treaties like San Remo and Sevres is exactly how states become recognized.
The British Mandate for Palestine was the OBLIGATION for the British to defend the sovereign state of Palestine until they could defend themselves.

But Israel has no legal basis at all, in any way.
The Israelis are illegal immigrant invaders who murdered the British peacekeeper and the UN moderator, Folke Bernadotte.
The Israelis are not native, and owned almost no land at all.
Truman forced the creation of Israel, but it has no legal basis, justification, or foundation at all.
All it has was the latest US weapons that we illegally gave them in violation of the treaties.
It was a draconian decree.

 

[Rigby5]

You are using nonsense words. Contract law is law. What? Are you going to call your orderyer when you are sued for breach of contract?

Wrong.
Contract law is an agreement that could be totally contrary of the ethics of actual inherent law.
People who are good at writing deceptive contracts violate basic legal principles based on DNA ethics, all the time.

 

[Shusha]

Treaties like San Remo and Sevres is exactly how states become recognized.
The British Mandate for Palestine was the OBLIGATION for the British to defend the sovereign state of Palestine until they could defend themselves.

The British were OBLIGATED to fulfill the conditions and terms of the treaties they signed. Yes?

 

[Rigby5]

You are lying. You support mass murder.

That is a lie.
You clearly also support mass murder, like in the bombings of Japan and Germany by the US.
You are obviously lying because offensive mass murder and defensive mass murder are entirely and completely different and you know it.
And you know that it was Zionists who are guilty of starting ALL the murders, and committed almost all of the murders.
You know that is true because the Palestinians would not have invited the Zionists if the Palestinians even slightly disliked or wanted to harm them.
It is entirely the Zionists who lied and pretended to be friendly, until they had smuggle in enough soldiers and weapons to begin the attack.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Wrong.
The Palestinians helped Lawrence of Arabia in WWI, against the Ottoman Empire.
And in return the British promised Palestine independence.
An independent Palestine was then written into the Treaty of San Remo and the Treaty of Sevres, in 1920.
So Palestine has been an independent country since 1920, and no longer part of the Ottoman Empire.

But there was no Israel or Israelis in 1922 when the British conducted a census.
The Zionists did not illegal get smuggled into Palestine until the 1940s and 1950s.
There is nothing remotely legal about Israel.
Truman claimed to have created Israel in 1948 by a UN decree, but the UN has no such authority.
Israel is mostly Polish and Russian, criminal, invaders.

The Palestinians helped Lawrence of Arabia in WWI, against the Ottoman Empire. And in return the British promised Palestine independence.

And instead of accepting the portion they were offered, whined and cried.

An independent Palestine was then written into the Treaty of San Remo and the Treaty of Sevres, in 1920.

As a homeland for the Jews.

So Palestine has been an independent country since 1920, and no longer part of the Ottoman Empire.

LOL!

But there was no Israel or Israelis in 1922 when the British conducted a census.

And now there is an Israel and Israelis.

And still no Palestine.

 

[Rigby5]

The British were OBLIGATED to fulfill the conditions and terms of the treaties they signed. Yes?

Read the treaties the British signed.
It was to aid the sovereign Palestinians in their defense until they could provide for their own defense.
Palestine legally existed as a sovereign nation in 1920.
It just had no government or army yet.
And that failure was the fault of the British, who abandoned Palestine after Menachim Begin blew up the British peacekeepers in the King David Hotel.
England did not have that luxury.
They were required to defeat the evil Zionist invaders.

 

[Rigby5]

The Palestinians helped Lawrence of Arabia in WWI, against the Ottoman Empire. And in return the British promised Palestine independence.

And instead of accepting the portion they were offered, whined and cried.

An independent Palestine was then written into the Treaty of San Remo and the Treaty of Sevres, in 1920.

As a homeland for the Jews.

So Palestine has been an independent country since 1920, and no longer part of the Ottoman Empire.

LOL!

But there was no Israel or Israelis in 1922 when the British conducted a census.

And now there is an Israel and Israelis.

And still no Palestine.

That is a lie.
The Treaty of San Remo and Sevres granted the entire country of Palestine to the native Palestinians.
There were only 30k Jews in Palestine then, and there was no Israel or any partition of Palestine.

A "homeland" is NOT a sovereign country and never is.
A "homeland" essentially means facilitated immigration, and that is about all.
And while the British made the Balfour Declaration claiming they would "support" a Jewish homeland inside of Palestine, the British has no authority to make any promises.

The "country" was always Palestine, and there never was or could be an Israel.
There are no Israeli natives and almost no land owned by Israelis.
So it is a fake and illegal country stolen by murdering hundreds of thousands of Palestinian natives and stealing their properties.

 

[Rigby5]

The British were OBLIGATED to fulfill the conditions and terms of the treaties they signed. Yes?

And by the way, there were no treaties between the British and the Zionists, nor would the British have any authority over Palestine.
And the fact the Zionists were in violation of the treaties and basic law is easily proven by the fact that the Zionist blew up the King David Hotel and murdered all the British peacekeepers.
If the Zionists had any law on their side, they would not have done that or needed to do that.

 

[Shusha]

Read the treaties the British signed.

I am clearly more familiar with the treaties than you are.

It was to aid the sovereign Palestinians in their defense until they could provide for their own defense.

Which Article of San Remo would support this assertion, specifically? As opposed to the Preamble, Articles 2, 4, 6, 7, and 11 which are explicit in the recognition of Jewish rights and reconstitution of their NATIONal home.

Palestine legally existed as a sovereign nation in 1920.
It just had no government or army yet.

States do not come into being without government. That is one of the requirements. Montevideo.

They were required to defeat the evil Zionist invaders.

Not according to San Remo. Or the Mandate for Palestine.

 

[Rigby5]

Neither San Remo nor Sevres created a State. It doesn't work that way. San Remo is the precursor to the Mandate for Palestine 1922.

Correct. Israel became a State at its Declaration of Independence in 1948, having fulfilled the requirements of population, government, territory, recognition. It remains the only one to do so.

Israel never satisfied the population requirement since it was almost entirely illegal immigrant invaders.

Israel never satisfied the government requirement since it was a theocracy dictatorship that had no elections and did not represent the population. And in fact, the Zionist were always less than a third of the population.

Israel never satisfied the territory requirement since they had only purchased less than 1% of Palestine.

The only thing Israel did satisfy was the recognition requirement, which shows how the UN was illegally abused by the US.
Instead of laws, constitution, and judiciary, the UN is instead a dictatorship that at the time was controlled by the US.
So nothing the UN did was actually remotely legal.

 

[Rigby5]

I am clearly more familiar with the treaties than you are.

Which Article of San Remo would support this assertion, specifically? As opposed to the Preamble, Articles 2, 4, 6, 7, and 11 which are explicit in the recognition of Jewish rights and reconstitution of their NATIONal home.

States do not come into being without government. That is one of the requirements. Montevideo.

Not according to San Remo. Or the Mandate for Palestine.

That is a lie.
A national homeland does not give rights to illegal immigrant invaders.
Jews were only supposed to have facilitated immigration, but a quota of 100,000 per year was set, and violated by the Zionist by a factor of over 100 in the first year.

Wrong.
States always come into being first, based on the native population, and governments always easily created later.
And the only reason why Palestine did not have a government sooner is that the British and Zionists illegally prevented them.

You can't have a government unless you first have a population.
And you can't have a population unless you first have a defined and sovereign country.
Sovereign does not mean it has a government, but just that it is not owned by anyone else.
The definition of a republic is that all populations should be inherently sovereign.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

That is a lie.
The Treaty of San Remo and Sevres granted the entire country of Palestine to the native Palestinians.
There were only 30k Jews in Palestine then, and there was no Israel or any partition of Palestine.

A "homeland" is NOT a sovereign country and never is.
A "homeland" essentially means facilitated immigration, and that is about all.
And while the British made the Balfour Declaration claiming they would "support" a Jewish homeland inside of Palestine, the British has no authority to make any promises.

The "country" was always Palestine, and there never was or could be an Israel.
There are no Israeli natives and almost no land owned by Israelis.
So it is a fake and illegal country stolen by murdering hundreds of thousands of Palestinian natives and stealing their properties.

The Treaty of San Remo and Sevres granted the entire country of Palestine to the native Palestinians.

The Arabs must have fucked that up, because by the 1940s, they had nothing.

 

[Shusha]

Israel never satisfied the population requirement since it was almost entirely illegal immigrant invaders.

Israel never satisfied the government requirement since it was a theocracy dictatorship that had no elections and did not represent the population. And in fact, the Zionist were always less than a third of the population.

Israel never satisfied the territory requirement since they had only purchased less than 1% of Palestine.

The only thing Israel did satisfy was the recognition requirement, which shows how the UN was illegally abused by the US.
Instead of laws, constitution, and judiciary, the UN is instead a dictatorship that at the time was controlled by the US.
So nothing the UN did was actually remotely legal.

You have no idea how any of this actually works, do you?

Individual property ownership has nothing to do with a State's sovereign territory. Sigh. That is not how this works.

Israel had a government (provisional, transitional, effective). There is no requirement for a specific type of government. Nor elections. Hello! Hamas! Hello! PA! Hello! Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan!

Israel had a defined population.

And Israel exists. It doesn't need anything else. It exists. It has existed since 1948. Which is a direct reference back to the OP.

 

[Rigby5]

I support the sovereignty (self-determination) of all indigenous peoples. Indigeneity has a clear and understandable meaning that can be applied reasonably to all peoples. The Jewish people are indigenous to the lands of Israel, Judea, and Samaria.

Wrong.
The Hebrew illegally invaded the Land of Canaan around 1000 BC and massacred the women and children, thus forfeiting any possible right to those lands.
The Hebrew likely were nomadic shepherds without any indigenous lands, ever.
Not one trace of any Hebrew culture has ever been discovered anywhere.
The Wailing Wall for example, is proven Canaanite construction from over 1000 years before the Hebrew invasion.

 

[Rigby5]

The Treaty of San Remo and Sevres granted the entire country of Palestine to the native Palestinians.

The Arabs must have fucked that up, because by the 1940s, they had nothing.

Wrong.
The Arab Palestine was doing fine in the 1940s.
It was not until 1946 that the Zionists blew up the British peacekeepers and then started massacring and stealing whole native Arab villages.

 

[Shusha]

Not one trace of any Hebrew culture has ever been discovered anywhere.

I can not possibly eyeroll harder.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Wrong.
The Arab Palestine was doing fine in the 1940s.
It was not until 1946 that the Zionists blew up the British peacekeepers and then started massacring and stealing whole native Arab villages.

But the Arabs had their own nation, weird.