Can Palestinian's and Israeli's ever be friends?

[Phoenall]

Because they are not aware of the real facts and only get too hear the islamonazi version of accounts, that and the fact that many nations are run by left wing government that know they can never stamp out Judaism without stamping out the Jews first

Oh, shut up!

This issue has nothing to do with Judaism.

You try to make it about Jews, because you can't defend Israeli atrocities. And soon, Israel won't be able to defend Israeli atrocities. It's no secret Israel is helping ISIS rebels in Syria against the Assad government. Well, as they say in boxing, Israel is about to move up in weight class. It has been reported, Russian troops are now fighting in Syria. And if there's an escalation, don't get all butt hurt Israel gets its head handed to them.

It is all about Judaism as you make it all about the Jews, you see without Judaism there at=re no Jews and no Zionists. No left wing Jews, right wing Jews, centrist Jews and extremist Jews. It might not be a secret in your conspiracy theory/ neo Nazi group but it is to the rest of the world. You might even get a surprise when hamas gets its head handed on a plate by IS, then finds that Israel is not the pushover the US is these days. Now back to topic the left wing neo Marxist scum are running scared of organised religion, just as they did in Russia and Germany, as they know they cant stamp it out completely. Just look at Russia with over 100 years of communism, and the rise of Catholicism as soon as the communists were removed from office. Well it is the same with Judaism in the west and the muslims and their friends know that they need more support from the rest of the world before they can move on the Jews and wipe them out. They know that this is the only way they can control the world and need idiots to spread the LIES and BLOOD LIBELS, and boy have they found an idiot in you to do their dirty work for them

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I assume you are talking about the 1948 Declaration of Independence of the Jewish State --- in which on or about midnight on 14 May 1948, the Provisional Government of Israel proclaimed a new State of Israel. On 15 May 1948, the first day of Israeli Independence (exactly one year after UNSCOP was established) Arab armies invaded Israel and the first Arab-Israeli war began.

Our friend "P_F Tinmore" is correct by implying that under International Law the act of Cession is usually marked by Treaty (customarily).

What other means are there besides treaty. Acquisition of territory cannot be just say so or some back door approach.

I believe that conquest would be more applicable. Of course conquest was illegal when Israel drove out the Palestinians and set up shop.

(COMMENT)

Like nearly every tenant of the UN Charter, most most actions are suppose to be undertaken in a way which will not threaten international peace and security; it seldom works out that way. Just as each State has the duty not to use of force in solving international disputes, including territorial disputes; this does not always happen.

Your assumption is partially correct. The assuming territorial sovereignty over the land --- a state just cannot say: "it's mine."--- A nation or people must be able to defend their claim. When Israel assumed control of their territory, it did not violate the existing nation-states' borders. And in a the post–World War II environment, one of the considerations in the new political era was the concept to inviolability of existing states borders; regardless of how and when they were determined. In the case of the Jewish State of Israel, the territory it assumed in 1948 were a remnant of the territorial concessions made by the Ottoman Empire and Turkish government following the first World War. The territory was ceded to the Allied Powers (NOT the indigenous Arab population).

With the rise of the concept of self-determination, the Arab Palestinians (and indeed much of the international community) are confused. The international community has failed to define exactly who is entitled to claim of self-determination — Like you say, it is not just the "say so or some back door approach" a group, a people, or a nation— confers upon itself or the territory in question.

“It is only through the realization of this very basic right of people to determine, with no compulsion or coercion, their own future, political status and independence that we can begin to address others such as dignity, justice, progress and equity,”
said the representative of Maldives.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Those looking for "the" definition of self-determination will be disappointed, for many of the texts are deliberately ambiguous or even contradictory. Nonetheless, we must ultimately try to articulate the international norm of self-determination in terms that are sufficiently precise so that it continues to be relevant in the post-colonial era.
The Princeton Encyclopedia of Self-Determination
​

I am struck by the fact that in "Wikipedia" the contributor phased it like this under Cession: "Since the emergence of self-determination as a recognised principle of international law, a state may need to consult the inhabitants of a territory (if any) before they may cede sovereignty over it."

Conquest implies a nation initiated the subjugation and assumption of control of a territory and its people by use of military force. Israel does not want to bring either the West Bank or Gaza Strip under subjugation, control or governance under the extension of sovereignty; either peacefully or by military measures. It is a security measure for the survival if their nation.

But, if you don't believe that acquisition by conquest is not a valid political play, just ask the People of the Crimea; or when Indonesia invaded and annexed the former Portuguese colony of East Timor (1975). The idea that the international law is interpreted to mean that member nations are obligated not to recognize territorial acquisitions achieved by aggressive war has never been tested in court; nor is it likely to be tested.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I assume you are talking about the 1948 Declaration of Independence of the Jewish State --- in which on or about midnight on 14 May 1948, the Provisional Government of Israel proclaimed a new State of Israel. On 15 May 1948, the first day of Israeli Independence (exactly one year after UNSCOP was established) Arab armies invaded Israel and the first Arab-Israeli war began.

Our friend "P_F Tinmore" is correct by implying that under International Law the act of Cession is usually marked by Treaty (customarily).

What other means are there besides treaty. Acquisition of territory cannot be just say so or some back door approach.

I believe that conquest would be more applicable. Of course conquest was illegal when Israel drove out the Palestinians and set up shop.

(COMMENT)

Like nearly every tenant of the UN Charter, most most actions are suppose to be undertaken in a way which will not threaten international peace and security; it seldom works out that way. Just as each State has the duty not to use of force in solving international disputes, including territorial disputes; this does not always happen.

Your assumption is partially correct. The assuming territorial sovereignty over the land --- a state just cannot say: "it's mine."--- A nation or people must be able to defend their claim. When Israel assumed control of their territory, it did not violate the existing nation-states' borders. And in a the post–World War II environment, one of the considerations in the new political era was the concept to inviolability of existing states borders; regardless of how and when they were determined. In the case of the Jewish State of Israel, the territory it assumed in 1948 were a remnant of the territorial concessions made by the Ottoman Empire and Turkish government following the first World War. The territory was ceded to the Allied Powers (NOT the indigenous Arab population).

With the rise of the concept of self-determination, the Arab Palestinians (and indeed much of the international community) are confused. The international community has failed to define exactly who is entitled to claim of self-determination — Like you say, it is not just the "say so or some back door approach" a group, a people, or a nation— confers upon itself or the territory in question.

“It is only through the realization of this very basic right of people to determine, with no compulsion or coercion, their own future, political status and independence that we can begin to address others such as dignity, justice, progress and equity,”
said the representative of Maldives.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Those looking for "the" definition of self-determination will be disappointed, for many of the texts are deliberately ambiguous or even contradictory. Nonetheless, we must ultimately try to articulate the international norm of self-determination in terms that are sufficiently precise so that it continues to be relevant in the post-colonial era.
The Princeton Encyclopedia of Self-Determination
​

I am struck by the fact that in "Wikipedia" the contributor phased it like this under Cession: "Since the emergence of self-determination as a recognised principle of international law, a state may need to consult the inhabitants of a territory (if any) before they may cede sovereignty over it."

Conquest implies a nation initiated the subjugation and assumption of control of a territory and its people by use of military force. Israel does not want to bring either the West Bank or Gaza Strip under subjugation, control or governance under the extension of sovereignty; either peacefully or by military measures. It is a security measure for the survival if their nation.

But, if you don't believe that acquisition by conquest is not a valid political play, just ask the People of the Crimea; or when Indonesia invaded and annexed the former Portuguese colony of East Timor (1975). The idea that the international law is interpreted to mean that member nations are obligated not to recognize territorial acquisitions achieved by aggressive war has never been tested in court; nor is it likely to be tested.

Most Respectfully,
R

With the rise of the concept of self-determination, the Arab Palestinians (and indeed much of the international community) are confused. The international community has failed to define exactly who is entitled to claim of self-determination — Like you say, it is not just the "say so or some back door approach" a group, a people, or a nation— confers upon itself or the territory in question.​

Indeed, you do seem to be confused. I think it is perfectly clear. Why do you have a problem with such a straightforward principle?

 

[Billo_Really]

It is all about Judaism as you make it all about the Jews, you see without Judaism there at=re no Jews and no Zionists. No left wing Jews, right wing Jews, centrist Jews and extremist Jews. It might not be a secret in your conspiracy theory/ neo Nazi group but it is to the rest of the world. You might even get a surprise when hamas gets its head handed on a plate by IS, then finds that Israel is not the pushover the US is these days. Now back to topic the left wing neo Marxist scum are running scared of organised religion, just as they did in Russia and Germany, as they know they cant stamp it out completely. Just look at Russia with over 100 years of communism, and the rise of Catholicism as soon as the communists were removed from office. Well it is the same with Judaism in the west and the muslims and their friends know that they need more support from the rest of the world before they can move on the Jews and wipe them out. They know that this is the only way they can control the world and need idiots to spread the LIES and BLOOD LIBELS, and boy have they found an idiot in you to do their dirty work for them

Judaism has nothing to do with Zionism.

Zionists use it, like a whore uses a tampon.

 

[Billo_Really]

With the rise of the concept of self-determination, the Arab Palestinians (and indeed much of the international community) are confused. The international community has failed to define exactly who is entitled to claim of self-determination — Like you say, it is not just the "say so or some back door approach" a group, a people, or a nation— confers upon itself or the territory in question.​

Indeed, you do seem to be confused. I think it is perfectly clear. Why do you have a problem with such a straightforward principle?

That's by design.

Or maybe he's being paid to think that way?

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I assume you are talking about the 1948 Declaration of Independence of the Jewish State --- in which on or about midnight on 14 May 1948, the Provisional Government of Israel proclaimed a new State of Israel. On 15 May 1948, the first day of Israeli Independence (exactly one year after UNSCOP was established) Arab armies invaded Israel and the first Arab-Israeli war began.

Our friend "P_F Tinmore" is correct by implying that under International Law the act of Cession is usually marked by Treaty (customarily).

What other means are there besides treaty. Acquisition of territory cannot be just say so or some back door approach.

I believe that conquest would be more applicable. Of course conquest was illegal when Israel drove out the Palestinians and set up shop.

(COMMENT)

Like nearly every tenant of the UN Charter, most most actions are suppose to be undertaken in a way which will not threaten international peace and security; it seldom works out that way. Just as each State has the duty not to use of force in solving international disputes, including territorial disputes; this does not always happen.

Your assumption is partially correct. The assuming territorial sovereignty over the land --- a state just cannot say: "it's mine."--- A nation or people must be able to defend their claim. When Israel assumed control of their territory, it did not violate the existing nation-states' borders. And in a the post–World War II environment, one of the considerations in the new political era was the concept to inviolability of existing states borders; regardless of how and when they were determined. In the case of the Jewish State of Israel, the territory it assumed in 1948 were a remnant of the territorial concessions made by the Ottoman Empire and Turkish government following the first World War. The territory was ceded to the Allied Powers (NOT the indigenous Arab population).

With the rise of the concept of self-determination, the Arab Palestinians (and indeed much of the international community) are confused. The international community has failed to define exactly who is entitled to claim of self-determination — Like you say, it is not just the "say so or some back door approach" a group, a people, or a nation— confers upon itself or the territory in question.

“It is only through the realization of this very basic right of people to determine, with no compulsion or coercion, their own future, political status and independence that we can begin to address others such as dignity, justice, progress and equity,”
said the representative of Maldives.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Those looking for "the" definition of self-determination will be disappointed, for many of the texts are deliberately ambiguous or even contradictory. Nonetheless, we must ultimately try to articulate the international norm of self-determination in terms that are sufficiently precise so that it continues to be relevant in the post-colonial era.
The Princeton Encyclopedia of Self-Determination
​

I am struck by the fact that in "Wikipedia" the contributor phased it like this under Cession: "Since the emergence of self-determination as a recognised principle of international law, a state may need to consult the inhabitants of a territory (if any) before they may cede sovereignty over it."

Conquest implies a nation initiated the subjugation and assumption of control of a territory and its people by use of military force. Israel does not want to bring either the West Bank or Gaza Strip under subjugation, control or governance under the extension of sovereignty; either peacefully or by military measures. It is a security measure for the survival if their nation.

But, if you don't believe that acquisition by conquest is not a valid political play, just ask the People of the Crimea; or when Indonesia invaded and annexed the former Portuguese colony of East Timor (1975). The idea that the international law is interpreted to mean that member nations are obligated not to recognize territorial acquisitions achieved by aggressive war has never been tested in court; nor is it likely to be tested.

Most Respectfully,
R

With the rise of the concept of self-determination, the Arab Palestinians (and indeed much of the international community) are confused. The international community has failed to define exactly who is entitled to claim of self-determination — Like you say, it is not just the "say so or some back door approach" a group, a people, or a nation— confers upon itself or the territory in question.​

Indeed, you do seem to be confused. I think it is perfectly clear. Why do you have a problem with such a straightforward principle?

Because it is not straightforward is it, when you have 2 or more groups separated by religion occupying the same land and only one has a valid legal claim to that land. So which one has the better claim the one using forced and violence to remove the valid claimants or the one with the might of International law behind them ?

 

[Phoenall]

It is all about Judaism as you make it all about the Jews, you see without Judaism there at=re no Jews and no Zionists. No left wing Jews, right wing Jews, centrist Jews and extremist Jews. It might not be a secret in your conspiracy theory/ neo Nazi group but it is to the rest of the world. You might even get a surprise when hamas gets its head handed on a plate by IS, then finds that Israel is not the pushover the US is these days. Now back to topic the left wing neo Marxist scum are running scared of organised religion, just as they did in Russia and Germany, as they know they cant stamp it out completely. Just look at Russia with over 100 years of communism, and the rise of Catholicism as soon as the communists were removed from office. Well it is the same with Judaism in the west and the muslims and their friends know that they need more support from the rest of the world before they can move on the Jews and wipe them out. They know that this is the only way they can control the world and need idiots to spread the LIES and BLOOD LIBELS, and boy have they found an idiot in you to do their dirty work for them

Judaism has nothing to do with Zionism.

Zionists use it, like a whore uses a tampon.

Wrong again dildo as Zionism is a fundamental part of Judaism, it is embodied in many of the religions actions. Why do followers of Judaism say " next year in Jerusalem" if they are not Zionists ?
As much as you want to alter the truth you fail repeatedly to understand that Zionism as a concept has been part of Judaism since the time of Christ

 

[Phoenall]

With the rise of the concept of self-determination, the Arab Palestinians (and indeed much of the international community) are confused. The international community has failed to define exactly who is entitled to claim of self-determination — Like you say, it is not just the "say so or some back door approach" a group, a people, or a nation— confers upon itself or the territory in question.​

Indeed, you do seem to be confused. I think it is perfectly clear. Why do you have a problem with such a straightforward principle?

That's by design.

Or maybe he's being paid to think that way?

Or maybe team Palestine cant get their heads round what free determination really means and why the arab muslims fail to exercise it in the manner team Palestine believe is the only right way. Who has a bigger claim to declare free determination in the U.S., YOU THE ARMED INVADER or the FIRST NATIONS PEOPLE ?

 

[Humanity]

The land is Jewish or don't you think that International law applies in Israel's favour.

Let me ask you this Phoney...

Why is it that every country, excluding Israel, naturally, believes that the territory is illegally occupied by Israel?

Because they are not aware of the real facts and only get too hear the islamonazi version of accounts, that and the fact that many nations are run by left wing government that know they can never stamp out Judaism without stamping out the Jews first

So, Phoney is right and the rest of the world is wrong?

You need to seek some psychiatric help immediately!

What a schmuck!

 

[Humanity]

Zionism is a fundamental part of Judaism

No it isnt!

Why you cannot understand this is beyond everyone on this forum!

 

[RoccoR]

Billo_Really, P F Tinmore, et al,

I would be very pleased if you could point to an authority that can define "self-determination" such that it can answer the questions:

• Who has the right to self-determination?
• What does self-determination impart on the people?

I have used the ICJ CR 2009/32 on the Accordance with International Law of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence by the Provisional Institutions of Self-Government of Kosovo, as a guide of sorts in the post-colonization context. I do not believe that the "right of self-determination" is such a "straightforward principle" as you claim. It must be remembered that in terms of external self-determination the outcome is independence or secession for the given people that exercise that right.

With the rise of the concept of self-determination, the Arab Palestinians (and indeed much of the international community) are confused. The international community has failed to define exactly who is entitled to claim of self-determination — Like you say, it is not just the "say so or some back door approach" a group, a people, or a nation— confers upon itself or the territory in question.​

Indeed, you do seem to be confused. I think it is perfectly clear. Why do you have a problem with such a straightforward principle?

That's by design.

Or maybe he's being paid to think that way?

(COMMENT)

• If you say all people(s), you are then implying that the Jewish People that immigrated to and became citizens of Palestine; under the Mandate criteria?

• If you are implying that the Jewish People did not have the right to self-determination, then where are the limitations defined?

"In the 2010 Kosovo decision, the International Court of Justice decided that "general international law contains no applicable prohibition of declarations of independence." (Wikipedia)(ICJ ADVISORY OPINION OF 22 JULY 2010) And so the question becomes:

• Is it unlawful for the Arab Palestinian factions to challenge the Jewish State of Israel territorial integrity?
• Was it illegal for the Jewish National Council to Declare Independence for the State of Israel in 1948 under the right of self-determination and pursuant to the Steps Preparatory to Independence; as outlined in the General Assembly Resolution?

The Court recalls that the principle of territorial integrity is an important part of the international legal order and is enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, in particular in Article 2, paragraph 4, (as well as General Assembly resolution 2625 (XXV), entitled “Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States) which provides that: “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.”​

• Under what context does the Arab Palestinian claim a superior right to self-determination?

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Phoenall]

The land is Jewish or don't you think that International law applies in Israel's favour.

Let me ask you this Phoney...

Why is it that every country, excluding Israel, naturally, believes that the territory is illegally occupied by Israel?

Because they are not aware of the real facts and only get too hear the islamonazi version of accounts, that and the fact that many nations are run by left wing government that know they can never stamp out Judaism without stamping out the Jews first

So, Phoney is right and the rest of the world is wrong?

You need to seek some psychiatric help immediately!

What a schmuck!

I must be as you fail to provide any conclusive evidence to counter my posts. What was it Lenin called religion again ?

 

[Phoenall]

Zionism is a fundamental part of Judaism

No it isnt!

Why you cannot understand this is beyond everyone on this forum!

Instead of just deny it how about you bring proof so that we can all have a good laugh ?

Since the Roman invasion of Israel the Jews have had the concept of Zionism as part of Judaism.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Billo_Really, P F Tinmore, et al,

I would be very pleased if you could point to an authority that can define "self-determination" such that it can answer the questions:

• Who has the right to self-determination?
• What does self-determination impart on the people?

I have used the ICJ CR 2009/32 on the Accordance with International Law of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence by the Provisional Institutions of Self-Government of Kosovo, as a guide of sorts in the post-colonization context. I do not believe that the "right of self-determination" is such a "straightforward principle" as you claim. It must be remembered that in terms of external self-determination the outcome is independence or secession for the given people that exercise that right.

With the rise of the concept of self-determination, the Arab Palestinians (and indeed much of the international community) are confused. The international community has failed to define exactly who is entitled to claim of self-determination — Like you say, it is not just the "say so or some back door approach" a group, a people, or a nation— confers upon itself or the territory in question.​

Indeed, you do seem to be confused. I think it is perfectly clear. Why do you have a problem with such a straightforward principle?

That's by design.

Or maybe he's being paid to think that way?

(COMMENT)

• If you say all people(s), you are then implying that the Jewish People that immigrated to and became citizens of Palestine; under the Mandate criteria?

• If you are implying that the Jewish People did not have the right to self-determination, then where are the limitations defined?

"In the 2010 Kosovo decision, the International Court of Justice decided that "general international law contains no applicable prohibition of declarations of independence." (Wikipedia)(ICJ ADVISORY OPINION OF 22 JULY 2010) And so the question becomes:

• Is it unlawful for the Arab Palestinian factions to challenge the Jewish State of Israel territorial integrity?
• Was it illegal for the Jewish National Council to Declare Independence for the State of Israel in 1948 under the right of self-determination and pursuant to the Steps Preparatory to Independence; as outlined in the General Assembly Resolution?

The Court recalls that the principle of territorial integrity is an important part of the international legal order and is enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, in particular in Article 2, paragraph 4, (as well as General Assembly resolution 2625 (XXV), entitled “Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States) which provides that: “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.”​

• Under what context does the Arab Palestinian claim a superior right to self-determination?

Most Respectfully,
R

In every incident that I have ever seen the right to self determination applies to the people, the natives, the indigenous, or inhabitants of a specified territory. The right to self determination consistently applies to the people of the place.

At no time have I seen the right to self determination applied to foreigners.

 

[Humanity]

Zionism is a fundamental part of Judaism

No it isnt!

Why you cannot understand this is beyond everyone on this forum!

Instead of just deny it how about you bring proof so that we can all have a good laugh ?

Since the Roman invasion of Israel the Jews have had the concept of Zionism as part of Judaism.

Zionism (Hebrew: צִיּוֹנוּת, IPA: [t͡sijo̞ˈnut], translit. Tziyonut, after Zion) is a nationalist and political movement of Jews and Jewish culture that supports the re-establishment of a Jewish homeland in the territory defined as the historic Land of Israel (also referred to as Palestine, Canaan or the Holy Land).

Judaism is an ancient monotheistic religion, with the Torah as its foundational text (part of the larger text known as the Tanakh or Hebrew Bible), and supplemental oral tradition represented by later texts such as the Midrash and the Talmud.

Not all those who follow Judaism are zionists.... Not all zionists are Jews....

 

[Phoenall]

Billo_Really, P F Tinmore, et al,

I would be very pleased if you could point to an authority that can define "self-determination" such that it can answer the questions:

• Who has the right to self-determination?
• What does self-determination impart on the people?

I have used the ICJ CR 2009/32 on the Accordance with International Law of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence by the Provisional Institutions of Self-Government of Kosovo, as a guide of sorts in the post-colonization context. I do not believe that the "right of self-determination" is such a "straightforward principle" as you claim. It must be remembered that in terms of external self-determination the outcome is independence or secession for the given people that exercise that right.

With the rise of the concept of self-determination, the Arab Palestinians (and indeed much of the international community) are confused. The international community has failed to define exactly who is entitled to claim of self-determination — Like you say, it is not just the "say so or some back door approach" a group, a people, or a nation— confers upon itself or the territory in question.​

Indeed, you do seem to be confused. I think it is perfectly clear. Why do you have a problem with such a straightforward principle?

That's by design.

Or maybe he's being paid to think that way?

(COMMENT)

• If you say all people(s), you are then implying that the Jewish People that immigrated to and became citizens of Palestine; under the Mandate criteria?

• If you are implying that the Jewish People did not have the right to self-determination, then where are the limitations defined?

"In the 2010 Kosovo decision, the International Court of Justice decided that "general international law contains no applicable prohibition of declarations of independence." (Wikipedia)(ICJ ADVISORY OPINION OF 22 JULY 2010) And so the question becomes:

• Is it unlawful for the Arab Palestinian factions to challenge the Jewish State of Israel territorial integrity?
• Was it illegal for the Jewish National Council to Declare Independence for the State of Israel in 1948 under the right of self-determination and pursuant to the Steps Preparatory to Independence; as outlined in the General Assembly Resolution?

The Court recalls that the principle of territorial integrity is an important part of the international legal order and is enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, in particular in Article 2, paragraph 4, (as well as General Assembly resolution 2625 (XXV), entitled “Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States) which provides that: “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.”​

• Under what context does the Arab Palestinian claim a superior right to self-determination?

Most Respectfully,
R

In every incident that I have ever seen the right to self determination applies to the people, the natives, the indigenous, or inhabitants of a specified territory. The right to self determination consistently applies to the people of the place.

At no time have I seen the right to self determination applied to foreigners.

So that means that none of the Palestinians can declare free determination as they are all descended from foreigners. And if you read the mandate for Palestine you will see that the Jews were automatically declared Palestinian citizens. So they had the right under INTERNATIONAL LAW. Why is every time International law supports the Jews and Israel you lot go into meltdown and demand changes.

Get over it Israel is here to stay and the name can never be changed without changing the UN charter

 

[Phoenall]

Zionism is a fundamental part of Judaism

No it isnt!

Why you cannot understand this is beyond everyone on this forum!

Instead of just deny it how about you bring proof so that we can all have a good laugh ?

Since the Roman invasion of Israel the Jews have had the concept of Zionism as part of Judaism.

Zionism (Hebrew: צִיּוֹנוּת, IPA: [t͡sijo̞ˈnut], translit. Tziyonut, after Zion) is a nationalist and political movement of Jews and Jewish culture that supports the re-establishment of a Jewish homeland in the territory defined as the historic Land of Israel (also referred to as Palestine, Canaan or the Holy Land).

Judaism is an ancient monotheistic religion, with the Torah as its foundational text (part of the larger text known as the Tanakh or Hebrew Bible), and supplemental oral tradition represented by later texts such as the Midrash and the Talmud.

Not all those who follow Judaism are zionists.... Not all zionists are Jews....

And how does your cut and paste show that Zionism is not now a fundamental part of judaism

 

[Humanity]

Zionism is a fundamental part of Judaism

No it isnt!

Why you cannot understand this is beyond everyone on this forum!

Instead of just deny it how about you bring proof so that we can all have a good laugh ?

Since the Roman invasion of Israel the Jews have had the concept of Zionism as part of Judaism.

Zionism (Hebrew: צִיּוֹנוּת, IPA: [t͡sijo̞ˈnut], translit. Tziyonut, after Zion) is a nationalist and political movement of Jews and Jewish culture that supports the re-establishment of a Jewish homeland in the territory defined as the historic Land of Israel (also referred to as Palestine, Canaan or the Holy Land).

Judaism is an ancient monotheistic religion, with the Torah as its foundational text (part of the larger text known as the Tanakh or Hebrew Bible), and supplemental oral tradition represented by later texts such as the Midrash and the Talmud.

Not all those who follow Judaism are zionists.... Not all zionists are Jews....

And how does your cut and paste show that Zionism is not now a fundamental part of judaism

Other than your BS words can YOU prove its a fundamental part of Judaism?

Not all those who follow Judaism are zionists.... Not all zionists are Jews....

 

[Phoenall]

Zionism is a fundamental part of Judaism

No it isnt!

Why you cannot understand this is beyond everyone on this forum!

Instead of just deny it how about you bring proof so that we can all have a good laugh ?

Since the Roman invasion of Israel the Jews have had the concept of Zionism as part of Judaism.

Zionism (Hebrew: צִיּוֹנוּת, IPA: [t͡sijo̞ˈnut], translit. Tziyonut, after Zion) is a nationalist and political movement of Jews and Jewish culture that supports the re-establishment of a Jewish homeland in the territory defined as the historic Land of Israel (also referred to as Palestine, Canaan or the Holy Land).

Judaism is an ancient monotheistic religion, with the Torah as its foundational text (part of the larger text known as the Tanakh or Hebrew Bible), and supplemental oral tradition represented by later texts such as the Midrash and the Talmud.

Not all those who follow Judaism are zionists.... Not all zionists are Jews....

And how does your cut and paste show that Zionism is not now a fundamental part of judaism

Other than your BS words can YOU prove its a fundamental part of Judaism?

Not all those who follow Judaism are zionists.... Not all zionists are Jews....

True but it still does not alter the facts that all followers of Judaism practice Zionism when the repeat the mantra " next year in Jerusalem".
You fail again because you don't do the research and just use islamonazi propaganda sources.

 

[Humanity]

No it isnt!

Why you cannot understand this is beyond everyone on this forum!

Instead of just deny it how about you bring proof so that we can all have a good laugh ?

Since the Roman invasion of Israel the Jews have had the concept of Zionism as part of Judaism.

Zionism (Hebrew: צִיּוֹנוּת, IPA: [t͡sijo̞ˈnut], translit. Tziyonut, after Zion) is a nationalist and political movement of Jews and Jewish culture that supports the re-establishment of a Jewish homeland in the territory defined as the historic Land of Israel (also referred to as Palestine, Canaan or the Holy Land).

Judaism is an ancient monotheistic religion, with the Torah as its foundational text (part of the larger text known as the Tanakh or Hebrew Bible), and supplemental oral tradition represented by later texts such as the Midrash and the Talmud.

Not all those who follow Judaism are zionists.... Not all zionists are Jews....

And how does your cut and paste show that Zionism is not now a fundamental part of judaism

Other than your BS words can YOU prove its a fundamental part of Judaism?

Not all those who follow Judaism are zionists.... Not all zionists are Jews....

True but it still does not alter the facts that all followers of Judaism practice Zionism when the repeat the mantra " next year in Jerusalem".
You fail again because you don't do the research and just use islamonazi propaganda sources.

What a schmuck you are Phoney....

You contradict yourself in a single sentence!

Not all those who follow Judaism are zionists.... Not all zionists are Jews.... TRUE...

You cannot then carry on with "all followers of Judaism practice Zionism".... NOT TRUE....

Another Phoney Phail.... Idiot!